Chamber and committees

[Inaudible.]—my last question. First, Stephen Boyle, you said that there has been variation through necessity as much as anything else, but, with regard to what you have just said, Mark Taylor, have reporting mechanisms and transparency improved, stayed the same or deteriorated over the pandemic? Earlier, you said that another layer of reporting would be helpful, but you also said that the situation has improved over the past 18 months. Is it fair to say that? If so, could it have improved more?

Thank you. That was very helpful. Indeed, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the committee in saying that all your evidence has been helpful. Without further ado, I will terminate the public session of the committee, to allow our witnesses and the official report staff to leave. We will reconvene at noon.

I am trying to get a handle on that, because it is fundamental to the issue that we are discussing, which is about knowing where public money is going and how it is being spent—or invested, depending on how you wish to describe it.

You have said that

“In determining its budget proposals, the Scottish Government will need to have a clear understanding of how it plans to transition from its initial financial response to more of a recovery phase.”

You go on to discuss continuing uncertainties during the pandemic and the need for the Scottish Government to maintain

“a flexible approach to its financial planning”.

How can Scottish ministers grapple with that? At one point you are looking for more certainty in understanding the transition, but at another you are trying to enable flexibility. How can we square that circle?

You say:

“The UK position is a source of uncertainty for the Scottish budget”

and you go on to say that

“The Scottish Government has been informed of a further £175 million to be allocated. However, these consequentials will not be confirmed until the UK Government’s supplementary estimates are published early in 2022.”

What kind of difficulties does that cause for the Scottish Government?

In the report, you say that although addressing the pandemic was a clear priority, the Scottish Government should not deflect from some of its longer-term goals, such as addressing climate change. However, some of the measures to tackle Covid will not help us to meet the climate change goals. One thinks of the thousands of tonnes of personal protective equipment that have gone to landfill over the past 18 months. How can the Scottish Government address that, given that the pandemic is clearly the number 1 issue? How can the Government respond more effectively to the longer-term issues of climate change without having to compromise on addressing issues relating to the pandemic?

In response to Tess White, you talked about audit, statutory reporting and parliamentary scrutiny all playing a role along with the national performance framework in assessing the success of Government policies. Where does the NPF fit in that landscape? For example, is it weighted relative to those other areas? How does the Government decide on that?

Thank you for that opening statement. In time-honoured fashion, I will ask some opening questions before members of the committee join in with their questions.

You said in your statement that outcome budgeting is about allocating resources based on the outcomes achieved for people. Has the national performance framework helped to deliver that? If so, will you give us a couple of examples?

Of the 81 indicators, performance is improving in 17, maintaining in 42 and worsening in 11, while there are four in which performance has still to be confirmed and others that are in development. We appreciate that the situation is evolving.

With regard to the indicators in which performance is worsening, some seem fairly obvious, given the effects of Covid, and include places to interact, social capital and economic growth. However, with others, it is hard to see why things are worsening. In the fair work and business section, for example, we see a decline in the number of high-growth and innovative businesses and in the employee voice, although I should say that four of those indicators—economic participation, employees receiving the living wage, the pay gap and gender balance—have improved. Why have three indicators worsened, and how is the Scottish Government responding to that situation?

I just have a final question, as I know that colleagues are keen to come in.

There are the 81 indicators, but there are also the 11 national outcomes, which are exactly that—national. As a result, when we look at the indicators where performance is improving, maintaining or worsening, we are actually looking at a national picture. How do we assess what is happening in different parts of Scotland through the national performance framework? In some areas where performance is maintaining, there might be parts of the country in which the situation is improving consistently while in others it is deteriorating. If the indicator just says maintaining, that could mask a huge differential across the country. Obviously we cannot have thousands of different indicators, because that would be ridiculous. How does the Government look beyond the figures of worsening, improving or maintaining to find out what is within the body of the kirk?

Well done, cabinet secretary, you have responded to more than 30 questions from the committee. However, we are still within time, so I will ask some short questions to finish off.

Audit Scotland has said that there are inherent challenges in delivering an outcome-based approach. For example, Audit Scotland states:

“It is difficult to separate out what impact public services have on outcomes, as many factors are outside the direct control of the public sector.”

Audit Scotland says that effective joined-up working, early planning and an understanding of the evidence and its gaps could all help to resolve the issue. How can those gaps be closed so that we have a much fairer picture?