Seòmar agus comataidhean

I believe that Douglas Lumsden has an additional question.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. I will begin by asking a couple of questions before opening up the discussion to colleagues.

Overall, I think that it is a very useful report. It is quite refreshing to see a report that makes proactive suggestions in a relatively concise manner. I thank you for that. It struck me, when reading it, that it reflects a half-full version of the world, as opposed to a half-empty one, in that it talks about what could happen and how your organisations could contribute more. However, I wonder whether you should be having to think about those things, given that the national performance framework is a creature of Government that has set out how it wants to measure itself, with policy being guided by it. The fact that you are suggests that it is not doing that, especially given that your organisations are largely fulfilling functions of Government through various mechanisms, including contractual mechanisms. It suggests that the Government is not using the national performance framework as a means of conducting that engagement and as a yardstick for its interactions with your members and the organisations that you work with. Is that a fair assessment?

Ms Henderson, do you have anything to add?

I do not believe that any members have any further questions, so I will ask one final question myself. I have listened with interest and reflected a little bit on some of the things that were raised by both John Mason and Douglas Lumsden about the structure of the performance framework. I think that John’s observation is that the first level is very broad, but when you step into it, you get into a very micro level very quickly. When you look at the individual indicators, you see that a lot of them are not just one measurement but several different measurements. They are presented in words and—thinking about what Douglas Lumsden was saying—they are largely outputs rather than inputs.

First, does there need to be more focus, particularly with interactions? It may be obvious where indicators are relevant for Anna Fowlie’s members, but there are very many different indicators that Registers of Scotland, for example, could touch on. It would not necessarily be helpful for an organisation such as Registers of Scotland to look at all of them all at once, so do we need almost to task individual organisations or bits of the Government with looking at particular measures and almost give them a mission?

Thinking about the inputs and outputs perspective, I wonder whether, rather than just thinking about outcomes, we need to think about how we measure change. I wonder whether there needs to be a focus on identifying measures that will change other things, or at least on having a prospectus that says, “We believe that we can change this area by doing X or Y.” For example, in health and wellbeing, it would be about measuring exercise or even the consumption of fruit and vegetables, because those are inputs that will result in the output.

Are those two thoughts ones that your group might consider or regard as welcome?

Yes. I guess that another analogy would be measuring acceleration rather than speed—one is a dynamic measure and one is static.

I have a question from Michelle Thomson, who is travelling, which is why I am relaying it to you. She asks:

“Why has the Scottish Government not mandated all organisations to state exactly how all organisational plans align to the NPF and where possible that funding settlements are predicated on that? Surely this would change behaviours.”

Thank you, and with that, unless there are any other questions, I draw the evidence session to a close. Can I thank both Anna Fowlie and Jennifer Henderson hugely for their contribution? I think that it has been a very interesting discussion and there have been a number of themes and issues that we have alighted on that we will certainly follow up in our own inquiry work on the national performance framework. Thank you very much for your contributions.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. The next item, which will be discussed in private, is consideration of our work programme. We now move into private session.

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I am afraid that I must relay the convener’s apologies. In his place, I will be chairing the committee meeting. I welcome Dr Alasdair Allan, who is attending remotely in place of the convener. Michelle Thomson is also joining us remotely.

The first item on our agenda is evidence from two members of the Scottish Leaders Forum’s accountability and incentives action group in relation to their recent report on the national performance framework. This is incredibly timely for our committee, given that we are embarking on an inquiry into the same matter.

I welcome to this morning’s meeting Jennifer Henderson, the keeper and chief executive of the Registers of Scotland, and Anna Fowlie, the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. Both are here in their capacity as participants in the Scottish Leaders Forum’s accountability and incentives action group—which is a very pithy and succinct title, if I might say so. I welcome you both to the meeting and invite Ms Henderson to make a short opening statement.

The point about measurability is very important. I believe that colleagues will come back on that.

I now hand over to John Mason.

I will delve into that a bit more. One of the reasons why we do not invoke the national performance framework in Parliament that much is that it is not referred to very often in the guidance that is set out by ministers, in the legislation when bodies are brought into being or, indeed, in the regular reporting by way of ministerial statements or the budget. Although I accept your point that the Parliament could use it, it is ultimately the Government that has set the framework and that invokes it. It is less likely that the rest of us will use it voluntarily. Do you agree with that assessment?

I have a final question. I take the broad view that, if things are useful, they get used. If, as you are saying, the national performance framework is not being used as much as it could be used, is that a reflection of the content of the framework? Does there need to be a re-examination of whether those are the right measures providing the right insights? If the framework was useful and insightful, surely your colleagues and our colleagues in the Parliament would be using it much more.