Chamber and committees

In our performance approach with organisations, we put challenging demands on them in what we expect of them. The Government is not entitled to do that in relation to local government but, if you look at the reports from the Accounts Commission when it looks at individual local authorities, it has pretty bruising things to say to them on occasion and it may have bruising things to say to them in a comparative sense. There will be challenges to performance and we should be willing to consider those challenges to performance.

There are always different approaches that can be taken. We have to satisfy ourselves that organisations are operating with good will in a direction that will help us to achieve the national outcomes.

There is a mixed picture with regard to some requirements. For example, Parliament has put into law statutory targets that must be achieved in relation to child poverty, and the same thing exists for net zero. Parliament has legislated for certain elements, and it is just a matter of fact that they must be achieved. That means that we must have a degree of intensity that is commensurate with achieving those targets. However, that does not exist in all areas of policy—it cannot because, inevitably, we have to give some areas of activity more attention than others. The Government has made its choices—we are giving more attention to Covid recovery, child poverty and net zero.

The national performance framework helps us to have as clear a shape and concept as possible of what is going on, so that we can judge whether progress is being made. Daniel Johnson put to me—fairly—the issues about data. The national performance framework should enable us to compare the situation in the country today with the situation 12 months ago and to judge whether that is satisfactory. That is an important measure, because we need to be able to judge whether our society has advanced as much as we would have hoped that it would.

We have to consider that issue. Nobody wants the process to be vague—that is what we are trying to avoid. It has to be meaningful and discernible. The Government is making a genuine effort to construct a national performance framework that enables us to do that. However, the review that we will undertake, which will reflect the feedback of the committee and its inquiry, gives us an opportunity to judge whether there is more that we could do. You put to me an important point that we will consider.

The ownership of the NPF is clear: it is owned by the whole of society but is driven by the Government. That is the best way that I can express it.

The outcomes in the framework will not all be delivered by the Government. We need to successfully engage the business community, for example, on some of the questions as part of that. However, ultimately, the framework must be owned by the whole of society if we are to have any aspirations to deliver its contents. What then emerges is the degree of priority that the Government gives to the framework in its agenda and how we go about encouraging and motivating participation in the framework from a range of organisations.

As to the relevance of the national performance framework, it is more important today than ever. The principal areas of the policy agenda that the Government wishes to achieve are, in summary, an economic recovery from Covid, the eradication of child poverty, and addressing our commitments on net zero. Those three principal aspirations of Government policy will not be achieved in neat little compartments within Government. They will be spread across a range of the national outcomes that are part of the national performance framework. As a consequence, we must encourage a collaborative, non-compartmentalised approach to policy making to ensure that we achieve the Government’s policy objectives in a fashion that achieves the aspirations of the national performance framework.

I do not share your assessment of the national strategy for economic transformation, convener. I am happy to debate it and, if the committee reaches such a conclusion on some of the issues, ministers will reflect on that. The national strategy for economic transformation sets out an approach to economic development that is inextricably linked to the three themes that I mentioned in my last answer to you: Covid recovery, the eradication of child poverty and the achievement of net zero, all of which are embedded in the national performance framework.

If we are judging some of the questions by the degree to which we structure a strategy document, for example, to align with the contents of the national performance framework, you might have a point. However, the thinking in the national strategy is non-compartmentalised, collaborative and about engaging the various sectors of society in contributing towards the common goals, which are reflected at the heart of national performance by the purpose of the framework, which is to focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing and sustainable and inclusive economic growth.

There might be an argument for some of the description and presentation of that to be more explicit. We could certainly consider that.

Your point about titles and terminology is reasonable, convener. I will take that away and reflect on it. If I had to give my preference today between “ambitions for Scotland” and “the national wellbeing framework”, you would not be surprised to hear that I agree with you that “ambitions for Scotland” sounds a bit more uplifting. There is a fair point to be explored there.

On the question of decluttering, you make a fair point, convener. As time goes on, new policy initiatives are introduced and there are moments when we have to take stock and simplify some of those exercises. We will look to do that as part of the work on the national performance framework, so that it becomes ever more meaningful to people and organisations.

We do not need to build public awareness of the national performance framework; we need to build awareness of the effect of the national performance framework—that is what matters. What is important is the difference that it makes to people’s experiences of public services and the workings of various organisations. The question is what difference it makes in their lives, as opposed to whether they can answer 20 questions about the national performance framework. There is an opportunity for us to make that more meaningful and impactful. We will reflect on that as part of the process.

Every effort is made to ensure that best practice is shared across the community of governance in Scotland, if I can put it that way. The Improvement Service focuses extensively on that work. We undertake many activities through social investment partnerships, for example, which explore new ways in which we can support some of our more vulnerable population and support individuals into activity. We are sharing that best practice across a range of different organisations.

The challenge is to ensure that there is an appropriate platform to enable that to be undertaken. I would express some frustration that while good and innovative elements of practice can be taken forward in some parts of the country, it takes a long time for them to reach all parts of the country. That is unsatisfactory. However, the national performance framework gives us an opportunity to try to enable more organisations and individuals to see where that best practice lies and how they can learn from it.

Michelle Thomson raises an interesting point. She mentioned the requirement that the 2015 act placed on public bodies to “have regard to” the national outcomes. The phrase “must have regard to” could be replaced by “must be aligned with”, which would place a much higher level of obligation on public authorities.

Ms Thomson makes an interesting point about measures that could be introduced that might not align with the policy direction that we wish to take. The Scottish Government has made absolutely clear to the UK Government our frustration and dissatisfaction with the arrangements that have been put in place on, for example, the shared prosperity fund. In our view, it does not provide a satisfactory opportunity for us to ensure that that expenditure—which, before the new arrangements, would have been aligned with the direction of policy travel in Scotland—will be so aligned in the future. I think that that makes no sense and that it is a foolish route for the UK Government to take, and we have said that to the UK Government, but it is proceeding with its arrangements.

Michelle Thomson raises an issue that the Government could consider, in order to provide a greater opportunity to align that expenditure with the prevailing direction of policy travel. We are talking about achieving the national outcomes, on which we are going through a democratic consultative process. That may provide a better route to achieving some of those objectives. It is an interesting suggestion.

I do not think that the terminology of the 2015 act, as it stands, puts such an obligation on organisations, but it might be able to be made to do so in the future.