Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not share your assessment of the national strategy for economic transformation, convener. I am happy to debate it and, if the committee reaches such a conclusion on some of the issues, ministers will reflect on that. The national strategy for economic transformation sets out an approach to economic development that is inextricably linked to the three themes that I mentioned in my last answer to you: Covid recovery, the eradication of child poverty and the achievement of net zero, all of which are embedded in the national performance framework.

If we are judging some of the questions by the degree to which we structure a strategy document, for example, to align with the contents of the national performance framework, you might have a point. However, the thinking in the national strategy is non-compartmentalised, collaborative and about engaging the various sectors of society in contributing towards the common goals, which are reflected at the heart of national performance by the purpose of the framework, which is to focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing and sustainable and inclusive economic growth.

There might be an argument for some of the description and presentation of that to be more explicit. We could certainly consider that.

Your point about titles and terminology is reasonable, convener. I will take that away and reflect on it. If I had to give my preference today between “ambitions for Scotland” and “the national wellbeing framework”, you would not be surprised to hear that I agree with you that “ambitions for Scotland” sounds a bit more uplifting. There is a fair point to be explored there.

On the question of decluttering, you make a fair point, convener. As time goes on, new policy initiatives are introduced and there are moments when we have to take stock and simplify some of those exercises. We will look to do that as part of the work on the national performance framework, so that it becomes ever more meaningful to people and organisations.

We do not need to build public awareness of the national performance framework; we need to build awareness of the effect of the national performance framework—that is what matters. What is important is the difference that it makes to people’s experiences of public services and the workings of various organisations. The question is what difference it makes in their lives, as opposed to whether they can answer 20 questions about the national performance framework. There is an opportunity for us to make that more meaningful and impactful. We will reflect on that as part of the process.

Every effort is made to ensure that best practice is shared across the community of governance in Scotland, if I can put it that way. The Improvement Service focuses extensively on that work. We undertake many activities through social investment partnerships, for example, which explore new ways in which we can support some of our more vulnerable population and support individuals into activity. We are sharing that best practice across a range of different organisations.

The challenge is to ensure that there is an appropriate platform to enable that to be undertaken. I would express some frustration that while good and innovative elements of practice can be taken forward in some parts of the country, it takes a long time for them to reach all parts of the country. That is unsatisfactory. However, the national performance framework gives us an opportunity to try to enable more organisations and individuals to see where that best practice lies and how they can learn from it.

Michelle Thomson raises an interesting point. She mentioned the requirement that the 2015 act placed on public bodies to “have regard to” the national outcomes. The phrase “must have regard to” could be replaced by “must be aligned with”, which would place a much higher level of obligation on public authorities.

Ms Thomson makes an interesting point about measures that could be introduced that might not align with the policy direction that we wish to take. The Scottish Government has made absolutely clear to the UK Government our frustration and dissatisfaction with the arrangements that have been put in place on, for example, the shared prosperity fund. In our view, it does not provide a satisfactory opportunity for us to ensure that that expenditure—which, before the new arrangements, would have been aligned with the direction of policy travel in Scotland—will be so aligned in the future. I think that that makes no sense and that it is a foolish route for the UK Government to take, and we have said that to the UK Government, but it is proceeding with its arrangements.

Michelle Thomson raises an issue that the Government could consider, in order to provide a greater opportunity to align that expenditure with the prevailing direction of policy travel. We are talking about achieving the national outcomes, on which we are going through a democratic consultative process. That may provide a better route to achieving some of those objectives. It is an interesting suggestion.

I do not think that the terminology of the 2015 act, as it stands, puts such an obligation on organisations, but it might be able to be made to do so in the future.

There are two elements to that question, the first of which relates to the choices that are made about the alignment of spending with the achievement of outcomes. I could go through endless examples of where that is difficult but, as a general theme, there is a substantive challenge to allocate public expenditure to measures that are designed to be preventative as opposed to being reactive to events.

There are many examples of that. We could take a sum of money and have a judgment about whether we deploy that on reactive services, such as the provision of some degree of healthcare that picks up the consequences of illness, or whether we spend that money on encouraging a much greater engagement in things such as healthy living, exercise and active travel which, although they are longer-term investments, will be much more significant and impactful in improving the general health of the population.

