Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is interesting.

A number of people said that one of the difficulties with the national performance framework for the wider population—most of whom, I believe, will probably not even have heard of it—is its remarkably dull name. The title “national performance framework” brings to mind the national planning framework, which has the same acronym—NPF. People have suggested calling it the national wellbeing framework, although “ambitions for Scotland” sounds like a better title to me.

If the framework is going to be reviewed, could the title be reviewed? Could it be something that people feel has a bit more vitality? Somebody said last week the one way to ensure that a document is not read is to put the words “framework” and “performance” in the title. That was not a flippant comment; it was a serious comment about trying to ensure that we get buy-in from more people. I ask the Deputy First Minister to take that issue away and consider it as we review the framework. The Parliament is much more enthusiastic about, and has much more knowledge of, wellbeing—as do the public—than the two-dimensional gross domestic product measure that we used to use in the past. The framework talks about that.

I have one final question to cover a couple of issues that some of our witnesses really struggled with, about how we use the national performance framework—or whatever they call it in future—to declutter the public sector landscape and to share best practice. There is a plethora of documents and it seems that whenever the Government wants to do something new, it brings out an additional document rather than replacing existing documents and strategies.

I asked one of our witnesses directly about best practice and how they share it and they talked about sharing it internally. What I was clearly asking about was how they share best practice with other organisations. For example, if a local authority has an excellent way of working and is delivering on poverty outcomes, how can that be shared with other local authorities? One would assume that would happen through COSLA, but it does not seem to be working in the way that it should.

How we can use the NPF to underpin those aims of decluttering and sharing best practice?

Andrea, do you have anything to add to that?

Thank you. The session has overrun, and I realise that members have itchy feet and have other things to do. For example, John Mason, Michelle Thomson and I have another meeting that started a minute ago. We will therefore conclude the meeting and consider our work programme next week, if members agree to do so.

I thank Andrea Glass and Chris Brodie for the comprehensive evidence that they have given. There are still a few issues that we might want to touch on, so we will probably be in touch with them on those.

That is a fair point, but a number of organisations and people, including me, are goal and task driven, and one person or organisation might have a completely different idea of what continuous improvement means from another person or organisation. That comes back to delivery of the NPF being patchy, which is why I mentioned milestones. Is there a way in which we can, as it were, square the circle of the two philosophies so that we optimise the response that we receive for delivery of the NPF?

The next item is to take evidence from Skills Development Scotland on the trends behind the income tax forecasts. The session follows on from issues raised during our 2022-23 budget scrutiny. It also sets the scene for our pre-budget scrutiny this year, which will be informed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s next forecasts, which are to be published later today.

I welcome to the committee meeting Chris Brodie, director of regional skills planning and sector development, and Andrea Glass, head of regions and enabling sectors. I understand that Mr Brodie would like to make a short opening statement.

Thank you very much for that. I will start with some questions and then we will go round the table.

“Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation” was published on 1 March and includes what have been described as

“five bold new policy programmes of action”.

Those include creating an entrepreneurial nation, developing new markets and industries, enhancing productivity and innovation, skills growth, and delivering high rates of employment and wage growth. In the three months since that was published, what changes, if any, has Skills Development Scotland made to its approach in order to take on board those priorities?

There were two parts to the question. It was quite an extensive question, so I apologise for that. The other part was about part-time working. What is the situation with the proportion of people who are working part time? What is happening with regard to the geographic balance? I represent a constituency in North Ayrshire where the market is not particularly hot, relative to, for example, Edinburgh. I and other colleagues from the west of Scotland have concerns that there is an east-west divide in Scotland. There might be a north-south divide in England, but it is more of an east-west divide in Scotland. How do we address those specific challenges? We can talk about percentages for Scotland, but there are marked differences between different parts of the country, as I am sure you are aware.

The point that you make is important. The phrase “golden thread” ran through a number of submissions and was raised in oral evidence. At the workshop that we held in Dundee and from talking to Government officials and witnesses across the board, I found that there is strong backing for the national performance framework and what it is trying to achieve but there is an issue with how patchy the Government’s response can be to the way that it sets its own outcomes.

That failure to align budgets to outcomes has caused an element of frustration, which came out last week. Organisations that take the NPF seriously feel that, although they are following it, there is no real reward for aligning themselves closely with it. There is also no backlash for other organisations that are more loosely aligned with the NPF. The Government does not take that into account either. It is almost as though the Government has set the outcomes and then allowed people more or less to get on with it without any real focus on what we can do from a financial perspective to encourage more people into pursuing them. That is why we have a patchy situation across Scotland, which none of us wants. People want best practice to be followed everywhere.

How can we tighten that up a wee bit? A number of witnesses have given evidence to suggest that Government departments do not always mention the national performance framework in their own documents when they set out objectives. That makes some organisations feel that the Government is not as focused on the NPF as it says that it is or as it should be. How will the Government address those issues?

Indeed.