���˿���

In the report, you say that although addressing the pandemic was a clear priority, the Scottish Government should not deflect from some of its longer-term goals, such as addressing climate change. However, some of the measures to tackle Covid will not help us to meet the climate change goals. One thinks of the thousands of tonnes of personal protective equipment that have gone to landfill over the past 18 months. How can the Scottish Government address that, given that the pandemic is clearly the number 1 issue? How can the Government respond more effectively to the longer-term issues of climate change without having to compromise on addressing issues relating to the pandemic?

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?

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?

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?

Well done, cabinet secretary, you have responded to more than 30 questions from the committee. However, we are still within time, so I will ask some short questions to finish off.

Audit Scotland has said that there are inherent challenges in delivering an outcome-based approach. For example, Audit Scotland states:

“It is difficult to separate out what impact public services have on outcomes, as many factors are outside the direct control of the public sector.”

Audit Scotland says that effective joined-up working, early planning and an understanding of the evidence and its gaps could all help to resolve the issue. How can those gaps be closed so that we have a much fairer picture?

How do you weigh the NPF relative to other areas? If indicators are worsening, improving or maintaining their position—whatever it happens to be—how do you decide that additional resource might have to be shifted from A to B to address matters?

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2021 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Liz Smith, so Tess White is attending as her substitute for the Conservatives. I welcome Tess to the meeting. As this is the first time that she has joined us, I invite her to declare any relevant interests.

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?