Official Report 903KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15708, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on the national performance framework—review of national outcomes. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:22
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in this debate on the Scottish Government’s proposed national outcomes.
We launched a joint committee inquiry into the proposed national outcomes last May, and I thank all those who took the time to speak with us and provide written evidence. Their input was invaluable in shaping our findings and recommendations.
I particularly thank the committee’s former clerk, Jane Williams, who was with the Scottish Parliament since 1999 and who retired at Christmas to head off to east Asia and the antipodes. For her sins, Jane seemingly lived and breathed the national performance framework.
The review was a shared endeavour, with multiple committees undertaking scrutiny of the national outcomes that were relevant to their remits. Our focus was on the overall review, implementation and cross-cutting issues, building on evidence that was previously received as part of our 2022 inquiry. Taken together, the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report, the written views of other committees and today’s debate constitute the Parliament’s consultation response to the Scottish Government’s second statutory review of the national outcomes.
As the report shows, the national performance framework continues to be an important agreed vision of the type of place that Scotland should aspire to be. However, there is room for improvement, and our report makes several recommendations in relation to the national outcomes themselves, as well as on implementation and delivery.
Our scrutiny reflected on the proposed change in the framework’s purpose, which is now
“To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future”.
Although we acknowledge the rationale that underpins the change, the updated purpose calls into question whether the title of the national performance framework remains accurate and relevant, particularly given that the review document itself describes the framework as “Scotland’s Wellbeing Framework”. We heard from some witnesses that clarity around the framework’s purpose could be better achieved by including a reference to wellbeing in its name. We therefore recommend that, as part of its future consultation plans, the Scottish Government seeks stakeholders’ views on updating the framework’s name to ensure that its title accurately reflects its purpose. A rebrand is essential, and I hope that the Deputy First Minister will respond on that issue directly in her speech.
Does Kenneth Gibson accept that there is a risk that, if the name of the NPF were changed, it might be even more confusing and its profile might be lowered?
One could argue that changing the NPF’s name would boost its profile, because there would be heightened discussion on the issues that we are discussing this afternoon.
The Scottish Government has proposed increasing the number of national outcomes from 11 to 13, with revisions made to all but the national outcome that relates to culture. There is a balance to be struck when deciding how many national outcomes to take forward. As witnesses told us, too few national outcomes could result in the framework becoming
“too high level to focus decision-making”,
whereas too many could lead to
“increased complexity in managing the conflicts of interest ... that arise between them.”
Regardless of the number of national outcomes, it is clear to the committee that it is important how they interlink, particularly considering the potential trade-offs when using the national outcomes to shape policy and spending decisions.
During evidence taking, we heard that care should be taken to ensure that actions to progress one outcome do not unintentionally impact adversely on another outcome. We have therefore asked the Scottish Government to set out in its implementation plan how the complexities and potential trade-offs will be managed. The committee also seeks clarification on how the proposed new definitions of each national outcome will be used in ministerial decision making.
Given the interactions and intersectionality that exist between the proposed national outcomes, we welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to undertake a thematic gender review of the national performance framework. However, we were disappointed that the findings of that review were not published alongside the proposed national outcomes, which meant that the review could not be considered by witnesses or be fully scrutinised by parliamentary committees.
The national indicators are intended to provide a transparent means of tracking the progress that is being made in delivering the national outcomes and the framework’s vision. Our 2022 inquiry into the national performance framework, almost five years after the previous review in 2018, reported concerns that many of the 81 national indicators still had no data. That remains an issue of concern. As of August 2024, data remained unavailable for 11 of the 81 national indicators that were agreed as part of the 2018 review of the national outcomes. That is deeply disappointing, to say the least. We therefore reiterate our earlier recommendation that the development of national indicators should not be left until the end of the process.
Over the course of our evidence taking, witnesses expressed disappointment that the Scottish Government had not committed to consulting more widely on specific indicators. We heard concerns about a lack of transparency in relation to the development of the national indicators. One witness told us that the Government’s approach leads to a perception that
“the Government is not only marking its own homework but setting the questions.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 1 October 2024; c 62.]
To address the gaps in the data, we recommend that the Scottish Government should now consult relevant sectors on its proposed national indicators and agree how to approach data gaps. For future reviews, we urge the Scottish ministers to publish the proposed draft indicators alongside the proposed national outcomes to ensure greater transparency, consultation and scrutiny.
As members will be aware, the national outcomes are broadly based on the United Nations sustainable development goals. Witnesses suggested ways in which the national outcomes could be better aligned with those goals. For example, the national outcome of reducing poverty lacks the ambition of the comparable sustainable development goal of ending poverty. Our report therefore recommends that that outcome should be amended to address the apparent mismatch.
We also urge the Scottish ministers to consider how progress towards the sustainable development goals can be more transparently evidenced through the NPF, especially in areas such as gender equality, for which there is no dedicated national outcome.
In closing the debate for the committee, the deputy convener will cover other key aspects of the committee’s report. I look forward to hearing from other members about their committees’ scrutiny of the proposed national outcomes.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 10th Report, 2024 (Session 6), Report on the National Performance Framework: Review of National Outcomes (SP Paper 685), and the responses from other committees, as referenced in annexe B to the report.
I call Finlay Carson to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.
15:28
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and to set out our scrutiny of the proposed new national outcomes.
Rural and island affairs relate to most of the 13 proposed national outcomes in one way or another. Therefore, the key focus of our work was to assess whether the proposed new national outcomes were sufficiently rural proofed and would serve the interests of communities across rural Scotland.
The committee participated in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s joint call for views on the proposed national outcomes before the summer, and it considered the responses to that consultation. As part of our pre-budget scrutiny, we also sought written evidence on whether last year’s budget allocations contributed to achieving the existing national outcomes and how, if necessary, budget allocations and the national outcomes could be better aligned.
We concluded our scrutiny in September by taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic. I also questioned the First Minister on the matter at the Conveners’ Group a week later. On behalf of the committee, I thank everybody who shared their views with us.
Throughout our evidence gathering, we heard clearly that, across a variety of policy areas, people who live in rural Scotland have specific geographical challenges and opportunities that require specific and tailored policy responses from the Scottish Government. We saw the review of the national outcomes as an important opportunity for ensuring that Scotland’s public sector landscape can support rural and island communities and determine what further measures are necessary.
I will talk about three specific issues that were highlighted to us. The first was digital connectivity and inclusivity. Stakeholders told us about the challenges that some people in rural areas face compared with more urban parts of the country when it comes to accessing good-quality digital connections, technology and training. We also heard how improvements in that area would be critical in overcoming the social isolation that is experienced by some people who live and work in more remote areas, and in strengthening community connectedness.
The second issue was the provision of and access to public services. In evidence to us, stakeholders emphasised the need for people who live in rural communities to have easy access to a general practitioner, a dentist and reliable public transport. Such access was considered absolutely essential to the overall wellbeing and sustainability of those rural and island communities.
Finally, we heard how certain rural sectors, such as agriculture and fisheries, play a key role in implementing many of the national outcomes in their localities. That is particularly the case for national outcomes on communities, the environment and economic sustainability. As such, stakeholders raised concerns about the implications of cuts to the rural affairs portfolio in last year’s budget and called for that to be remedied as part of the upcoming budget cycle.
The committee recommended that further clarity is needed from the Scottish Government about how it intends to fully rural proof the proposed new national outcomes. A practical way in which that could be achieved is by establishing national indicators that monitor and measure how effectively the national outcomes are delivered in rural and island areas.
In responding to our correspondence, the cabinet secretary committed to reflecting on the committee’s recommendations as work progresses on the proposed new national outcomes, to see whether more can be done to further the interests of rural communities. I welcome that, because it is important that we get it right, and I will welcome any update from the cabinet secretary in her response to my speech. It is essential that the proposed new national outcomes address the challenges that are experienced by those who live and work in rural and island communities, to ensure that they play their part in delivering, and are able to enjoy living in, a sustainable and prosperous Scotland.
