Chamber and committees

There are two elements to that question, the first of which relates to the choices that are made about the alignment of spending with the achievement of outcomes. I could go through endless examples of where that is difficult but, as a general theme, there is a substantive challenge to allocate public expenditure to measures that are designed to be preventative as opposed to being reactive to events.

There are many examples of that. We could take a sum of money and have a judgment about whether we deploy that on reactive services, such as the provision of some degree of healthcare that picks up the consequences of illness, or whether we spend that money on encouraging a much greater engagement in things such as healthy living, exercise and active travel which, although they are longer-term investments, will be much more significant and impactful in improving the general health of the population.

The challenge in that example is that, if there is an immediate need of emergency or critical intervention, it is difficult not to fund that at the same time as trying to encourage the preventative interventions. More and more of our funding decisions are being aligned to preventative interventions, but that does not take away the need for emergency and critical interventions as well. That debate or dilemma is an ever-present one with which we have to wrestle, but that probably best sums up the challenge in how we shift spending in a direction that is more supportive of the achievement of national outcomes than the current position is. That is probably the best way to express some of those challenges.

The second aspect of the question relates very much to the effectiveness of public expenditure, how we are able to measure that and what, as a whole, are the central indicators for making a good judgment about the health, wellbeing and vitality of our society. Certainly, over the 15 years for which I have been a minister, the debate has changed from being, in 2007, a discussion that was, frankly, very much focused on GDP growth to a much broader range of considerations. That reflects part of what the convener said in his questions to me.

Similarly, the national performance framework has to reflect that. It is broadly based. In no way could we say that the national outcomes are all about GDP. They are not. They involve a broader range of factors, and that has to be reflected.

The wording of the purpose has been revised. The wording in the 2007 version, if my memory serves me rightly—and I know that we corrected it—was

“to focus ... on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all ... to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.”

The wording has broadened in the intervening years. We need to continue to consider that point as we review the framework, and it is important that we take people with us, because there will be voices from within our society that say that it is too broad and needs to have a harder, sharper edge—for example, around GDP.

I come at these arguments from the point of view that economic opportunity is fundamental to the health and wellbeing of our society because, if people do not have economic opportunity, they cannot support those whom they love. Economic opportunity is therefore relevant right across the spectrum of Scottish society. However, I also recognise that just having a job will not necessarily meet the needs and requirements of everybody in society. The range of considerations has to be broader.

It is impossible to break things down in that fashion. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is exclusively responsible for open-heart surgery—nobody else is responsible for that—but its actions are also relevant and significant to the general health and wellbeing of individuals who might end up needing open-heart surgery in a number of years’ time, because of what the health board can do on healthy living, nutrition advice and support to communities through projects that alleviate poverty, which is such a driver of poor health in our society.

Some organisations have exclusive responsibility for certain things, but they always make a general contribution. It is essential that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde can undertake open-heart surgery, but it is equally important that it contributes to the wider health and wellbeing of our population.

That may well be a reasonable point to consider. The committee has heard that evidence, and such a suggestion may well come out of the exercise that the Government undertakes to review the framework.

There are 11 national outcomes, and there will always be scope for people to say, “Ah, but.” We must consider to what extent the “Ah, but” comments merit changing the framework. We should be open to challenge on that question.

We were all addicts of Public Health Scotland, believe you me. An important point comes out of that: it was absolutely the focus for a certain amount of time, because Covid was the overwhelming issue. That tells us that although we might sometimes think, “Oh my goodness—people don’t want to plough through all this data”, the experience of Covid was that people wanted to plough through the data, because they wanted to know where we were heading. That is the crucial question: where are we heading?

We have to learn a lesson from that as we look at the material on the outcomes from the NPF. I have certainly been part of discussions in which we have wrestled with the question of data presentation in the national performance framework and have taken the view that, “We can’t present all that complex data, because people will never plough their way through it.” However, the example that Mr Johnson puts to me completely refutes that, because the data mattered. We have to find a way of making sure that we identify the data that matters.

We have had various attempts at that—performance maintaining, performance worsening or performance improving—and there are vast data sets sitting underneath that. However, it is a fair point for us to explore whether there is a collection of data sets that really tell the story of whether we are progressing. Some of those data sets are to hand. I am mindful that colleagues would not look at GDP and say, “Well, that’s it,”—they know that it is one of a number of data sets. There are several data sets that I look at all the time that make me think, “Are things moving in the right direction at this particular time? What I am troubled about?”

We look at those data sets on a constant basis. However, perhaps we need to draw them out, label them officially and have them endorsed by Public Health Scotland—then everyone would look at them.

