Chamber and committees

At the moment, the terminology that is used is about reducing poverty. The aim is that every agency and actor in Scotland sees that as one of their priorities and understands that the way in which they do their work must deliver a reduction in poverty. That is where I think the national performance framework works quite effectively.

I do not want to keep using examples from these wonderful islands of Shetland, but you have a situation here where major energy giants could be seen to be operating quite effectively if your sole purpose is the transition to net zero and the climate or economic prosperity. However, it is also the case that upwards of 30 per cent of people are in fuel poverty here. The framework is a means by which a local authority or national Government can hold major companies to account and say, “In Scotland, we have an ambition of reducing poverty—that is one of our key outcomes—so how you do your work matters just as much as the work you’re doing in terms of climate and prosperity.” There are big opportunities to do that. I was struck by the fact that a community wind farm has done more on reinvesting and reducing poverty in these islands than some of the major corporations have done.

That is perhaps a visible example of how the framework has to be a genuinely national piece of work, and not just a way in which Governments are held to account.

I agree with you on that. You are right that we have a visible leadership approach and that we need to have a visible leadership role when it comes to ensuring that the national performance framework is adopted across Scotland.

I go back to my example of the big energy company. If we are holding that company to account and it turns round to us and says, “Well, how are you doing it?”, we need to be able to point pretty quickly to the ways in which we are doing it. You are right on that front, and that requires an explicit element of rhetoric and visibility in certain documents.

I think that there is a big challenge. I note that Carnegie UK, in evidence to the committee, said:

“aligning budgets with national outcomes is not straightforward, and lots of countries ... are wrestling with it.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 17 September 2024; c 41.]

I think that Scotland, too, is wrestling with how we explicitly link what we choose to do—in a very political environment—with a document such as the national performance framework. Nobody disagrees with the outcomes that are outlined in the framework, and we are all trying to do the work that shifts the dial on those outcomes.

I am delighted to be with you on quite a stormy day in Shetland—here is hoping that I get home at some point this week. It is very good of you to allow me to join in this flexible way; it is a bit of déjà vu to Covid.

As the committee will know, the national performance framework was introduced in 2007. Since then, it has evolved into a wellbeing framework with shared national outcomes for all of Scotland. The best way to sum up the national outcomes is to say that they paint a picture of the kind of Scotland that we hopefully all aspire to be.

I know that some of the stakeholder views that were submitted to the inquiry suggest that we can improve and lead with a stronger, more impactful framework. I am quite encouraged by that kind of feedback, because it demonstrates the NPF’s value as a means for all of Scotland’s actors and agencies to debate and to challenge the collective progress that we are making as a nation. We all have a role in helping to deliver the national outcomes, because the NPF is not just owned by Government but belongs to the whole of Scotland.

Our review, which I know that you will scrutinise today, has proposed changes, which include the introduction of new outcomes on care, climate change and housing. It was good to see the SPICe analysis of the inquiry’s call for views, which said that

“the responses ... reflect strong support for the proposed outcomes of the NPF, with ... recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and inclusivity.”

Overall, the review is proposing an increase in the number of national outcomes from 11 to 13. I appreciate that the inquiry has heard that fewer outcomes, such as in the Welsh Government’s approach, would lead to greater impact, alignment and so on, and it would be good to perhaps discuss that over the course of this morning.

We have also proposed that the purpose of the NPF is updated to:

“To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future”.

That represents a mainstreamed purpose. The SPICe analysis was, again, encouraging, as it said that that change “had garnered significant support”. I can assure the committee that the wellbeing economy—which is part of the wording of the current purpose—is a priority for the Government and will continue to be guided by the national outcomes in that area.

We have confirmed that we will consult and collaborate with stakeholders and partners on our plans for improved implementation and guidance to ensure that the NPF is consistently and effectively applied right across Scotland. That was recommended by your committee in 2022, and I note that evidence to the inquiry further supports that recommendation. We will include a refreshed set of national indicators, which will be launched alongside the new national outcomes in 2025.

The national outcomes “seek to promote equality.” The evidence that was gathered throughout the Government’s review was used to better understand the interests of equality groups, and those interests have been reflected in the proposals. It is important that the inquiry examines that area.

I consider the NPF to be a really important part of how we do government: it helps us work together as a nation and achieve our national outcomes to improve the quality of life for the people of Scotland. It is used in the Government, but in my role as a Deputy First Minister, I will look to ensure that that is being done well, so that we can demonstrate the leadership, stewardship and facilitation role that is expected of us in the Government.

I know that you have heard disappointment regarding the implicit rather than explicit inclusion of the national outcomes in the recently published programme for government. I can assure you that the First Minister’s four priorities are very closely aligned with, and guided by, the national outcomes. I challenge anyone to see a way in which the four priorities are not backed up by the national outcomes. I agree that we need to have a visible leadership role in ensuring that the NPF is adopted across Scotland.