I call Collette Stevenson to speak on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.
15:32
As convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I am pleased to contribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee debate on the Scottish Government’s proposed revised national outcomes.
The Social Justice and Social Security Committee welcomed the opportunity to participate in the scrutiny process. We are grateful to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for undertaking the consultation. That information, coupled with the evidence that we have gathered through our work on reducing poverty, informed our letter to the Scottish Government. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee thanks the cabinet secretary for her response, and appreciates the Scottish Government’s recognition of the interconnected nature of the outcomes and their relationship to poverty. We are also pleased to hear that the Scottish Government acknowledges the leadership role that it should play in ensuring country-wide adoption of the national performance framework.
Of central concern to the committee is the outcome of reducing poverty, which it considered alongside several other outcomes that rely on poverty reduction in order to be achieved. We wrote to the cabinet secretary on that basis, highlighting how the national outcomes on care, housing, communities and equalities and human rights are intrinsically linked to the goal to reduce poverty. The committee explained the link between poverty and care by drawing on the research that it commissioned in 2023, which found that disabled households were more vulnerable to rising energy and food prices and that disability payments were not able to meet additional costs.
The committee was also recently involved in part 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, on homelessness prevention. As part of that, we heard from Crisis, which said:
“homelessness is one of the most acute forms of poverty”—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 13 June 2024; c 6.]
In order to end homelessness and achieve housing as an outcome, it is therefore clear that poverty must be addressed.
We also consider that the work of the third sector is essential to the fulfilment of the national outcomes, especially the outcome on communities. As part of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny this year, we heard from stakeholders across the third sector who made it clear that they need more certainty when it comes to their budgets. They emphasised that insecure funding can mean insecure service delivery, which affects vulnerable people within communities, as well as eroding trust and cohesion.
Achieving equalities and human rights as an outcome also requires poverty to be reduced. We were struck by evidence that was provided to the committee by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which said:
“Poverty represents a failure (a violation) to fulfil the right to an adequate standard of living as is established in international human rights law… Poverty, viewed through this lens, is thus best viewed as a cluster of human rights violations in Scotland.”
As well as detailing the cross-cutting nature of the national outcomes, our letter to the cabinet secretary stated that, if poverty is to be reduced, it is crucial that the outcomes influence decision making when it comes to the Scottish budget and programme for government. Scottish Women’s Aid has previously said that, given that the outcomes should demonstrate societal values, the budget should look at how it spends on those.
It is essential that it is recognised that the national outcomes will not be achieved unless poverty can be reduced. The Scottish Government must act to ensure that poverty reduction informs all areas of policy and budgetary planning, and that the needs of younger people living alone, disabled people and older people are captured alongside priority groups.
I call Ariane Burgess to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.
15:37
As convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate.
The committee focused its scrutiny of the revised national performance framework on the new housing outcome, which sets out an ambition for everyone to live in
“safe, high-quality and affordable homes that meet our needs”.
The outcome refers to the importance of everyone having homes that are safe, secure and accessible, across all tenures. They should also be energy efficient, and meet our needs through all stages of our lives. That aspiration is to be applauded and, indeed, it was universally welcomed by stakeholders. This is the first time that there has been a national outcome specifically on housing, despite its importance to all of us.
Having a home underpins our life chances, affecting our health, wellbeing, educational attainment and employment prospects. The absence of a home causes enormous damage, particularly to the life chances of children. We are all too familiar with the housing emergency that Scotland currently finds itself in, and we know the human cost of that emergency, which was long in the making.
I hope that the creation of the new housing outcome aids in the response to the housing emergency, providing clarity of purpose. Housing is a complex and systemic issue, which is about much more than simply building homes. The committee hopes that the outcome will ensure that there is a joined-up approach between the full range of sectoral partners across both the public and private sectors.
However, although stakeholders told the committee that it would be difficult to disagree with the aspiration of the outcome, it was made clear to us that it is vital to measure what progress is being made. Without action, and measurement, all that we have is a worthy but toothless aspiration. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s housing strategy, “Housing to 2040”, is aspirational and worth while, but stakeholders have again told us that it is unclear how its ambitions will be realised or progress toward them measured.
Through the committee’s wider work on housing issues, including scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we know that there is a significant lack of robust data on the housing sector, in particular the size and cost of all rental tenures, and the condition of homes. I therefore thank the Minister for Housing for writing to the committee to advise that the Government is in the process of agreeing a set of indicators around the housing outcome, as they will be essential in measuring progress.
The outcome also refers to the importance of planning our communities, and it is therefore closely related to delivery of the Government’s national planning framework—NPF4. We should not lose sight that housing is the foundation of place making and of communities, supported by national developments such as active travel and nature networks. However, it has not yet been established how NPF4 will be monitored, and so it is unclear how we will know what progress is made towards meeting that worthwhile aspiration in the national outcome. For the housing outcome to be more than only words, it has to be underpinned by action, and we need robust data to determine whether progress is being made towards achieving it.
The new housing-specific outcome is a positive step, and it is much needed given the context of the housing emergency. However, we are presently a very long way from achieving the ambition for everyone to live in
“Safe, high-quality and affordable homes that meet our needs”.
Too many people across Scotland are currently struggling to find a safe and affordable home, and thousands will have spent Christmas homeless or in temporary accommodation. For their sake, I hope that this year we see the end of the housing emergency and the ambitions of the outcome are realised.
I call Clare Adamson to speak on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.
15:41
As the convener of the committee, I am delighted to speak to our report on this topic. I begin by thanking those members who took part in the inquiry during the past year, which focused on the response to the review of outcomes and indicators relating to the Scottish Government’s international work. As always, I also thank the committee clerks for their support.
I also to thank the witnesses who took time to give evidence to the committee. We had experts from Quebec, the Basque Country, Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs and the Scottish Council on Global Affairs.
I will highlight three aspects of our report, which are the link between the national performance framework and decision making, the importance of policy coherence and the matter of what is being measured.
We heard evidence that the national outcomes do not always inform policy spending. There could be a disconnect in the vision of the NPF and decision making. We also heard evidence that public bodies are reporting after the event rather than using the national outcomes to inform the process and decision making. I note from the work of the Finance and Public Administration Committee that that chimes with its key findings too. We asked the Scottish Government for examples of where the national outcomes have informed policy and spending decisions.
I now turn to the idea of policy coherence, which was a recurring theme from our 2022 report on Scotland’s international work. The Scottish Council on Global Affairs said that soft power, in international relations terms, is about how we will ensure a shared understanding across Government in the interests of policy coherence—
Sorry, I have moved to the wrong page of my speech notes. I will just need to continue where I was.
The Scottish Council on Global Affairs had raised concerns about international relations and how soft power was perceived. The ambitions of the policy are broad. We want to be seen as an open, connected and positive contributing country, to be regarded as vibrant and modern, to have positive international relations and to influence exchanging networks. We also want to recognise the international connectedness of people and the obligations that flow from that. Those are very important ambitions. However, we heard that, in some respects, although the metrics have been developed and the indicators are there, what is not being considered is whether the performance—which is key to this—is being achieved.
Again, I thank those who took part in our work and contributed to it. We would like to see more clarity on the indicators, and a consultation of the wider community on what indicators would be best to inform the national objectives.
The Scottish International Development Alliance told the committee that
“There is currently a framework and an element of scrutiny, but all that is scrutinised is what we actually want to measure, not whether we have achieved it.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 May 2024; c 48.]
That gets to the core of what the committee’s concerns are.