The challenge in that example is that, if there is an immediate need of emergency or critical intervention, it is difficult not to fund that at the same time as trying to encourage the preventative interventions. More and more of our funding decisions are being aligned to preventative interventions, but that does not take away the need for emergency and critical interventions as well. That debate or dilemma is an ever-present one with which we have to wrestle, but that probably best sums up the challenge in how we shift spending in a direction that is more supportive of the achievement of national outcomes than the current position is. That is probably the best way to express some of those challenges.

The second aspect of the question relates very much to the effectiveness of public expenditure, how we are able to measure that and what, as a whole, are the central indicators for making a good judgment about the health, wellbeing and vitality of our society. Certainly, over the 15 years for which I have been a minister, the debate has changed from being, in 2007, a discussion that was, frankly, very much focused on GDP growth to a much broader range of considerations. That reflects part of what the convener said in his questions to me.

Similarly, the national performance framework has to reflect that. It is broadly based. In no way could we say that the national outcomes are all about GDP. They are not. They involve a broader range of factors, and that has to be reflected.

The wording of the purpose has been revised. The wording in the 2007 version, if my memory serves me rightly—and I know that we corrected it—was

“to focus ... on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all ... to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.”

The wording has broadened in the intervening years. We need to continue to consider that point as we review the framework, and it is important that we take people with us, because there will be voices from within our society that say that it is too broad and needs to have a harder, sharper edge—for example, around GDP.

I come at these arguments from the point of view that economic opportunity is fundamental to the health and wellbeing of our society because, if people do not have economic opportunity, they cannot support those whom they love. Economic opportunity is therefore relevant right across the spectrum of Scottish society. However, I also recognise that just having a job will not necessarily meet the needs and requirements of everybody in society. The range of considerations has to be broader.

It is impossible to break things down in that fashion. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is exclusively responsible for open-heart surgery—nobody else is responsible for that—but its actions are also relevant and significant to the general health and wellbeing of individuals who might end up needing open-heart surgery in a number of years’ time, because of what the health board can do on healthy living, nutrition advice and support to communities through projects that alleviate poverty, which is such a driver of poor health in our society.

Some organisations have exclusive responsibility for certain things, but they always make a general contribution. It is essential that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde can undertake open-heart surgery, but it is equally important that it contributes to the wider health and wellbeing of our population.

That may well be a reasonable point to consider. The committee has heard that evidence, and such a suggestion may well come out of the exercise that the Government undertakes to review the framework.

There are 11 national outcomes, and there will always be scope for people to say, “Ah, but.” We must consider to what extent the “Ah, but” comments merit changing the framework. We should be open to challenge on that question.

We were all addicts of Public Health Scotland, believe you me. An important point comes out of that: it was absolutely the focus for a certain amount of time, because Covid was the overwhelming issue. That tells us that although we might sometimes think, “Oh my goodness—people don’t want to plough through all this data”, the experience of Covid was that people wanted to plough through the data, because they wanted to know where we were heading. That is the crucial question: where are we heading?

We have to learn a lesson from that as we look at the material on the outcomes from the NPF. I have certainly been part of discussions in which we have wrestled with the question of data presentation in the national performance framework and have taken the view that, “We can’t present all that complex data, because people will never plough their way through it.” However, the example that Mr Johnson puts to me completely refutes that, because the data mattered. We have to find a way of making sure that we identify the data that matters.

We have had various attempts at that—performance maintaining, performance worsening or performance improving—and there are vast data sets sitting underneath that. However, it is a fair point for us to explore whether there is a collection of data sets that really tell the story of whether we are progressing. Some of those data sets are to hand. I am mindful that colleagues would not look at GDP and say, “Well, that’s it,”—they know that it is one of a number of data sets. There are several data sets that I look at all the time that make me think, “Are things moving in the right direction at this particular time? What I am troubled about?”

We look at those data sets on a constant basis. However, perhaps we need to draw them out, label them officially and have them endorsed by Public Health Scotland—then everyone would look at them.

The question that it raises in my mind is whether the local outcome agreements genuinely contribute towards the expected outcomes of the NPF. In theory, I understand Fife Council’s point, but I have a question in my mind as to whether that is all as closely aligned as is being expressed.