Chamber and committees

The first thing that I will say, which I should have said in my answer to your first question, is that I accept that engagement on the issues will be patchy. That is not satisfactory, but it is an acknowledgement of reality. I will not sit here and deny that reality.

The point that you raise about whether there should be a reward or penalty mechanism is interesting. In a variety of different respects, we should consider whether there is a place for the performance of organisations in the use of public money to influence future decision making.

That is not a route that the Government has gone down. We have gone down more of a route of encouragement and engagement with organisations to get them to acknowledge the significance of the national performance framework and for that to be reflected in the Government’s priorities. However, as I said in my opening statement, the Government will examine with care the outcome of the inquiry and, if the committee comes to conclusions on some of the questions, we will give those issues consideration as we examine the role and content of the national performance framework as part of the review that we will undertake.

Yes, indeed.

We need to have enough people talking about the national performance framework but, if I were to come to the committee and say that I am going to launch a marketing campaign that will spend—[Interruption.] Liz Smith has reacted to that as I predicted. If I said that I was going to launch a marketing campaign of £X million to raise awareness of the national performance framework, I think that it would get the reaction from Liz Smith that it just got and she might not be the only person to give that reaction.

However, it is critical that, in their experience of society, members of the public have the benefit of collaborative policy making that is focused on the achievement of the outcomes. I venture that people want to live in a country in which we

“tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally”

and where our children

“grow up loved, safe and respected so that they realise their full potential”.

People in society want to have those experiences, but they do not necessarily need to be able to pass the national performance framework entrance exam through raised awareness. However, public organisations, private businesses and third sector organisations must work together to try to achieve those outcomes so that people experience them.

We have many such organisations already. Any day of the week, Audit Scotland could decide to consider those questions—it has in the past—so I do not think that a commissioner would add an awful lot of value.

There is also Parliament, which exists to challenge on such questions, as does the committee. I welcome the committee’s interest in and engagement on the matter, because it gets to the heart of some of the questions that occupy much of my time as Deputy First Minister, which are about how to encourage more collaborative approaches to policy making and service delivery.

Government is inevitably compartmentalised. We spend a lot of time trying to use the national performance framework as a tool to tell compartments that they must collaborate a great deal more with other compartments to achieve outcomes because we will not transform some of the challenges that affect the constituents whom John Mason represents, such as resolving the poverty that they experience, if we do not work more collaboratively.

The national performance framework’s ethos should be known about not just by those who deliver public services but by those who are engaged in trying to achieve any of the outcomes. Mr Greer put to me the example of a classroom teacher versus senior management; in my opinion, the answer is both.

The classroom teachers who I meet see the wider picture. In general, I do not think that they think that all that they need to attend to is the outcome that

“We are well educated, skilled and able to contribute to society”.

They will be mindful of the outcome that

“We grow up loved, safe and respected so that we realise our ... potential”

and of the outcomes that

“We tackle poverty by sharing opportunities”

better and that

“We ... protect and fulfil human rights and live free from discrimination”.

They will live out all that through the strength of curriculum for excellence.

Therefore, I am distinguishing between an awareness of the national performance framework, which needs to be almost a household understanding—because people should experience those outcomes—and the practitioners’ awareness, which needs to be at a higher level than that household awareness.

I agree entirely about the importance of locally empowered solutions, and a lot of fascinating work is going on. I am closely observing the work that is going on in Dundee in the pilots that relate to the complex relationships around child poverty, employability and engagement in society. Really interesting work is emerging on that, and it is emerging in Dundee—not in other places. That is great, because it may give us an approach to best practice that we can share with others, so that we can begin to move on. There is a really sound platform that enables us to take that forward. Inevitably, that probably gives rise to greater emphasis being placed on some areas of activity than others, which is understandable.

I am interested in the characterisation that Liz Smith gives—that there is a prescriptive approach from the Government. I do not think that the approach is prescriptive. As I look at the evidence, some voices are saying that the Government needs to be more prescriptive, because we need folk to be absolutely complying with the framework.

As you can probably sense from my evidence, I am not persuaded by the get-more-prescriptive approach. I am much more interested in making sure that people are empowered at local level to define the solutions that work for them, provided that they contribute towards the national outcomes.

First, I note that I am answering questions today because the First Minister is still unwell with Covid. For many obvious reasons, I wish her a very speedy recovery. [Applause.]

I do not think that Douglas Ross is in the strongest position to question my engagement with the Parliament on key issues, because I gave a statement earlier this week, I answered questions last week and I handled a bill the week before. Unlike some Tory MSPs, you will not find me skiving off to the football for a few days when the Parliament is sitting. [Interruption.]

This Government is providing practical help to people with the cost of living. For example, the Scottish Government has doubled the Scottish child payment to £20 per week. It will go up to £25 per week. None of that support is available in any other part of the United Kingdom, including in Labour-run Wales.

The Scottish Government has assisted individuals with council tax support. [Interruption.]

No, I do not agree with that point. Obviously, a lot of hard work is going on to ensure that the census is completed. In due course, the final returns will be disclosed by National Records of Scotland, which has to undertake some analysis. Arising from that, Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, will update the Parliament on the progress of the census and the strength of the information that is available for us to use in the future development of public policy in Scotland.

As a consequence of the partnership that was agreed between the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Government, young people under the age of 22, rightly, travel free. Because of that agreement, there was an opportunity for other parts of the country to go further in relation to that type of collaboration, and I am only sorry that, in the city of Edinburgh, the Labour Party’s collaboration with the Conservative Party has thwarted further ambitious proposals being brought forward.

We know that all of these grubby deals at a local level have been approved by Jackie Baillie—frankly, that explains a lot about that particular agreement. However, as I said, I very much regret that there was not the opportunity to take forward some of these proposals and to advance the interests of people in Scotland by the collaboration that we have seen in this Parliament.