I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
15:45
I am pleased to contribute, on behalf of the NZET Committee, to the review of the national performance framework. We were tasked with scrutiny of two areas—the environment outcome and the new climate action outcome. Although we welcome the revisions, changing the words in a document takes us only so far, to be frank. There is a need to transform ambition into action.
The additional challenge is to take the public with us, otherwise change will not stick. Policies on the environment and net zero must be realistic, achievable and within a price range.
None of this is easy. However, it can be made easier if the public buy in on the basis that they will be the ones who make the positive changes. That was the key message of the people’s panel on climate change that the committee convened last year.
Let us begin with the environment outcome. The outcome focuses on protecting, restoring, enhancing and enjoying our natural environment. It now explicitly highlights the critical need for environmental restoration. The committee supports the updated definition, given the pressing reality of, and the need to resolve, our degrading ecosystems.
I note concerns from some stakeholders about what they see as gaps in the outcome. They have called for more express reference to matters such as water quality, biodiversity conservation, pollution control and sustainable land use. We asked the Scottish Government to consider those points before finalising the framework, and it has committed to doing so.
The Scottish Government referred to the recently published Scottish biodiversity strategy and the upcoming natural environment bill, some aspects of which I fear may fall within the committee’s remit. Although that shows a commitment to our natural environment, fine words butter no parsnips.
I turn to the climate action outcome, which aims to achieve a just transition to net zero while building resilience to climate change. That addition has been widely welcomed by stakeholders, and has been added to the framework to better align climate policy with the United Nations sustainable development goals. Scotland has ambitious emissions reduction targets, and we have highlighted the significant shortcomings in meeting those goals.
Progress needs to be more than changes in how targets are measured. It demands concrete actions that accelerate emissions reductions while supporting vulnerable populations in a fair transition. For instance, where are the Scottish Government’s highly ambitious plans to reduce car use per kilometre by 20 per cent between 2020 and 2030? Where are the Scottish Government’s policies to make that ambition a reality? What progress has been made so far?
The Scottish Government’s allocation of £4.9 billion in the 2025-26 budget for climate change initiatives is significant, but is that really enough to face the challenges? Previous budgets had gaps in critical areas including peatland restoration and woodland restoration, which are both essential for achieving our climate ambitions. Simply put, we need to back our words with sufficient funding that is targeted in the right way at the right areas.
For the national performance framework to succeed, the Government must make sure that it synchronises its goals with policies and funding. Although the committee welcomes the two reworded national outcomes that we have scrutinised, it is time—now more than ever—that the Government’s actions must speak louder than words.
I call Kate Forbes to speak on behalf of the Government. Deputy First Minister, you have a generous seven minutes.
15:49
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I thank colleagues on all sides of the chamber, as well as the wide and diverse range of stakeholders who have engaged with the review of the national outcomes and the national performance framework. In particular, I thank all the committees that have considered evidence and have written to ministers with recommendations. Particular thanks go to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its report, which was published on 15 November. I will ensure that the Government responds in full before the deadline of 15 January.
A number of points have already been made in the debate, so although this is my opening statement, I almost feel like it needs to be a summary of responses to the excellent points that have been identified by the conveners of all the committees that have a stake in the national performance framework and the national outcomes.
I note that the Deputy First Minister is going to respond in some detail to the points that have been made, but I would like a general view. What is her feeling on whether the national performance framework is high profile enough? We have spoken to civil servants and others, and they say that the framework underlies a lot of things, but a lot of the public have simply never heard of it.
I thank John Mason for that. The comments that he has made, both just now and in his intervention on Kenny Gibson, have been fleshed out in some of the comments from members about how we ensure that the national performance framework actually leads to action. Edward Mountain made that point. Others have talked about the framing and branding, and there has been consistent commentary on the importance of measurement—a number of conveners have made that point. I hope that what I set out in the next six and a half minutes will directly address all that and create a bit of space for us all to figure out what to do next.
I am encouraged by the range of feedback and views—I said that to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 8 October—because I think that 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.”
I am pleased that the inquiry has concluded that
“the NPF remains an important agreed vision of the type of Scotland that we aspire to be.”
A lot of the recommendations, which are welcome, focus on action and improvement, and that is where we need to start.
I will set the inquiry in some new context, before setting out the action that I propose we take in direct response to what I have heard. Work on the current review of the national outcomes began in 2022, with public engagement in 2023. We describe the scope of the review, which was agreed in the context of our emerging from Covid, rising inflation and the Ukraine conflict, as
“a course correction rather than another complete overhaul.”
At that point, however, none of us fully appreciated the impact of those crises. The scale of the challenge is such that if we are to meet the expectations and ambitions of the people of Scotland, I believe—and I state it today—that a more substantial programme of reform is required. That includes more substantial reform of the national performance framework—reform that would support and enhance collaboration between all the various layers of Government to reach out to and to empower and engage communities, and to let us understand and address more effectively the complex problems that we face as a society.
I am Interested in the cabinet secretary’s points around use of the performance framework as a vehicle for change. Is one of the problems with the current framework that it is very static? It is a set of measures—it does not actually set out a vision for change. Does it need to contain such a vision, or does a vision for change—a theory of change—need to overlay the performance framework as a part of that fundamental review?
That is a good question, and I would like us to explore it as we proceed with a more substantial overhaul. Reforming the national performance framework needs to mean change and matching of ambition with action, which goes straight to the heart of some of the comments that conveners have made in their speeches. That is not to dismiss the previous work—we need to build on all that work, which has got us here today. However, we need to revisit and revise proposals that were made as part of the review.
When the national performance framework was first introduced, taken in parallel with the recommendation of the Christie commission, the hope and the expectation was that it would shape, and change for the better, the way that we govern in Scotland, and would put the focus more on agreed outcomes. We hear often in Parliament the refrain that we should focus on outcomes, not on inputs, and that we should remove policy and budgetary silos, thereby enabling spending to be targeted effectively, and encouraging and supporting investment in prevention.
Those are all issues that I think every committee, in budget and policy scrutiny, regularly returns to. I know that members recognise and endorse those ambitions. In the report that we are debating, the evidence base is clear that there is an appetite for change to do that more effectively. That is why, with the support of the Parliament, I would very much like us to recover some of the early ambition and to create a renewed and reformed national performance framework that can drive the next decade of public sector reform.
I propose that we look again at every aspect of the national performance framework to support the development and implementation of a stronger and more strategic and impactful framework for Scotland. I hope that that gives a direct answer to a number of questions—
Does that include consideration of specific policies relating to rural Scotland? In my contribution, I touched on views that we have heard in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and it is absolutely clear that there is a lack of focus on rural and island communities within the national outcomes.
The short answer is yes. In no way do I want to dismiss the excellent points that have been made in the debate. All the thoughts, perspectives and evidence that committees across the Parliament have gathered are precisely where we need to start with making fundamental reform. If what the RAI Committee has heard can be fed into that, that will, to my mind, be key.
If we focus our resources on reform, that will allow us to take more decisive action. That is exactly how I think the Government should operate and govern.
The national performance framework sets out the kind of country that we want Scotland to be. We need to get it right. A lot of fair comments have been made and I will take them on board. I thank members of the committee for the report and their contributions.
Craig Hoy will open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Mr Hoy, you have a generous six minutes.
15:57
I thank the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee for securing the motion for considered debate in the chamber, and I thank committee conveners for their contributions so far. I say for clarity that, although I was involved in reviewing the final report, I was not a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee during the evidence-gathering process or the drafting of the report. However, I fully support the report’s sentiments and conclusions, because it sheds yet more light on the performance and operation of the Scottish Government.
