���˿���

The national performance framework tries to put a concept such as GDP, which is important, into a proper and full context. In other words, the framework tries to set out the factors that we as a society and country need to think about, one of which will be GDP. There will be a range of others, but it is about putting them in a proper context.

Daniel Johnson asked about the balanced scorecard; the aim is to have a framework that enables people—and, indeed, parliamentarians—to judge where the balance of our policy making should be struck after seeing the range of different patterns of development in particular policy areas and how we can take decisions that better reflect a more rounded approach to policy making instead of just saying, “I’m only going to look at the GDP indicator at the expense of everything else.” That is clearly the antithesis of the NPF, which is our attempt to put concepts such as GDP into their proper context.

I am happy to give the committee an update on where we are.

That may well be the case. I am worried about the situation with Brexit and its impact on our society. We are beginning to see the sharp effects of that, and I am worried about what it will do to our economic performance. The data and indicators will speak for themselves in due course. Undoubtedly, when we face economic threats of that magnitude, they will show up in the indicators. We will try our best to withstand the threats, as we always do. We will do our level best to put in place a level of performance in all aspects that will overcome the difficulties, but I have to be candid with the committee that I have my anxieties on those points.

It is inevitable that there will be much greater focus on shorter-term issues in relation to service performance or configuration. That is essential, but we need to have our eyes on the long term as well as the short term and have greater focus on the national performance framework. Looking at current trends, are we satisfied that we are making enough progress in particular directions? We could do with strengthening that attention.

To take the example of child poverty, my colleague with responsibility for social justice will make statements to Parliament about progress on tackling child poverty, which is a constant and on-going priority. That is an example of a long-term focus that is the subject of updates to Parliament. My colleague who is responsible for net zero has to make climate change statements to Parliament that are about how we are progressing towards our long-term policy direction. There is always scope for more focus on those issues, and the Government would be happy to participate in that scrutiny.

That is correct, but the audience for the national performance framework is decision-making bodies. If a decision-making body such as a local authority or public body takes decisions that are contrary to the direction of travel of what is hoped for in the national performance framework, that is a problem. The key audience in my view is the organisations that will be part of delivering on that journey and that need to, as statute says, “have due regard to” what is in the national performance framework. A local authority that pays no attention to the national performance framework in its formulation of policy would be an item of concern to me.

We should always be mindful of that balance, because time-limited targets can provide greater focus and impetus for progress. We just have to be absolutely certain that we are putting them in the right areas to make the greatest possible amount of progress. We have time-limited targets on climate change and child poverty, which are fundamental issues in our society. A lot of activity will be focused on ensuring that we are in a position to achieve those measurable targets.

I am very happy for the Government to have open dialogue with Parliament and its committees—in particular, this committee—on ensuring that those processes are closely linked. Many of the internal discussions that I have had about the wellbeing bill have involved ministers and officials who are also involved in the national performance framework, so those are not compartmentalised conversations. However, I am happy to assure the committee that we will have open dialogue around those questions.

Audit Scotland’s observations are reasonable. I hope that the committee has got the sense from my observations this morning that I think that it is important that we look at the information in the round and that we do not just make glib judgments about individual components.

The Audit Scotland comments highlight the difficulty of making a direct connection between every single pound of public expenditure and every outcome that is achieved. That connection is more obvious in some areas than in others, but it can be difficult to make that link. A couple of weeks ago, the Auditor General commented on the ways in which we need to operate to ensure that we improve outcomes. He talked about approaches that are heavily based on collaboration, partnership working, disrespecting organisational boundaries and focusing more on outcomes than on inputs. Those comments help to structure the legitimate discussion on whether public expenditure is being used as effectively as it could be used to achieve the outcomes that are widely shared in our society. The national performance framework helps us in that respect.

We are in a better place, because we have a much greater focus today on the achievement of outcomes than was the case in 2007. The substantive policy development over those years has been that we have a much greater focus on the achievement of outcomes. That is a prize that is worth having, because Governments in general can be bedevilled by focusing on short-term and immediate high-profile issues at the expense of taking the necessary steps on the long-term outcome-based journeys.

That does not mean that everything is smooth and lateral—that it all takes a lovely neat course. The road is very bumpy, but focusing on the long-term policy direction and the outcomes that are to be achieved is a significant strength for Scotland today.

Your opening words were welcome, convener, when you referred to the fact that I have been a regular attender at this committee over many years and have great familiarity with the budget process. In any budgeting process, there is always a challenge in ensuring that budget priorities can be realigned to meet changing trends and demands in society, particularly to achieve different outcomes.

An important point of consideration that has gone into budgeting since—in my view—2007, and which is reflected in the national performance framework, helps us in that respect: that is, undertaking budgeting decisions that help us to align more closely with the achievement of national outcomes.

One example in that respect is investment in early learning and childcare. Clearly, a new amount of money has to be found to ensure 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds. That supports national outcomes whereby we are trying to intervene at the earliest stage to provide the strongest foundations for children to achieve their potential, as is referenced in the national outcome:

“We grow up loved, safe and respected so that we can realise our full potential”.

However, there are financial decisions involved to ensure that we support such objectives, which have to be taken at an operational budget level. The national performance framework provides us with a sense of long-term policy direction and outcomes that we are aiming to achieve. In many respects, those outcomes cannot be achieved without the willing and active participation of local government, which we have been able to rely on in taking forward the example of the early learning and childcare policy objective.

The national performance framework also enables us to take short-term decisions that support the achievement of a long-term outcome, which is its purpose and influence.