As the committee might know, we will not be introducing a wellbeing and sustainable development bill at this time. We have committed to work across the chamber with Sarah Boyack as her proposed member’s bill develops; I am due to meet her on 9 October so that we can discuss how we work together.

Progress towards the national outcomes is, of course, a proxy for progress towards the United Nations sustainable development goals, because of the close alignment between them. The NPF and the SDGs capture the ambition of creating a better world and recognise up front the challenges that are involved in doing that. They set the deadline for a specific set of local and global improvements for 2030, and I want us to tell a good story about Scotland’s contribution and experience when we reach that milestone.

Thank you, convener, and thanks to the committee and all the stakeholders who have submitted their views to our statutory review and your committee’s inquiry. I am very happy to answer your questions.

That concern has come through. My officials might want to come in on the background. I am conscious that much of the consultation work happened before I was in office, so I am perhaps not as close to the conversations that happened during that period. If my officials would like to come in on the mainstreaming aspect, I ask them to do so.

A number of stakeholders recommended that equalities and human rights be more explicitly integrated in national accounts, with a particular focus on intersectionality and gender mainstreaming. We have therefore focused far more explicitly on gender. For example, we have done that in the new care outcome, because we know that more women are involved in the business of delivering care. We have accepted the recommendation of the national advisory council on women and girls that we carry out a thematic gender review of the national performance framework. The themes that came through are reflected in the proposed revisions to the outcomes. There has been a lot of work to ensure that there is a more gendered approach to the national performance framework.

I wonder whether my officials want to answer the specific point about mainstreaming. There will always be a tension on explicit outcomes versus mainstreaming. Keith McDonald might want to come back in.

I can ask Aidan Grisewood to contribute on that. We currently report on progress annually. That gives a sense of how things compare to some of the benchmarks in the national strategy. Do you want to speak more about that, Aidan?

Absolutely. We are two years in. You have to understand what drives productivity growth. A lot of it is in the realm of business and public sector reinvestment. We have just come through two years of quite stubborn inflation, with costs of living and high energy prices particularly affecting business. By all accounts, it has been an extremely challenging time for business, and our public finances have been extremely constrained, but the aims in NSET still stand, and the work that we are doing to enable business to invest continues.

The first announcement that I made last week—perhaps this goes back to Murdo Fraser’s question about what is different—was £5 million for new and growing businesses to invest. Technology, systems and people will drive our productivity.

The Government’s overall budget is usually about £50 billion, give or take—

I have already said that I have a lot of respect for Audit Scotland and the work that it does. The approach that we take in every budget is to prioritise the Government’s aims and objectives using the limited funds that we have. Out of the overall budget of £50 billion to £55 billion, give or take, we do our level best to invest in the NHS and so on. It is incredibly and quite remarkably short-sighted of Colin Smyth to ask for a specific budget line, as though the technological work that is going on in our NHS has nothing to do with the economy.

They have been doing it in a number of different ways. I am not going to shy away from the fact that our budget position is extremely challenging; I will continue to come back to that theme.

The agencies can prioritise in a number of ways. The first, which I have already talked about, is being clear about what they are trying to achieve. They cannot do everything. The Government wants to work with them according to the objectives that have been set out in NSET. That is the blueprint, and it is clear about prioritising entrepreneurship and innovation, and attracting inward investment, particularly into the green industries. That is clear and it is happening.

The second part is about working better together. Various parts of the public sector are interested in economic prosperity and growth. There are excellent examples of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise working together, or of them working closely with local authorities, particularly on planning and consenting. They also work closely with the Scottish Government.

We need a more joined-up approach. During the past few years, I have often heard that there is not enough working together in the public sector, or that there is not enough prioritisation. That has changed. People express frustration at having to jump through lots of hoops, but the feedback that I am getting is that things are much simpler and more straightforward.

Although I do not shy away from the budget challenges, I commend the work that has emerged from NSET and from the need to work more closely with other organisations.

The principle is sound. Prestwick is operating profitably. The accounts—the most recent were published in November—prove that. However, ministers’ objective has always been to return the airport to private ownership when the circumstances are right. In addition, the Government has very clear aspirations for it to continue to be part of the local and national economy, because it is a strategic asset. Bids need to be reviewed on that basis as well as on a purely financial basis.

The Government does not run airports in the way that it does other strategic assets that we have acquired for a purpose. When we have achieved our purpose of protecting them and, as in this case, returning them to profitability, the Government should look to find a commercial airport operator that can run them, which will allow the Government to continue to focus on its objectives. However, that will not be to the disadvantage of our aim of ensuring that the airport continues to be part of the local economy.