The Scottish Parliament Committees have now completed their scrutiny of the proposed National Outcomes and published their reports and letters. This blog explains the scrutiny process undertaken and presents key cross-committee themes ahead of the upcoming Parliamentary Debate.
Why was there an Inquiry into the proposed National Outcomes?
The National Performance Framework (NPF) is a strategic tool introduced by the Scottish Government in 2007 that “sets out a vision for the collective wellbeing of Scotland”. It is intended to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to ensure a balanced approach to economic, environmental, and social progress.
The NPF currently outlines eleven National Outcomes that articulate the kind of country the Scottish Government would like Scotland to be, with a focus on improving the lives of people in Scotland. These outcomes are measured by a set of 81 National Indicators, to “understand if we are moving in the right direction towards them” as explained by the Scottish Government.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 requires that the National Outcomes be reviewed every five years. The SPICe blog Review of the National Outcomes 2023 – Back to the future? provides more detail on the review through to June 2023.
What has happened so far?
In line with this, a Scottish Government review of the National Outcomes began in May 2022 with the public engagement phase running March to June 2023. Analysis and development of proposed changes to the National Outcomes was followed by approval from Scottish Government Cabinet for the proposals. On 1 May 2024 the Consultation with Parliament in connection with the Review of National Outcomes was laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers.
The statutory report proposes a series of changes to the NPF and National Outcomes. These include three additional proposed outcomes, nine amended Outcomes, and proposed changes to the extended definitions of all outcomes. National Indicators will be revised to reflect the changes to the National Outcomes once changes have been agreed by Parliament. More information about the proposed changes can be found in the SPICe Blog Evolving Goals: Insights into the National Performance Framework Review.
Following the Scottish Government’s published report, the Finance and Public Administration Committee led the consideration of the proposed National Outcomes. Additionally, other Committees considered evidence in their own remits. As part of the inquiry, evidence was collected through a call for views which received 72 submissions. At the time of the writing of this blog, the Finance and Public Administration Committee has published its report on the inquiry and an additional nine Committees have published either letters or reports:
Finance and Public Administration Committee – Report on the National Performance Framework: Review of National Outcomes
Education, Children and Young People Committee – Letter from the Convener to the Convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee – Letter from the Convener to the Convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Social Justice and Social Security Committee – Letter from the Convener to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice
Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee – Report on National Outcomes: Response to the Review of Outcomes and Indicators relating to the Scottish Government’s International Work
Economy and Fair Work Committee – Letter from the Convener to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee – Report on National Performance Framework: proposed National Outcomes considered by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Net Zero, Energy and Trasport Committee – Letter from the Convener to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee – Letter from the Convener to the Minister for Housing
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee – Letter from the Convener to Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government
Approaches to Scrutiny
The Finance and Public Administration Committee led the inquiry on the proposed National Outcomes and focused its scrutiny “on the coherence of the proposed National Outcomes overall, whilst other Parliamentary Committees have given their views on issues raised within their remits”. Several Committees primarily relied on the joint call for views and related SPICe analysis whilst others took evidence from witnesses. Additionally, a number of Committees decided to fold the National Outcomes in with their pre-budget scrutiny. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, for example, included three questions regarding the functions of national outcomes in the Committee’s call for views on its pre-budget scrutiny for 2025-26.
Our analysis focuses on the conclusions and recommendations outlined in the letters and reports of the Committees. The approaches taken vary from acknowledging issues to suggesting changes. However, the majority take the form of questions or recommendations for the Scottish Government.
Cross-Cutting Themes
The following section presents the cross-cutting themes that appeared in the Committees’ reports and letters.
Better Interaction Between National Outcomes
The interconnected nature of National Outcomes reflects the complex and multifaceted challenges facing Scotland, from health and social care to climate resilience and economic growth. However, evidence indicates that siloed working across government departments often hampers the effective integration of these Outcomes into policymaking. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee observed, “the use of the NPF is ‘patchy and mixed’ and the Government’s approach whereby the NPF is seen as “implicit” in policy development and delivery does not reflect the status or importance it should have”.
Committees found the lack of coherence between Outcomes particularly evident in areas where trade-offs and dependencies must be carefully managed. For example, the NPF’s proposed focus on a wellbeing economy has been perceived by some stakeholders as inconsistent with the Scottish Government’s focus on economic growth. To address this, stakeholders have called for an implementation plan that explicitly guides decision-makers on navigating these complexities. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee noted, “the implementation plan should set out how those using the NPF should navigate that complexity and consider potential trade-offs when making decisions”.