The Government has been in office for 18 years. The national performance framework is meant to tell us “what good looks like”, yet only 61 of the 81 indicators are measurable, and 11 of those show that there has been a deterioration in performance. Three out of eight critical indicators—in fair work, business and health—are worsening. None of the indicators in poverty, culture or health show any improvement at all, while four out of nine indicators in education, which was Nicola Sturgeon’s overriding mission, have no data available whatsoever. Rightly, the committee report describes that as unacceptable. How on earth can progress be measured if there is no data against which to measure it?
This week, the First Minister said that he hoped to give hope to the nation, and I hope that he can finally do so, because, at present, far too many Scots are despairing of the Scottish National Party’s record in office. It is a record of broken promises, profligate spending and a lack of focus on actual and material outcomes. Targets have been set; targets have been missed. There are too many strategies, too many working groups, too many action groups, too many steering groups, too many frameworks and simply not enough delivery.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report exposes a disconnect between the Scottish Government’s rhetoric and the reality on the ground across the public sector in Scotland. It refers to a lack of coherence between the national performance framework’s outcomes and the Scottish Government’s stated outcomes, including those of the First Minister.
The First Minister said this week that his focus was on economic growth, which is a prerequisite to delivering on his long-overdue priority of eradicating child poverty. Why, then, do the performance indicators measure only the wellbeing economy—whatever that is—and not real-terms growth in Scotland’s gross domestic product?
An economy without growth may be many things, but it cannot be a well economy, let alone a wellbeing one. That is the greatest and most damaging shortcoming among the Government’s many shortcomings, which are obviously included in the framework. It talks of growth, yet does little, if anything, to deliver it. How can growth be deemed a priority for our nation if it is absent from the nation’s framework? That point is noted in the report, which states that the public responses were critical of the Government’s
“omission of explicit references to economic growth.”
This Government, in recent years aided and abetted by its colleagues in the Greens, pays only lip service to growth. The First Minister today appeared on radio repeating the mantra but offering little in the way of an economically credible or recognisable strategy to achieve it.
If the Scottish economy had grown at the same rate as that of the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be £10.7 billion larger, and the Scottish Government would have had £600 million extra in revenues to spend on services or to support business to drive growth. The UK economy has been too sluggish in recent years, but to underperform a sluggish economy is surely worse still.
We have been over this point previously, but does the member accept that it is hard for Scotland to compete with London and the south-east, whereas we can compete with other parts of England?
I concede that it is presently hard to do so, but we could start to compete if we made ourselves competitive. That is why the Scottish Conservatives argued to lower tax in Scotland, so that we would have a competitive advantage over south-east England.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry; I do not have time.
It might help.
I will take a helpful intervention.
I say to members that there is quite a bit of time in hand.
Does Craig Hoy agree that, although it might not be possible to compete with London, it is possible to compete with Manchester, whose growth in terms of GDP per head is around twice that of Scotland?
I thank Daniel Johnson for being helpful—it is good to see that he is helpful to the Conservatives as well as the SNP these days.
I am even-handed.
I accept that the UK economy has been too sluggish in recent years, but the Scottish Conservatives are now the only party in the chamber that is committed to economic growth. That is why we set out crystal-clear plans for cutting tax and boosting our economy. We did that because the SNP is not focused on those commonsense priorities—for the avoidance of doubt, I say that we are.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee report mentions another discrepancy. It says that the Scottish Government wants to eradicate poverty, yet the national performance framework mentions only reducing it. What is the Government’s goal—reducing it or eradicating it? Either way, it is failing, because the dial is not moving.
Less than half the Scottish Government’s key performance indicators are improving, and the rest are either stagnant or getting worse. Those statistics point to a Government that is neither in control nor in command. That clearly calls for reform of the national performance indicators, if they are meant to be driving improvements.
As the committee suggests, a proper audit of the policy process means that the framework should have greater prominence in headline announcements, such as the programme for government. It is currently not a practical tool for decision making. If the Government really wants to hold itself to account, it should use the outcomes more effectively.
The cabinet secretary might not be shocked to hear that, when I raised the national performance framework in my local pub at the weekend, not one person I asked was aware of it. I encourage her to break out beyond the Holyrood bubble.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take an intervention, and then I will make an invitation to the cabinet secretary.
I can suggest some good books and conversation starters that might help the member the next time he is in the pub.
The national performance framework is aligned with the UN sustainable goals, which I imagine that the Conservatives are behind—Mr Hoy can confirm whether that is the case. How do the Conservatives see the process of navigating a route through choices in situations in which UN sustainable goals conflict with one another? Mr Hoy talked about GDP growth, of which I, too, am an advocate. Clearly, however, there cannot be growth at any and all expense. How does he weigh those things up in his political choices?
For example, in relation to energy supply, I would not be against future use of coal-fired power stations from the next generation, but I would support the next generation of nuclear, because that is a clean, safe and efficient way to deliver Scotland’s power now and into the future.
I extend an invitation to the cabinet secretary—if she wants to break out beyond the Holyrood bubble, she is welcome to join us in the Tweeddale Arms in Gifford, where she could have a soft drink; I might have a pint. She would hear some frank assessments of the Government’s performance, and I am sure that the cost of a pint would be far cheaper than running the whole enterprise of the national performance framework.
The national outcomes are not even a blunt instrument—they appear to be the wrong instrument entirely in many respects. That is why we need common sense for a change, not another nebulous, badly designed tick-box exercise that would do little to drive the meaningful improvements that our public services in Scotland badly need, if the SNP is truly to deliver hope to the nation.
Daniel Johnson will open on behalf of Scottish Labour, with a generous five minutes.
16:05
It is always great to take part in a Finance and Public Administration Committee debate. I feel as if I am back with my own people. I was going to congratulate the committee on bringing the topic back to the chamber, because it is rarely discussed outside the confines of the committee, but I must stand corrected because, just this morning, the Deputy First Minister raised the national performance framework at the Economy and Fair Work Committee. However, the way in which she did so was quite interesting and quite telling. She said that the national framework “should” inform policy and that it “should” be the lodestar by which policy is framed and set. I might just be being a cynical Opposition politician, but I thought that that demonstrated a bit of the gap that exists in relation to the national performance framework.
I do not think that anyone should really object to the Government attempting to set out how broader policy should sit alongside economic outcomes, how it attempts to weave together the broad range of different things that it sets out to do and how it measures them. It is not that the national performance framework is the wrong thing to do—the problem is that it does not really have the status, importance and, dare I say, coherence that it needs. That is what absolutely every member has been alluding to. They might not have been quite as vociferous as Mr Hoy, but that is the common thread.
When we look at the budget, it sums up the problem with the national performance framework. The framework is there, but as a bunch of icons. We are meant to understand what that means. We are meant to understand how the budget is helping and the reason why the icon from the framework sits there. It is not so much a tick-box exercise as an exercise in sticking the right icon in the right budget area. No one will really understand why, and there is certainly no explanation as to why.
There is also inherently a fudge at the heart of the national performance framework. The Government has become undecided or awkward about how it should frame economic growth and where economic growth sits alongside other policy objectives. That is a great shame, because the national performance framework is exactly the place where that should be articulated. It is not about GDP growth—I reject that. It should be about GDP growth per head sitting alongside the Gini coefficient, which is an expression of inequality. That is how we understand economic growth from a broader economic perspective. The fact that GDP is absent—it is not even set in that context—from the national performance framework as currently set out shows its weakness.
Likewise, the NPF is just a snapshot. We have the measurement showing where performance has been maintained or has declined or improved but, without the broader time series, we cannot really understand what that means. Sometimes, the Government is undermining its own measures. On some measures, it says that performance has been maintained when, over a five-year period, it has been improving; or it says that performance has been maintained when, over a five-year period, it has been declining. For example, the percentage of businesses with high growth is flat, but the measure says that it is improving; and the number of people in sustainable employment is improving, but the measure says that it is being maintained. The national performance framework says that the number of people participating in the economy is being maintained, but the number is declining. We need context. Without context, the national performance framework provides no insight whatsoever.
