Seòmar agus comataidhean

Definitely not. The problem is that, all too often, when the national performance framework is referenced, you just see that diagram, but it is about the numbers. In this day and age, we have all seen wonderful infographics that bring data to life. However, my humble suggestion is that this data is not being brought to life.

As a follow-up to that, should we be putting these things into much plainer language?

I also have a substantive question. Another observation has been that, frankly, the framework is not used as much as it was when it was first conceived of in 2007. Critically, one of the other observations that I found interesting was that it was part and parcel of the concordat—

Exactly.

Lots of issues go with that, but do you agree with that point? If so, what have we lost along the way? If you wanted to revitalise the national performance framework, what would you revive from what was done 15 years ago? Should it be put into plainer language? Are there lessons that we learned back then that we have forgotten?

I will put two broad questions. One point that comes across loud and clear is, as Tim Kendrick has suggested, it is all a bit motherhood and apple pie—no one disagrees that any of these things are good things. Perhaps we need to ask how the framework can be influenced. If we are going to change the framework, is there a strategy that needs to layer on it so that agencies and ministers can seek to engage and contribute towards the strategies, so that the outcomes are a bit narrower? Structurally, does that need to happen? Do we need a point of view on the outcomes? How are the outcomes influenced and how can people contribute towards them?

My other point relates to what Mirren Kelly said about greater clarity on contribution. A suggestion that came up in previous evidence sessions was that, in essence, the framework needs to be embedded by agreement with individual agencies, so that there is a bit of clarity. That is not so much about particular outcomes being one person’s responsibility but, where public money is being handed out, there should be an agreement on how a contribution will be made to national outcomes.

Should there be a point of view and a change in structure, and should there be specific agreements on the contribution towards the national performance framework between Government and agencies?

I begin by reassuring Tim Kendrick about children’s perceptions of what we do. Last night, my daughter said to me, “Oh, daddy, I think you’re really good at your job,” and I was delighted. I asked, “Why do you think that is?” and she said, “I don’t really know because, whenever I listen to anything you have to say in Parliament, I find it too boring to listen to for very long.” I went from elation to deflation in a very short period.

I will move on to some substantive questions. John Mason touched on the point that has been raised by a number of people, both in writing and in person that, in essence, the national performance framework is being used in an implicit way and almost sits behind things as a set of values rather than anything else. I want to ask a less technical and perhaps blunter question than some of our more formal questions. Do you find the national performance framework useful and do you use it day to day? If so, how? If you do not use it daily, do you actively use it when you are framing policies, or is it just something that you refer to when you are engaging with the Scottish Government?

That is absolutely fine. Those points are useful.

Mirren, do have anything to add, or do you broadly agree?

I like that phrase “radical decluttering”. It sounds like what I am constantly being told to do at home.

I am very interested in the conversation so far. I will pick up on a couple of points.

Structure seems to be the thread that runs through the conversation at a number of different levels. Dr Ian Elliott talked about the national performance framework originally being a decision-making tool. The outcomes are relatively straightforward to understand. However, when you come to the indicators, you are suddenly landed with a sea of bullet points and it is difficult to see intuitively what they are trying to tell you or even whether it is one thing or a number of different things.

I looked at the indicator on children’s happiness. It turns out that that is just one survey that manages four quite narrow metrics, which are valuable but do not necessarily entirely encompass what we would all understand to be children’s happiness.

Is one of the problems the structure of the NPF, in that we have good high-level outcomes with an asymmetrical set of indicators that sit below them and it is not intuitively easy to understand what any of them tells us? In other words, is the NPF as it is currently structured too difficult to use?

I ask for a clarification. You talked about making things more accessible. There also seems to be a point about interpretation. Are you saying that, both at Government-wide level and individual directorate or agency level, there needs to be an interpretation of how outcomes are going to be influenced? It strikes me that two people will have completely different ideas on what would impact on outcomes and, unless there is a stated view in that regard, there will be no consensus. Is that a fair interpretation of what you said?

Okay. I could ask more questions, but I do not want to use up more time.

I would be grateful if somebody could write to the committee to clarify a couple of things. A number of boards and management groups have been mentioned; it would be good to get some documentation on how they interrelate and how the governance works.

Secondly, if the agile methodology was used, I would be grateful for an explanation as to why, because it strikes me that the project had a clear functional footprint, so I wonder whether the agile methodology was at all appropriate for delivering a website project such as this one.