Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I come back to the word “patchy”, which the convener put to me at the start of the session. I would be stunned if the Wise Group found itself at odds with the national performance framework or the need to refer to the NPF. I have known the Wise Group well for about 25 or 30 years; its thinking, ethos, outlook, perspective and practice have heavily shaped the NPF. However, some organisations in the country are not operating at that level and need the NPF to give them a clear idea of where they should be heading.

On the specific example that Liz Smith put to me, I do not think that I have anything to teach the Wise Group to any discernible extent, but there are other places in the country that would benefit from learning from some of that experience.

First, I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Johnson about the Scottish Leaders Forum. Essentially, we said that we needed to translate the national performance framework and the achievement of outcomes into practical realities, and it has really advanced the thinking on that issue. Of course, the forum is a collection of people who influence this whole area of delivery, but I hope that that gives the committee some confidence that such practice is going on in different aspects of the public sector.

In response to the points that Mr Johnson has put to me, I think that there is an opportunity to build on that work. We need to test ourselves as to whether our actions are consistent with the framework. For example, when I read a Cabinet paper that develops a particular policy position, it will narrate the relationship between the policy intention and the national performance framework, but that relationship has then to be reflected the whole way through from a policy development angle, in budget choices, in operational decision making and so on. Coming back to some of the points that Michelle Thomson put to me, I would say that an approach that is based more on picking up the pieces will be less aligned with the national performance framework than an approach based on early preventative interventions. We have to look at where we can establish that alignment in all aspects of policy making.

Recognising the fact that the solutions to issues that members of the public face are not generally found in neat little compartments is an on-going challenge. Government generally operates in neat little compartments and I have said to the committee numerous times that I spend much of my time trying to overcome those neat little compartments.

Let us take, for example, the formulation of the child poverty delivery plan, which was published by Shona Robison. Behind that process was an extensive amount of cross-governmental dialogue, which I chaired, to ensure that the plan would get cross-government intervention and support. What came out of that dialogue was a collection of measures that addressed not only direct financial support to families, but employability support and wider holistic support, drawing on aspects of transport, childcare, early intervention, mental wellbeing and counselling for people who are economically inactive. As a result, the plan was much broader. A lot of cross-ministerial dialogue was involved to get to that point—probably more than should be needed, but it was necessary in order to get across all those compartments.

What we produced was a much broader and much more relevant intervention, which was much closer to the aspirations of the national performance framework than it would have been if we had just left the work to the compartment within Government that formally deals with poverty, which is Shona Robison’s responsibility. If we are going to tackle poverty, we need to work on education, health, transport and employability—it will not take place in a neat little compartment.

I explained to the committee the focus on the big themes of eradicating child poverty, economic recovery from Covid and net zero. Those big issues are all tackled on a cross-ministerial basis to give us some chance of ensuring that our interventions are commensurate with the scale of the challenge.

Lastly, Mr Johnson asked me about how to influence methods of achievement. This is where I come back to where I started in this answer, with the Scottish Leaders Forum. We have to turn the NPF into a practical reality, and we have to operate an empowered system. I do not think that we need to wait for Scottish leaders to say, “We shall do this”.

Some of the best outcomes that I have seen achieved have been through members of staff feeling confident that they are doing the right thing and delivering better solutions to members of the public. In so doing, they might not have been thinking, “I must do this to satisfy national outcome 5”, but are thinking about what is expected of them through the national outcomes.

We might settle on a term such as “incentivising”, convener.

That might sum up what you and I are going on about and might be a better way to think about it.

I do not think that the particular solution that Mr Johnson puts to me is necessary to achieve that end, although I think that the point that underpins that is necessary. Mr Johnson makes the point that the national performance framework has to be meaningful in Government and that it has to influence decision making. I agree whole-heartedly with that. I think that it does that. However, the Government probably needs to look at whether the NPF is as influential in decision making as it could and should be.

The Cabinet considers performance on issues in relation to the national performance framework reasonably frequently. The Cabinet and ministers are also looking very extensively at the delivery of priorities, and of course the delivery of priorities should be shaped by what they contribute towards national outcomes and the national performance framework.

If we find ourselves taking decisions that are at odds with the national performance framework, that is a completely different question. That would not be an appropriate position for us to be in. The committee might reflect on some of those things in its report. That brings me back to Mr Mason’s point about external scrutiny and who is looking at what the Government is doing and saying “Actually, I don’t think that’s very consistent with the national performance framework”. Well, parliamentary committees can say that to us, and Audit Scotland can say that to us. Ministers are looking at those questions to be satisfied that we are taking decisions that are in line with the framework.

However, the other perspective is that of third sector organisations—and I think that Mr Johnson has put a fair point to me here. I think that they will still feel that they are being asked to do compartmentalised things instead of collaborative things. They will probably feel that they are still being asked to undertake transactions rather than to provide holistic support to individuals. It is an on-going challenge in Government to move from the transactional to the holistic. Getting closer to the holistic approach would get things more in line with the aspirations of the national performance framework.

That is good and beneficial, but it is probably not quite enough. I used a quotation from North Ayrshire Council earlier:

“It forms part of the ‘Golden Thread’ linking national outcomes through to each employee’s daily activities.”

I chose that quotation because I thought that, in all the material that I looked at in preparing for the committee, it best captured my aspirations. It is not that people ought to be able to rhyme off all the national outcomes but that their contribution to what they are doing should be significantly guided by the aspirations of the national performance framework. That quotation probably best expressed what the Government is trying to achieve.

We need to undertake external engagement that will allow us to identify, in essence, what type of country people want to live in, because that is the question that fundamentally drives the contents of the national outcomes. What type of country do people want to live in? We need to hear that from members of the public, as distinct from practitioners who deliver the services or interventions. A fundamental understanding of what type of country people want to live in ought to shape much of our thinking in that respect. We will do that through a range of engagement mechanisms. Some of that might be through community gatherings. Some of it might be through survey material. We will use different tools to gather that information.