The question that it raises in my mind is whether the local outcome agreements genuinely contribute towards the expected outcomes of the NPF. In theory, I understand Fife Council’s point, but I have a question in my mind as to whether that is all as closely aligned as is being expressed.

It is not done formally. If I looked at an Accounts Commission report on a local authority, I would be surprised if I did not see some commentary on the degree to which the local authority’s planning and thinking were aligned to the national performance framework. The Accounts Commission is mindful, from a regulatory perspective, that that is a relevant issue for it to consider.

I do not think so. I go back to a point that Liz Smith previously made about the Scottish Leaders Forum, which is generally made up of public sector leaders in Scotland at an operational level, not a political level. As I look at the work that comes out of the forum, I see those individuals as being very much signed up to the agenda that I have talked about extensively this morning, while recognising that service changes have to be made and improvements have to be delivered to enable that to happen. I therefore do not really think that there is an absence of engagement and accountability on such questions.

Given the challenges that we face, we have to be satisfied that there is sufficient pace and intensity to such work. For example, I want us to move at pace to eradicate child poverty. We and all public authorities have to ask ourselves whether we are moving quite as fast as we could.

That is about the political leadership that we need to put in place to move the organisations. We might need to think of different policy solutions that will enable that to be the case and give particular areas of policy greater priority than others.

Good morning, convener. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee as part of its inquiry into the national performance framework. Although the national performance framework is highly regarded domestically and internationally, we must grapple with the complex question of how to translate the ambition that it sets out into concrete actions for improvement. There will not be one straightforward answer to that question, but by drawing on the experience of those who use the national outcomes to shape policy making and service delivery across local government, the public sector, business organisations and the voluntary sector, I am confident that effective solutions can be found.

Drawing on those experiences and voices exemplifies what the national performance framework is all about: encouraging partnership, collaboration and recognising the part that we all play in improving the wellbeing of people in Scotland. Meeting the challenges of Covid recovery, achieving net zero and reducing child poverty will require more and more of that collaboration, and we must therefore listen carefully in order to unlock more of the national performance framework’s potential.

I have been grateful for the responses that the committee has received to its call for evidence and from the oral evidence sessions that it has held as part of the inquiry. The breadth of responses from across Scottish society demonstrates the wide appeal of the national performance framework and its potential to bring together different sectors on the same outcomes. The responses underscore the strength of commitment to the national performance framework and the progress that we have made since 2018 in making the framework’s approach one for all of Scotland, not just for the Government.

We can and must learn from organisations that have effectively shaped their policies, programmes and systems around the national outcomes and that can demonstrate their impact on them. However, they also present important evidence in highlighting areas in which we can improve. Improvements can be made on issues such as accountability, budgeting for outcomes and integrating the national performance framework into the Government’s systems and processes. I will continue to listen to those important contributions and consider how we will respond.

The inquiry is timely, because the upcoming review of the national outcomes presents an opportunity to put ideas into action. The review, which will be undertaken in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, will consult widely with communities across Scotland on the national outcomes, and it will go further by considering how the national performance framework can achieve greater impact. Public engagement is due to start on 23 June, and the review is to be launched at the national performance framework conference. Communities, charities, businesses and other organisations in Scotland will be given various opportunities to influence what our national outcomes are and how we can create the environment in which they can be achieved. The findings of the committee’s inquiry will be considered as part of that review. As the committee has requested, we will provide the Parliament with ample time to consider the review’s findings and any proposed changes to the national performance framework that it leads to.

I am very happy to address any questions from the committee.

That is a central issue. For the national performance framework to be effective, it has to be a statement of what we as a country are trying to achieve and the outcomes that support those aspirations. Inevitably, funding and policy decisions at an operational level will have enormous significance for whether those aspirations are achieved.

I was interested in some observations shared with the committee by North Ayrshire Council, which is well known to you, convener. The council provided a submission to the inquiry that said:

“The National Outcomes influence the development of our Council Plan which outlines our priorities agreed with our communities and is North Ayrshire Council’s central plan. It forms part of the ‘Golden Thread’ linking national outcomes through to each employee’s daily activities.”

That captures the sense of importance that we want to attach to the national performance framework. In that example from North Ayrshire Council, the contribution from an individual employee is connected right through to the national outcomes as part of the national performance framework. Similarly, budgeting should be so aligned. We must constantly be mindful of that issue in all the planning and decision making that we undertake. We should not take decisions or make judgments that are not aligned with the aspirations that are set out in the framework. Accordingly, we should be able to link decision making at an operational level with the achievement of those outcomes.