This is also about structure. What the Deputy First Minister was saying about reform was quite interesting because, for the framework to drive reform, we need to understand the linkages. The committee has been clear that it is important that the framework demonstrates an understanding of and sets out “interlinkages and co-dependencies”.
That can be no clearer than in relation to housing. It is great that housing is part of the national performance framework—that is useful and important—but it needs to set out much more clearly how housing impacts on wages and employment. Those sorts of linkages should exist in the national performance framework. It is the place for them and, without such linkages, it will not be informative.
Ultimately, I detect other bits of work in this area. I look at the framework and I see threads of things such as the balanced scorecard devised by Kaplan and Norton; I see hints of things that were worked on by people such as Michael Barber in the delivery unit, when Labour was previously in government. However, the framework lacks two things, because both the things that I mentioned reflect that we need to understand the weightings and importance of what we measure, as well as the linkages. Measuring in itself is not enough.
Another important lesson from Michael Barber’s delivery unit is that it is not just about reporting on certain measures but about the status that we give the measures. There needs to be a unit or other place where the measures are given focus and attention and where people are held to account.
The greatest weakness of the national performance framework is that we discuss it only at times such as this. When was the last time that a cabinet secretary made a statement about how their portfolio was performing against the national performance framework? Fin Carson is absolutely right that, if the national performance framework is to be relevant, we need to be able to see how an area such as the rural economy is performing against it. We cannot and do not do that. Until that happens, the national performance framework will be meaningless.
We move to the open debate. I remind members that we have some time in hand.
16:11
First, let me put on the record how much I value the potential of a national performance framework. If done right, it should be a bold, audacious, visionary and ambitious document, to which all our efforts aspire, even though we should be in the full knowledge that perfection can never be attained. However, it is fair to say that that is not where we are.
The convener and others have talked about purpose. The proposed wording has moved from including
“sustainable and inclusive economic growth”
to the somewhat bland
“To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future”.
If we were to put that wording to the test with a multitude of stakeholders, we would get a multitude of answers. There is perhaps merit in being all things to all people, but it does not exactly fill me with confidence.
I also share the concerns about the language and ambition around poverty. Making reducing poverty an objective might well be politically pragmatic, but it stops well short of the ambition that I believe that we should be showing—as encapsulated by the First Minister—to eradicate poverty.
We have heard a huge range of the committee’s views in the debate thus far, so I will limit my remarks to some points that intrigued me and which are, I hope, different from those that have already been made.
In an ideal world, we would all like to completely eradicate poverty, but does the member accept that, frankly, it is impossible to do so?
Of course I accept that, but I have tried to explain that we cannot give up at the first hurdle and simply say that we will just reduce it, because, frankly, that does not encapsulate boldness and ambition. We are setting not only the Government’s agenda but the country’s agenda. That is why I would happily keep us aligned with the UN SDGs and be ambitious. I hope that that answers the member’s question.
I want to make a few comments about the importance of democracy. We are looking with increased concern at proxy actors in our geopolitics and, closer to home, at attempts to influence our politics by unelected billionaires. In its submission, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland highlighted that the proposed national outcomes and the wider NPF do not include any references to the values of democracy and participation beyond the value of acting in an open and transparent way. It described that as a “major omission”.
Arguably, even a few months ago, we could not have imagined that we might need to make space, perhaps following the statement of purpose, to include wording along the lines of “At all times, we shall act to protect the values of democracy, such as free speech and the right of assembly, and ensure that our laws and justice system provide robust guarantees for a democratic society”, but perhaps that is where we are.
I also point out that, based on his recent research with Carnegie UK, Dr Max French noted in his submission to the joint committee consultation that
“We could not find a single case where the National Outcomes and Indicators were actively used (not just passively referenced/aligned to) in the design, appraisal or evaluation of a Scottish Government national policy or strategy.”
I would therefore like to ask the Government two questions. First, how is the NPF used to inform discussions in Cabinet and elsewhere in Government? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the NPF is always taken into account in policy decisions? It is only through the use of the NPF in informing decision making that its potential value might be realised, otherwise there is no point to it.
If the NPF is to enable effective policy decisions, it must be underpinned by effective data collection—I think that the cabinet secretary already knows that that is an interest of mine. An issue for the Scottish Government is that it neither holds nor controls all the data that it needs for proper policy development. Indeed, we need look only to our recent discussions about the two-child cap to see that.
The committee report also highlights concerns about the lack of disaggregated data from the equality impact assessment to enable a more gendered NPF and to interrogate the complexities of an intersectional approach. I am not proposing some new massive data-gathering industry, but I think that a move to utilising more open Government data would provide the basis for rapid acceleration of improvements, particularly when linked with artificial intelligence and technology. That is vital.
I note that the proposals for an updated NPF has “Equality and Human Rights” as one of its national outcomes. That seems to me to be inviting potential conflict, given that equality is a collective, society-wide outcome and could be set against individual-based human rights. As Professor Rowan Cruft observed in his time for reflection, human rights matter because they mean that
“the individual must not be sacrificed for the sake of society.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2024; c 1.]
That is another area that it would be beneficial to bear in mind.
16:17
I echo my colleague Craig Hoy’s thanks to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its work in compiling such an extensive report.
Mr Hoy has comprehensively covered many of the issues, as have many other members. As the committee’s report briefly touches on gender equality and justice, I will use my speech to talk about those two issues in more detail.
The report expresses disappointment that the outcome of the thematic gender review was not published early enough to be considered by committee witnesses. At the same time, the Scottish Women’s Budget Group criticised the proposed changes to the national outcomes as ineffectual.
The SNP Government claims that it wants to create a fairer and more just Scotland. However, in its almost 18 years of governance, it has been more focused on breaking up the United Kingdom than on delivering what the people of Scotland want.
I will now talk about some of the SNP’s greatest accomplishments—or, rather, failures. I have made it clear in the chamber many times that the protection of women and girls is of the utmost importance. The SNP Government’s human rights national outcome states:
“We stand together to challenge unfairness and our equalities legislation, law and practice are world leading. We uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and our justice systems are proportionate, fair and effective.”
The claim that Scotland’s equalities legislation is “world leading” is, at the very least, laughable. Three years ago, the SNP Government introduced the doomed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which, if enacted, would have put women and girls at risk. Two years ago, Scotland became the laughing stock of the world when a double rapist was initially sent to a women’s prison simply by declaring that he was a woman, something that the SNP Government said would never happen. That is the opposite of a “proportionate, fair and effective” justice system.
Speaking of the justice system, I note that police numbers have fallen while crime has risen. Police Scotland recorded almost 64,000 incidents of domestic abuse in a year, which is up 3 per cent from the year before. There are no national outcomes that focus directly on justice for victims and for wider society in relation to criminal behaviour; in fact, there is no national performance indicator that measures actual crime rates.
The SNP has failed when it comes to other national outcomes, such as on health, where accident and emergency waiting times are skyrocketing; on climate change, where the SNP has missed target after target; on education, where the attainment gap is constantly widening; and on many more issues that I do not have time to go through today.
I acknowledge the briefing that Age Scotland sent, which highlighted its disappointment at the fact that there is no new outcome focusing on older people.
Will the member give way?
I am just winding up.
As Age Scotland does great work in standing up for the most vulnerable, I hope that the Scottish Government takes that view into consideration.
I hope that the new year marks a new beginning for the SNP. However, if the past 18 years are anything to go on, not much will change.
16:21
Before today’s debate, a number of policy organisations wrote to us and were quite enthusiastic about the national performance framework and the review of the national outcomes. Oxfam welcomed the fact that a dedicated national outcome on care is to be included, and rightly so, and likewise with housing. Oxfam went on to say that not having care in the previous set of national outcomes was a major omission. That led me to wonder whether it would have made any difference to care and the provision of care in Scotland had care been included. My view is that it would not.
