Chamber and committees

I will have other questions for Professor Donaldson later, but just now I am thinking about one of the papers that I have read. It is about how programme budgeting and marginal analysis can be used to look at how we do national performance framework interventions and achieve goals with the marginal resources that we have available when everybody wants a piece of the pie. We always talk about prevention, and Paul Johnston writes a blog about how much money is spent on it. The Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that £2.3 billion of Scottish health boards’ budgets is directed at responding to the impacts of poverty. We also talk about mental health, obesity, chronic disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and all those things—everything overlaps and it is difficult and complex.

My question is for both Professor Donaldson and Emma Congreve. How do we use programme budgeting and marginal analysis to achieve more transparency in addressing our national performance framework?

We have seen health and social care integration, but integration joint boards might need a bit more autonomy to choose how to further enhance integration in order to support people. Should we strengthen IJBs’ financial decision-making powers to ensure more effective integration?

I read in one of our papers that, in some health boards and health and social care partnerships, geriatricians look after older people, but, in other areas, primary care teams and multidisciplinary teams do that. That affects how we tackle the issue of delayed discharge and free up hospital beds. Do you have an opinion on whether some areas are doing better than others and on how we should learn from places that seem to better manage the issue of delayed discharge, for instance?

Good morning. I am interested in how we apply budgets to the national performance framework. I asked the previous panel about how we manage the cross-portfolio aspects of the NPF, such as housing, wellbeing, the economy and care, which we have talked about previously. Those aspects are all intertwined, but how do we make sure that we assign the correct budget to them, whether we are talking about single-year or multiyear—which Carol Calder spoke about—funding? What is the best way to fund the various items in the national performance framework in order to achieve the outcomes that we need to achieve?

We also need to think about the fiscal constraints that we face and the impact of austerity, which we have spoken about. We cannot separate the fact that, here in Scotland, we do not have full fiscal levers, which affects our ability to deal with aspects of drug law in order to tackle alcohol and drug harm. Given that we do not have the ability to take ownership of everything, what do you suggest we do with regard to applying budgets to each of the various items under the national performance framework?

Do they need to know what it means?

I have a quick supplementary question. I am looking at the 11 national outcomes that we are seeking to achieve. The last one is about poverty. We know that, if we tackle poverty and try to counter the impact of 14 years of imposed austerity on the Scottish people, education and other things will be supported. I am interested in what you think needs to be targeted in order to tackle poverty in Scotland.

I am conscious of the time, so I will stop there. Thanks.

If we are talking about wellbeing and supporting a wellbeing economy through the national performance framework, do you think that the public know what “wellbeing economy” means? We have been talking about it for a few years now. There is the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, and there are lots of experts out there who produce paper after paper, which we see, but do the public know what it means to have a goal of a national performance framework that supports a wellbeing economy?

Good morning, everybody.

Actually, I think that my question has been answered, but I am still trying to get my head round this pre-budget scrutiny. We have been talking about resourcing science and data collection and analysis, and everybody has been quite clear about that. There seem to be various ways of supporting and funding the marine directorate. For example, Alan Wells mentioned planting trees next to rivers, the money for which—I assume—would come from the Forestry and Land Scotland budget. It seems, therefore, as if there is a lot of potential for cross-portfolio working, but it is the collaboration that Elaine Whyte talked about that I am interested in exploring. How can we support better collaboration to ensure access to funding that can support data analysis and, obviously, data interpretation?

I am not sure whether that question is for Elaine Whyte to start off with. I see that Elspeth Macdonald has indicated that she, too, wants to respond. How do we support better collaboration? By that, I am thinking about finding pots of money to support the marine directorate.

Actually, I am okay, convener.