This theme also extends to ensuring that cross-cutting issues like equality, climate justice, and poverty reduction are not treated in isolation but integrated into a cohesive policy framework. For example, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee highlights that “the National Outcome to reduce poverty is connected to other key National Outcomes, and the Committee considers it is not possible to uphold equality and human rights while poverty remains”. By fostering greater collaboration across portfolios, Committees and those who provided evidence feel the NPF should aim to help address Scotland’s interconnected policy challenges.
Implementation: Moving from Vision to Action
The NPF provides a compelling vision for Scotland’s future, and “the implementation approach will be crucial to success” as highlighted by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Evidence suggests that this remains a significant challenge, with the Finance and Public Administration Committee describing the government’s use of the NPF as “more carrot than stick” when influencing policy and service delivery. The Finance and Public Administration Committee recommends the following:
“Until such time as the NPF is effectively embedded in all decision-making across Government, the public sector and other organisations, (and can be evidenced as such) visibility does matter. This is particularly so when it comes to Scottish Government leadership in setting out national policies. We repeat our previous recommendation that all government (national and local) policies, strategies and legislation should explicitly set out how each will deliver on specific National Outcomes, their expected/intended impact on those Outcomes and approaches to monitoring and evaluation.” – Finance and Public Administration Committee, Report on the National Performance Framework: Review of National Outcomes
The creation of an implementation plan marks a positive step, but it must address key issues such as the integration of National Outcomes into decision-making and the alignment of policies with these goals. For example, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee “calls on the Scottish Government … to set out what actions it will take to ensure the revised indicators attached to the updated Health Outcome and to the new Care Outcome are suitably calibrated to capture the full contribution of preventative policy action and spending in driving progress towards meeting those Outcomes”.
The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee highlighted a need for “resourcing and a capacity building programme to support successful use of the revised outcomes” in order to use “lived experience and effective intersectional analysis and gender mainstreaming” in implementation of the revised National Outcomes.
Furthermore, Committees suggest the plan should focus on raising awareness of the NPF among stakeholders and ensuring accountability mechanisms are robust enough to track progress effectively. Without these measures, the NPF risks being side-lined in favour of short-term priorities.
Aligning Policy and Budget: Strengthening Connections
During scrutiny there was a focus on the effective delivery of National Outcomes and its links between policy, budgeting, and performance monitoring including “how National Outcomes should be tethered to the Scottish budget and the programme for government” as stated by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Additionally, the fact the several committees included the national outcomes in their pre-budget scrutiny indicate the desire for a stronger and clearer connection between the two.
However, Committees highlighted that the current NPF struggles to effectively integrate these elements, limiting its capacity to drive decision-making and resource allocation. In fact, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee stated “there was evidence from this inquiry to suggest that the National Outcomes do not always inform policy and spending, and … asks the Scottish Government to provide examples of where the National Outcomes have informed policy and spending decisions”.
One of the most pressing issues is the weak connection between National Outcomes and the Scottish budget. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee pointed out in its report, “there needs to be a clearer link between spending decisions in the Scottish Budget and their impact on the delivery of National Outcomes.” This gap reduces the NPF’s ability to influence budgetary priorities and ensure that financial resources are directed toward intended outcomes. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic stated during the 8 October 2024 Finance and Public Administration Committee Meeting that “the budget is the area where it is easiest to build on the national performance framework” and it is clear that Committees would welcome a clearer connection.
Furthermore, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommended that the government provide detailed assessments of how spending decisions contribute to National Outcomes. It called for “an accompanying assessment of the potential impact of such decisions on the National Outcomes” whenever spending adjustments are made. Such measures would enhance transparency and allow policymakers to evaluate the rationale for decisions and whether resources are being used effectively.
Joined-Up Decision-Making: Collaborating Across Portfolios
Many of Scotland’s societal challenges are interconnected, requiring cross-portfolio collaboration to achieve meaningful progress. Committees present that National Outcomes such as health, housing, and climate action cannot be addressed in isolation. Yet, evidence gathered during scrutiny shows that the NPF’s implementation often suffers from this, limiting its effectiveness as a framework for joined-up governance.