I was interested to hear the Deputy First Minister speak about the need for a more substantial programme of reform. I agree with that, but I do not think that the review of the national outcomes and the national performance framework will deliver the type of reform that we need across Scotland—far from it. From that point of view, and given the framework’s history over the years, I would describe it as a failure, because it has not improved public services across Scotland—far from it.
For seven years, I was a member of the Fife partnership and attended meetings every three months. Indeed, I chaired the Fife partnership for a number of years. Officers would come along and show us lines to the national outcomes and to the national indicators, and boxes would be ticked. Eventually, I thought, “This is a tick-box exercise that is not achieving much.” That is my view on the framework.
The member makes some valid points. Does he think that the NPF is trying to do too much and that there are too many outcomes? Does he agree that, if we had, say, three or four outcomes, that would be better and would have more impact?
Take, for example, the fact that housing has been included. If we are going to have such outcomes, housing should be included. However, I do not think that including housing in the framework will make much difference to the housing crisis. My office covers Mid Scotland and Fife, and we have hundreds of constituents contacting us every year. It is heartbreaking when we meet people and listen to their problems of homelessness, poor housing conditions and so on. We are not making progress; if anything, the situation is getting worse.
Who would disagree with the outcome on housing? It states:
“We live in safe, high-quality and affordable homes that meet our needs”.
It continues:
“We ensure that everyone has housing that is safe, secure, accessible and affordable. Homelessness and the causes of homelessness are addressed”,
and it goes on. All that is, in the end, is a kind of wish for how we would want things to be. If we actually want to tackle the housing crisis, we will have to do far more than come up with those nice words.
I am very interested in how we do that. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am suggesting that we reform the national performance framework itself, so that it leads to reform. I take on board the criticisms that have been made.
How we deliver big societal change, away from tick-box exercises, is a fascinating question. I spoke to representatives of the Welsh Government about what it has done, as it has tried to embed the UN sustainable development goals so that it reviews every policy change that it makes and every penny that it spends against the sustainable development goals.
I have never seen big societal change delivered as a result of a tick-box exercise. There is a big question here about how we corral everyone behind the big changes. Often, we do not need tick-box exercises; we just need to see what we need to achieve for the constituents Alex Rowley is talking about.
For housing, we need a far better partnership, with local government and central Government working together. We need a national house plan and 32 local delivery plans for how we are going to build the houses in each of the 32 local authorities. That partnership is about treating both levels of government as equals in coming together and working out, from a national strategy, how to deliver locally. Finance is clearly part of that, but so is planning and the acquisition of land—and therefore powers for local authorities. If people are to come together and work to achieve the outcome together, the Government needs to go much further than just words, using partnerships or ticking boxes.
The Deputy First Minister mentioned the Christie commission. I remember when John Swinney and Derek Mackay went round local authorities talking about Christie, the proposed framework and how we would deliver. We failed. Christie was clear that prevention was the way forward: we had to prevent people from getting to the point of being in hospital, and we needed to give people warm, secure homes. We failed on all of that, and prevention is something that we have not achieved.
We have had a lot of warm words and a lot of strategies, but we have actually had a lot of failure. If we are going to transform Scotland and drive it forward, we must go beyond warm words.
16:27
For me, the national performance framework has certainly made a positive impact since 2018. It is not perfect, but it has provided an overarching framework and focus on the national outcomes, reflecting our shared priorities and the international aspirations of the 17 sustainable development goals that are embedded in it. Together, they have been a north star at a time of challenge.
I recognise the points that have just been made by Alex Rowley, but—and this is meant not to make excuses but to provide a reason—let us not forget the context. We have had a period of austerity, with unexpected interruption from Brexit, the pandemic, the current situation with the war in Ukraine and the economic impact of UK Government decisions on the economy in recent times. I say that to provide context, as I think that that is important for how we move forward. I will say more about that in a minute.
The 11 national outcomes and 81 national indicators have given us a sense of where to aim for. Some members have said that they are nebulous and others have said that they are nice words, but they have provided a useful and, I think, effective map for stakeholders, civil servants, public bodies, local authorities and the Government itself. Public finance ministers have had to report every year on the Government’s progress towards the outcomes in the national performance framework.
The cabinet secretary has provided insight on the process that the Government will undertake in order to move forward. However, there is a question to consider, which I call the Leith Walk test. What would people say if I walked down into my constituency and when going past them I asked, “What do you think of the national performance framework?” There are quite a lot of civil servants that go up that way—[Laughter.]—but I am not sure that there would be much recognition unless I was lucky enough to bump into one of them.
I do not say that to diminish or undermine the work that is being done on the national performance framework but to provide background. When we build on the national performance framework and move forward to whatever comes next, the approach has to be about how we set shared goals that we all know and recognise.
What is the vision for Scotland for the next part of the 21st century? We are 25 years into devolution. Others have said this, but we have entered a period where we have moved beyond the 2014 referendum and what came before and after that. There is still political difference in this chamber and in wider society, but we have to get to a place where, when we discuss issues, we focus less on conflict and the negatives and more on the positives and what we share and agree on. What do we want to do, and how do we reach tangible and aspirational agreed positions, on which we are bound together beyond the election cycle?
I say that because a lot of the challenge that we have faced in recent times has been because we have a political culture that is habitually focused on how we win and get the better of one another. I have said for some time that we need to get into a different political space, particularly as the challenges are getting more and more acute. They include the reform that is needed in our public services, financial challenge and economic competitiveness and a geopolitical situation that is becoming increasingly challenging. The whole question of the ability of democracy to deliver for people is receiving more attention than it has throughout my lifetime.
This is an amazing opportunity for us all.
In this afternoon’s debate, a lot of us have been speaking as committee conveners. One of the things that my committee highlighted in its report was a lack of a shared understanding of the goals within the committees themselves. Mr Johnson also spoke about that. We allocate these Scrabble tiles but we do not actually have an understanding of the priorities.
The CEEAC Committee’s report talks about a feminist foreign policy, which touches on the issues that Ms Gosal was talking about and the promotion of human rights, which runs throughout the work of the Parliament in what we do globally. It also touches on climate justice, which Mr Mountain talked about, but I do not know whether the international understanding of climate justice—the large vision—is ever discussed in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Therefore, do you think that, as a Parliament, as well as politicians and parties, we have to examine how we deal with these issues, too?
Please always speak through the chair.
Clare Adamson has said that absolutely brilliantly and I could not disagree with anything that she put forward.
The issue gets to the heart of both the parliamentary and the public domain. We may disagree on the constitution, financial policy and taxation, and we may disagree on different issues of devolved policy. However, where are the shared pillars, anchors and agreed outcomes that we are determined to get to and that we know are right for all of Scotland? That is both the opportunity and the challenge as we take forward the national performance framework.
We move to the closing speeches. I call Daniel Johnson to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. You have around four minutes.
16:35
Yes, I am afraid that it is true that members will have to listen to me twice in this debate.
I will follow on directly from the last two speakers. Ben Macpherson is right: in these challenging times, we need to concentrate on substance, not personality. This debate goes to the very heart of that. Done right, this stuff could make a difference—but it does not, and that needs to be challenged. There has been some acknowledgement, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and diplomacy, that something is not quite right with the national performance framework.
Alex Rowley hit the nail on the head when he asked whether it would make a difference if something were to be included in the national performance framework or not and whether it will make a difference if housing is included. No one is disputing that housing should be included. It absolutely should be, because, as speakers have highlighted throughout the debate, if we do not have good housing, we are just going to make poverty worse. We are going to make it harder to meet our objectives, whether those are explicitly on the economy or even on healthcare. If we do not have secure housing, how are people ever going to access good healthcare?
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Mr Mason in a moment.
