Seòmar agus comataidhean

After the last review in 2018, all the time-limited purpose targets were removed, as continuous improvement is the goal. If we look at the indicators, we can see exactly why that is the case. Do all 81 indicators have milestones to help track improvements?

Thank you for that opening statement. In time-honoured fashion, I will ask some opening questions before members of the committee join in with their questions.

You said in your statement that outcome budgeting is about allocating resources based on the outcomes achieved for people. Has the national performance framework helped to deliver that? If so, will you give us a couple of examples?

In response to Tess White, you talked about audit, statutory reporting and parliamentary scrutiny all playing a role along with the national performance framework in assessing the success of Government policies. Where does the NPF fit in that landscape? For example, is it weighted relative to those other areas? How does the Government decide on that?

Of the 81 indicators, performance is improving in 17, maintaining in 42 and worsening in 11, while there are four in which performance has still to be confirmed and others that are in development. We appreciate that the situation is evolving.

With regard to the indicators in which performance is worsening, some seem fairly obvious, given the effects of Covid, and include places to interact, social capital and economic growth. However, with others, it is hard to see why things are worsening. In the fair work and business section, for example, we see a decline in the number of high-growth and innovative businesses and in the employee voice, although I should say that four of those indicators—economic participation, employees receiving the living wage, the pay gap and gender balance—have improved. Why have three indicators worsened, and how is the Scottish Government responding to that situation?

I just have a final question, as I know that colleagues are keen to come in.

There are the 81 indicators, but there are also the 11 national outcomes, which are exactly that—national. As a result, when we look at the indicators where performance is improving, maintaining or worsening, we are actually looking at a national picture. How do we assess what is happening in different parts of Scotland through the national performance framework? In some areas where performance is maintaining, there might be parts of the country in which the situation is improving consistently while in others it is deteriorating. If the indicator just says maintaining, that could mask a huge differential across the country. Obviously we cannot have thousands of different indicators, because that would be ridiculous. How does the Government look beyond the figures of worsening, improving or maintaining to find out what is within the body of the kirk?

Thank you. I am now going to open up the meeting to colleagues, and the first questions will be from the deputy convener, Daniel Johnson, to be followed by Michelle Thomson.

The national performance framework has existed for 14 years. When it was created, it was considered to be world leading. Is Scotland a better place because of it and, if so, how? Will you evaluate that?

We shall end on that positive note. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for coming along and I thank the Deputy First Minister in particular for his expansive contributions and responses to questions.

I am especially pleased to have had the witnesses in the committee room in person. We have found that having witnesses in the room greatly improves our interaction with them. Today’s witnesses have greatly improved our understanding of the workings of the national performance framework.

Thank you.

Under item 2, we will take evidence on the national performance framework. We are joined by John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, who is no stranger to the finance committee, having attended myriad meetings of our predecessor committees over many years. He is accompanied by his officials from the Scottish Government: Barry Stalker, the head of the national performance framework unit; and Tim Ellis, the deputy director of the performance and outcomes division. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting.

Members have received a briefing paper from the clerks. I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for the session. Before we move to questions from the committee, I invite Mr Swinney to make a short opening statement, should he wish to do so.