The Health, Social Care, and Sport Committee highlighted the “siloed nature” of the NPF, which prevents coordinated responses to complex, cross-cutting challenges like health inequalities. For the NPF to function effectively, government departments must work collaboratively, breaking down traditional barriers to integrated policymaking.
To address these issues, the Committee further urged the government “to set out how it will deliver improved coordination of policy action across the proposed National Outcomes to enable the NPF to become a suitable framework for the multi-faceted, holistic solutions.” If the Scottish Government fails to do this, the Committee “is concerned that, as currently formulated, the NPF and National Outcomes fail to provide the strategic direction, linked to actionable and well-resourced policies, necessary for achieving the Scottish Government’s stated policy ambitions.”
Additionally, The Finance and Public Administration Committee recommended that “the Scottish Government, Local Government, and others across Scotland, should evidence how their work specifically contributes toward delivering on the National Outcomes. These changes would strengthen the NPF’s role as a guiding tool for long-term societal progress.
Indicators and Monitoring: Building a Robust Evidence Base
Although not included in the proposed National Outcomes, Indicators, or the lack thereof, were highlighted by several Committees. Indicators are the cornerstone of the NPF, serving as the primary tools for assessing progress and guiding decision-making. Despite their importance, the current framework of indicators faces significant data gaps. As highlighted in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s findings, “no data is available for 11 of the 81 current National Indicators that were agreed as part of the previous National Outcomes review in 2018. This undermines the ability of the NPF to ‘chart progress’ and ‘to review those policies’ in delivering the NPF”.
To address these gaps, stakeholders have called for Indicators to be developed alongside National Outcomes to prevent delays in monitoring and ensure data continuity. The participative ethos of the NPF suggests that collaboration with relevant sectors is essential. For example, the Finance and Public Administration Committee recommended that the Scottish Government consult and “agree with [relevant sectors] acceptable proxy measures to address any data gaps” and publish proposed draft Indicators during consultations. This would strengthen transparency and enhance public trust in the framework’s capacity to deliver
Another issue highlighted during scrutiny is the lack of intersectional data, which limits the ability to understand how policies affect different groups. The Scottish Government’s Thematic Gender Review of the NPF explains that people’s experiences are shaped by their overlapping characteristics such as gender, race, age, disability, and economic status. They state that the unique “resulting inequality is known as intersectionality”. However, in the Equality Impact Assessment, the Scottish Government states that “it is currently not possible to take an intersectional approach” due to how NPF data is collected and presented.
The Equalities, Human Rights, and Civil Justice Committee added that Indicators are “integral to the successful use of National Outcomes in policy development and scrutiny” but emphasised that they should incorporate “intersectional and lifetime impacts of policy on achieving outcomes”. This includes drawing on lived experiences and qualitative data to complement quantitative insights, particularly for smaller demographic groups.
Addressing these challenges requires the Scottish Government to adopt a more comprehensive approach to data collection and analysis, ensuring that Indicators accurately reflect Scotland’s diverse population and provide actionable insights for decision-makers.
Conclusions
“We emphasise that these outcomes are only as good as the work undertaken to achieve them, and reiterate that ambition must be backed by action. – ”Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Letter to Deputy First Minister
The National Performance Framework (NPF) reflects the Scottish Government’s ambition to create a better Scotland through a clear vision and a set of measurable outcomes. The current review process has provided an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise how effectively the framework aligns with Scotland’s societal, economic, and environmental goals.
The Committees’ reports and letters highlight both the strengths and the challenges of the proposed revisions. While the addition and refinement of National Outcomes signal a commitment to inclusivity and progress, critical issues remain around data gaps, integration, and implementation. The calls for stronger alignment between policy, budgeting, and performance monitoring underline the importance of ensuring the NPF is more than a strategic vision—it must be a functional tool for action and accountability.
The Scottish Government has been urged to prioritise better data collection, improve coherence across Outcomes, foster collaboration across portfolios to address Scotland’s interconnected challenges as well as address specific Outcome related issues. The success of the NPF will ultimately depend on its ability to guide joined-up decision-making and to ensure that ambition is consistently translated into measurable, impactful actions.
What’s next?
The Finance and Public Administration Committee report and other Committee reports and letters on the proposed National Outcomes will be debated in Parliament. Following this, the Scottish Government will respond to the Scottish Parliament inquiry report by 15 January 2025. They will also confirm further details and timescale at this time.
Kelly Eagle, Senior Researcher, Financial Scrutiny Unit