Will simply having a metric in the national performance framework make a difference to outcomes? It will not, because simply reporting on a figure—and, as we heard from Ariane Burgess, we do not even have those agreed measures in the NPF—will never make a difference. We need more than just a measure; we need a theory of change and to give prominence and importance to those measures.
I agree, to an extent, with what the member is saying, but given that there has been such a push to have reference to care and other issues added to the national outcomes, does he accept that it is clear that some people in the third sector and beyond think that it makes a difference to have such issues included in the national outcomes? It should probably make more difference, but it is making a difference.
It is absolutely correct to say that such matters are important, but will including them in the national outcomes make a difference? No, it will not. The issue is not what we measure. Mr Mason has made a number of interventions in which he has asked whether we need to reduce the number of outcomes. Is the NPF too complicated or is the list of outcomes too short? I say with respect to Mr Mason that that is the wrong question. The question is whether the national outcomes are given enough importance. Measuring things can make a difference when we attach sufficient prominence and importance to them.
We talk about waiting times in the health service. If there is a number that makes the Government flinch, it is that one. As well as its being given prominence, people understand what that number means. People understand that waiting times performance is not a perfect explainer of how good their healthcare is. Lots of other things are important, too, such as how good the quality is when people arrive at the point of treatment and how efficiently that treatment is provided and the expertise is deployed. However, waiting times are a good indicator of how well other parts of the system are performing.
If the Government is serious about this stuff, it needs to do two things. First, there needs to be a much greater focus on performance. Simply publishing a report once a year does not cut it. We need to get ministers in front of Parliament to report on performance against the indicators. Furthermore, there need to be meetings of groups within Government, so that they can understand how things work and hold people to account.
More importantly—this relates to what the Deputy First Minister said earlier—the NPF cannot simply be a collection of measures that tell people how things are. There has to be a theory of change embedded in them. They need to tell people not only how things are, but how things are changing. Right now, as I see it, there is nothing in the NPF on that, and there are too many fudges.
I absolutely agree with Mr Hoy that the NPF dances around the economy. Yes, I believe that things such as tackling poverty are fundamentally important, but unless we have a clear-eyed view of how our economy is performing—that it is helping people into better jobs, better wages and better work—we will never be able to deal with things such as poverty or homelessness. If we dance around those things rather than deal with them head on, we are very likely to make things worse, not better.
We need to attach a greater importance to this; we need people to be held accountable for it; we need measures that measure change; and we need the economy to be front and centre in the performance framework rather than skirted around.
I call Murdo Fraser to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:40
Like everybody else, I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for the work that it has done on its report, and I thank the convener for his opening statement. We have heard from a number of committee conveners, but none produce motions as excellent as those of the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, so I pay tribute to him for that. [Interruption.] Yes, what a sook I am, as somebody just said.
Two key issues underpin the debate. First, what is the purpose of the national performance framework, and are we asking the right questions? Secondly, how does the Scottish Government perform against the questions that it has set for itself? Throughout the debate, we have touched on those issues. It is fair to say, as my friend Craig Hoy said, that this is not the talk of the steamie—nor even of the Tweeddale Arms in Gifford, apparently—but a tool that is used by civil servants and others in the public sector.
Murdo Fraser has touched on a point that has not come up in the debate thus far. In our report, we had commentary on whom the NPF belongs to—the Scottish Government or all of Scotland. There is merit in both of those arguments. If all public sector agencies are aligned to the higher mission and values, that could work; however, that leaves a gap. Our report expressed that those agencies felt as though they were doing everything, and they were asking where the Government fits in. I would be interested in Murdo Fraser’s views on that.
That was an interesting intervention. If the NPF belongs to wider Scotland, we have to ask ourselves how much of wider Scotland is aware of its existence, far less has the opportunity to input. Ben Macpherson made some points on that.
In the previous session of the Parliament, I sat on a cross-party working group that looked at a refresh of the national performance framework. It was chaired by the then finance secretary, Derek Mackay. That discussion was dominated by sectoral interest groups from the third sector, who were all there to lobby for their particular interests. Derek Mackay and I found ourselves unlikely allies in trying to push back against some of that and keep the focus on what should be the core function of Government.
That leads me to the issue of the economy, which Daniel Johnson was talking about a moment ago. It is fundamentally important. I share the view that Craig Hoy and Michelle Thomson expressed, that there needs to be more of a focus on the economy when it comes to the national outcomes. Both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have talked about economic growth as a stated priority. However, there is no mention in the national outcomes of economic growth per se. Instead, the focus is on the wellbeing economy.
The economy is a very good area to focus on. Perhaps one of the issues over the years has been the eagerness to set targets, outcomes or elements of the national performance framework that the Scottish Government will never have it in its gift to deliver alone but will be a joint effort with others. If there was a mutual understanding of the responsibilities for and inputs to the economy and, between Westminster and Scotland, our targets for the economy, we would be more likely to get a meaningful outcome and the accountability that should go with that.
Keith Brown raises an interesting question. The economy is a shared competence between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. We, in Scotland, can try to measure the performance of the Scottish economy relative to that of the UK as a whole, but there will be areas that require both Governments to work together. There has been some of that—for example, in relation to city deals, levelling up and the green freeports agenda—but perhaps the area requires a bit more work.
I return to what I was saying about the economy. Michelle Thomson tried to explain what the term “wellbeing economy” means. With respect to her, I have yet to hear a clear definition. Until we have that understanding, we will never be clear about the purpose of economic growth and how it sits within the national performance framework. I am firmly of the view that economic growth is important and is a good in itself, and that creating wealth is a good in itself. That is how we help to eradicate poverty and spread wealth through society. It is disappointing that what should be a key objective of a Government—to drive economic growth—is not covered in the national outcomes. In its report, the committee highlights the fact that many consultation submissions raised concern regarding the omission of explicit references to economic growth.
The committee also called for an effective implementation plan for the national outcomes. If the NPF is to be more than a box-ticking exercise, we need to see a plan for delivery. Those criticisms are not new, having been raised back in 2022. The Government says that it will provide such a plan, but we still have not seen it.
My final point on the first question, about how the framework is drawn up, is about what is not measured. Where, for example, is the measure of efficient use of public resources in Government? Where is the measure of a target for efficiency savings in Government departments? That is commonplace in the private sector, but we do not see it in the public sector.
Am I okay for time, Deputy Presiding Officer?
I think that another minute would be in order.
That would be fine, thank you. I will try to say what I have to say in another minute.
I will touch briefly on the second question, which is that of performance. There are 81 national indicators; however, as Craig Hoy said, only 61 are actually measurable. As of last year, there was no data available for 11 of those, despite their having been agreed as part of the previous review, in 2018. We cannot measure progress if we do not have the data. Of the 61 indicators, fewer than half show performance improving, and 11 even show worsening outcomes. Three out of eight indicators are worsening in both the fair work and business and health categories, and four out of nine education indicators have no data available.
What this report therefore tells us is that the Government is simply failing either to deliver on its national outcomes or to demonstrate that it is making any serious effort to do so. There are weaknesses here. Is the national performance framework a useful tool? It may be—frankly, the jury is still out on that. However, if we accept that it exists and that it has a purpose, the Government has to do much more to demonstrate that it is trying to meet the very objectives that it has set itself.
16:47
I will address a number of points that members made in the debate, but I will first repeat some of the points that I made in my opening speech, for fear that they may have got lost in some of the other comments.
Over the next year, we propose to start again with the national performance framework—in other words, to look again at every aspect of it in order to develop and implement a stronger and more strategic and impactful framework for Scotland. I appreciate that some people may respond to the word “reform” with impatience. There will be stakeholders and users who were expecting a revised framework to be in place soon after the inquiry, but there are positives and opportunities in our approach, particularly if we take on board all the comments that have been made in the chamber this afternoon. There is an opportunity to really listen to those comments, act on the evidence and set things up well for the longer term. My opinion is that the status quo, or business as usual, is now not an option, and I think that that reflects what has been said across the chamber this afternoon.
It appears that most people agree that the national performance framework and national outcomes aim to set out the kind of country that we want Scotland to be. That is largely because they are based on the United Nations sustainable development goals. I am unsure as to whether people in Craig Hoy’s local pub would be familiar with the UN sustainable development goals. However, it is about Governments taking those northern lights, as it were, and trying to set a framework around them, which is what we are seeking to do. We want it to be a framework for all of Scotland, albeit that it may not be instantly recognised across Scotland.
We recognise that Government needs to lead on that work, but we are committing this afternoon to properly reviewing the national performance framework for the longer term, for all the reasons that have been set out, and working with Parliament to ensure that we set out some clear goals that we can base Scotland’s progress on.
I turn to members’ specific points. On whether the economy should be identified more clearly, I think that it should—it is in my job title that I am cabinet secretary for the economy. Economic growth has been identified as one of the First Minister’s four priorities. The review happened as I went on maternity leave and some of the changes happened when I was out of government, but there is absolutely no doubt that John Swinney’s Government believes in economic growth, and economic growth for a purpose. That prosperity needs to be shared as fairly as possible, which is why I have some sympathy with Daniel Johnson, who set out why economic growth per head of population is a good measure.
Michelle Thomson asked a number of questions about the extent to which the national performance framework informs discussions in Cabinet, its actual use, and how we collect data. Those are good questions to start our conversation on what should replace the national performance framework and how we can embed the UN sustainable development goals so that they become a useful tool and a useful aim.
Pam Gosal set out some objectives that we should be very serious about addressing, and tackling gender inequality and domestic abuse are obvious examples of those. People across the country have lived experience of those things, and there are questions about justice. At the end of the day, irrespective of which shiny framework we have to measure our progress, we have to listen to those whose experience is anything but fair or just.
On Alex Rowley’s point, I believe that the biggest societal changes have not come out of tick-box exercises. Transformation has come from a focus on delivering the change that we need in partnership with people and through treating people as equals. It is a lot easier to do that if we have a framework that everyone can get behind, because the framework identifies where the money should be spent and the most effective policies for delivering it. If there is anything that we need to hear more of in Scotland, it is frank, open debate in civic Scotland—that is, outside Parliament—on the big policy changes that will make the biggest impacts.
I am afraid that I do not know how much time I have left. I will calculate it quickly. I had six minutes, so I have 45 seconds left.
Ben Macpherson’s point hit the nail on its head. He identified that what leads to long-term change is having a number of shared outcomes that we can all get behind. When I sat on the sustainable growth commission a number of years ago, it came through loud and clear from comparable countries that had delivered the biggest change, particularly related to economic prosperity, that they had looked at a period of 25 years. That meant that, irrespective of who was in government, there was a shared perspective on what would lead to the biggest change, and stakeholders could rely on the Government to deliver those changes irrespective of who was in it. Ben Macpherson was absolutely right, and he identified precisely why. We need a framework and clear goals to get behind, and that is what we propose to have.
I invite Michael Marra to wind up the debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
16:53
I am pleased to close the debate as the deputy convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I thank members for their participation and our outstanding clerking team for their preparation of the report.
The sense that I got from colleagues was that if we are to have a framework, we should know how we can we make it work better. The Deputy First Minister set out in her opening and closing remarks that she intends to start again with the process. I hope that she takes note of the many observations and of the evidence that the committee has taken in recent months, and that she intends to take into account the contributions that colleagues have made today.
I will outline a bit of that evidence and then reflect on some of the debate that we have heard.
As part of our investigation, the committee heard from the Scottish Government and said that we would welcome the commitment to produce what was to be an implementation plan—I am not exactly clear on the status of that plan, given the Deputy First Minister’s pledge to “start again”. However, the idea of marrying the national outcomes with a clear path to implementation was very much part of the committee’s considerations, and I hope that the Government will take that on board.
In the evidence that we received were insights into what the implementation plan could look like. There were some suggestions about the use of clear, time-bound targets and indicators for each national outcome, a strong communication strategy to ensure that outcomes are more widely known, and a clear outline of how the outcomes both support and are in tension with each other—a suggestion that came through in much of the evidence. We have urged the Scottish Government to reflect those recommendations as clearly as it can.
We also heard much—as has been reflected in the debate—about the use of data gathered from the national indicators, and how they might be used both to assess past performance and to inform future decision making. We have therefore recommended that the plan set out how data should be used to inform decision making as that will be absolutely critical if that kind of tool is to work.
A significant amount of the evidence that we received reflected on whether the national performance framework was clearly visible in the decision-making processes undertaken by the Government. There is a concern, which was reflected in many of the contributions today, that its visibility has reduced in the Government’s work—for instance, in the interaction and relationship between the national outcomes and the four key priorities identified by the First Minister. I detect a great amount of tension there, which was also outlined by the Deputy First Minister.
Witnesses described the Scottish Government’s commitment to this kind of tool as being “patchy” and “mixed”, and they raised concerns about the prominence of the framework and how that had declined since 2007.
It is clear from the debate that visibility is important, from Ben Macpherson bravely raising the national performance framework with people on Leith Walk when they are on their way home from a hard day at work to Craig Hoy raising it in the pub. I can assure Craig Hoy that in the Tay Bridge Bar in Dundee we speak of little else.
There is a real challenge as to whether we see the framework as a vehicle for change or a tool that can be used. The Deputy First Minister is keen to say that that kind of tool should set out the kind of country that we want Scotland to be. The issue of broad unanimity and the idea of a shared aspiration that we can discipline Government on, and on which we can share priorities across political lines, is perhaps the fault line that underpins much of these issues.
It is right to raise in this context the, I think, frankly much-abused Christie commission report, because that probably talks to a point at which there was a form of political unanimity about breaking silos by making sure that we put outcomes above inputs. On that basis, it is clear that if this was the tool that was meant to allow us to achieve that, it has not worked. When members raised issues about measurement, they were absolutely clear on that.
Daniel Johnson was right to set out the tougher measures of gross domestic product per head and the Gini coefficients and the ways by which we understand whether progress is being made. In recent work in Estonia, the Finance and Public Administration Committee was introduced to something called the tree of truth. If I am honest, that might be open to a bit of scorn in Scotland as to how it is presented, but it is a tool that tries to do much of what we are debating here, which is to try to understand whether the public feel that progress is being made. I commend it to the Deputy First Minister as an example of a tool that could be used in that regard.
The core issue in the debate is the distance between political intent and organisational principle. In essence, is what we are talking about where we want to go or how we want to get there? I understand the Deputy First Minister describing how we want to use such a tool to discipline Government and the civil service to focus them on collective aims, but Alex Rowley was very clear that the operation of such a tool in Fife was a box-ticking exercise, which is literally what it became. It had no real impact on the lives of the people in Fife whom he has served for decades. That should be a concern to anybody developing a new tool in this space. We should not allow it to become more of that.
Michelle Thomson talked eloquently about whether we are setting an ambition and where we are headed together; other members used the phrase “north star”. There is a question as to whether the journey and the direction are as important as what might be achieved if we are never to reach a final shared destination, and that was very well put.
Crucially, Michelle Thomson’s contribution also touched on what we might have thought of, just a few years or even months ago, as unalienable and self-evident truths about what is solid and reasonable, whether it is democracy or security in Europe. When all that is solid melts into air, we face significant problems, and the tool of the national performance framework alone is perhaps not going to help us to reach our destination.
That concludes the debate on the national performance framework—review of national outcomes.
Air ais
Secure Accommodation CapacityAir adhart
Business Motion