 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1, 2, 3, 2, 4, in the name of Bob Doris on reporting the consultation on the Scottish Government's draft national outcomes. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Bob Doris to speak to remove the motion on behalf of the local government and communities committee. Ten minutes, generous. Thank you for your generosity. I thank you for the opportunity to open this debate What kind of Scotland we want to live in and our vision for Scotland we leave for our children are the key focus of the draft national outcomes. Those outcomes, along with the Scottish Government's purpose from the Scottish Government's national performance framework, this framework was refreshed in 2016 and in late March this year a revised set of draft national outcomes was laid in Parliament. The local government, the community's committee was designated as a lead committee for considering those outcomes. I know that members were eagerly awaiting the publication of a report last week, which is the rather snappy title of report on the consultation on the Scottish Government's draft national outcomes. How zingy is that, Presiding Officer? I know that it sounds like a page turner, but those draft outcomes and the policies that will flow from them will impact on every single one of us in Scotland for many years to come. The work of our committee and the other committees who contributed their views to the report are extremely important and I thank them all for their diligent work in this area. It is fair to say that not many of us could object outcomes such as, for instance, we tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally or that we grow up loved, safe and respected so that we realise our full potential. As such, the national indicators, which would be used to track progress against those outcomes, were equally of interest to the committee. Before turning to the committee's recommendations, I should set out the scrutiny approach adopted by our committee. The draft national outcomes were laid on 29 March, the last sitting day before April recess. The Parliament then had 40 sitting days to carry out the scrutiny and, as it happens today, the 40th day is today's debate, so we are just in the nick of time. What the timescale meant was that the local government and community committee had to seek views, consider those views, take evidence and report by last week. Given the broad range of 11 national outcomes, I wrote to all committee conveners inviting them to consider those national outcomes that fell within their remit. In the time available, the local government and community committee was not able to give any consideration to other committee responses, but we have published them alongside our report, and they should be seen as part of the committee's report and forum part of today's debate. Given the short scrutiny timetable, it is unsurprising that one of the committee's recommendations made by our committee—not just our committee, but a number of other committees that I should point out—was a plea for more scrutiny time in the future. Although the act provides clearly for 40 sitting days for scrutiny, perhaps next time that the Scottish Government might publish an initial draft well in advance of the formal laying date so that we can engage more meaningfully with communities and stakeholders before the formal 40-day scrutiny process begins. I welcome the cabinet secretary's views on how much more time might be provided in future iterations of these national outcomes. I thank Bob Doris for taking the intervention since invited. I will also write back to the committee as would be expected of the Government, but in that very specific matter, I am flexible in regard to future timetables. I complied with the legislation that Parliament has been approved. I am open minded on even more time, but it is important to reflect on the fact that there has also been extensive pre-parliamentary scrutiny on that, which has helped to inform the whole process that we are now undertaking. Bob Doris? I think that that is helpful, Presiding Officer. I would note that our report acknowledges that there were 16,000 people attending public events across the country and 220 organisations with that engagement with the Government. I think that our committee would quite like to have some of that engagement with Civic Scotland as well when the outcomes are in draft form, so we would like to be part of that process also. Given those challenges, I am—yes, of course—I thank Bob Doris for taking the intervention. As committee convener, would you agree with me that pre-parliamentary scrutiny is not the same as actual parliamentary scrutiny and that parliamentarians should have had longer? I think that, as committee convener, it is laid down in statute formally what parliamentary scrutiny should look like and the Government abided by that, but our committee recommendation unanimously is that we should go beyond that in terms of pre-parliamentary scrutiny, and that is what we signed up to as a committee. I welcome the cabinet secretary's agreed to look at that in the future. Given those challenges, I am especially thankful to all those who responded to our call for comments on social media and to those who took the time to write to us with their views. I also thank those parliamentary committees who responded to us with their comments. In our report, we have called on the Scottish Government to respond to each committee on their comments and their recommendations, and I hope that the cabinet secretary confirmed today that he will do that not just to our committee but to other committees as well. The current setup of the national performance framework and national outcomes is not new. The framework was established in 2007 and it created a 10-year vision for Scotland, which was then refreshed in 2011, then again in 2016, and reflect lessons learned from across the public sector and changing priorities in Government. When the community empowerment Scotland act was passed in this place in 2015, the national outcomes gained a statutory footing for the first time, which is why we are all here in this afternoon's debate. Under the act, the Scottish Government is now required to consult the Scottish Parliament any proposed revisions to the national outcomes and give details of the consultation processes that they carried out. Now, turning to my own committee scrutiny, although most of the 11 national outcomes can be linked to the remit of virtually every committee in the Parliament, we identified three areas largely falling within our remit. Two, I have already mentioned in relation to tackling poverty and growing up in a love and safe environment, as well as the third one of we live in communities that are inclusive, empowered, resilient and safe. The views that we receive were generally supportive to those draft national outcomes and the ambitions contained within them. It is hard to argue with them as a vision for Scotland. Having said that, our scrutiny of those three outcomes did flag up some issues that we have made recommendations in relation to what we want the Government to address. It seems sensible to start with the overall purpose that is stated on the draft national outcomes, which is to focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing and sustainable and inclusive economic growth. That is the top-line national outcome, if you like. That is the purpose. That is virtually the same as the purpose in the current national performance framework, but the words wellbeing and inclusive have now been added. During our scrutiny, we heard the views that the purpose seems to conflate both the means and the end. It was questioned whether the purpose should be to create a more successful country with opportunities for it to flourish. Increased wellbeing and sustainable economic growth would then be some of the ways of achieving that. We are perhaps conflating the tools to achieve the outcomes with what outcomes we want to achieve are all in the same sentence. During our evidence session with the cabinet secretary, he explained that he was content that the purpose is expressed in a meaningful way and that it gets across what the Scottish Government is trying to achieve. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Scottish Government looks again at the wording of its purpose and separates those things out so that it can focus more clearly on the vision for the future of Scotland rather than on both the vision and the road map for how to get the other tools that we have to achieve that vision. Turning to the national indicators, some indicators that are currently listed within the national performance framework are no longer listed under the new draft national outcomes. For example, the outcome around high-quality public services has vanished completely, yet we all know that high-quality public services is one of the Government's top priorities. The committee is keen to ensure that progress against the look of this outcome continues to be measured and reported on in some way. Similarly, the Scottish Government has committed itself through UN Sustainable Development Goals, which are global agreed priorities for tackling poverty and inequality in UN member states up until 2030. However, many of the indicators within the UN Sustainable Development Goals have not been specifically included amongst indicators in the draft national outcomes. We accept the cabinet secretary's explanation that the national performance framework is not the place to measure the delivery of all the UN Sustainable Development Goals, especially given that there are 232 indicators compared with 79 that make it into the NPPF. However, we have recommended that progress against the UN Sustainable Development Goals alongside the NPPF outcomes indicators are made available in one easy, accessible place online, transparent and in plain English, so that anyone with an interest can track progress against them all. That is especially important given the cabinet secretary's assurance that revised national outcomes have been framed by the UN Sustainable Goals, something again that the committee welcomed. Another concern raised with us was about how meaningful measurement of progress will be made in some indicators. For example, how can you measure loneliness, or how can children feel loved? Many people questioned just how meaningful those indicators were if they could not demonstrate a measurement of them. If I recall, I think that the cabinet secretary said that a lot of that would be contained within the 2018 national household survey. There would be some matrix in relation to measuring some of that, but a lot more clarity on how some of those things would be measured I think would be welcome. During the evidence session, the cabinet secretary told the committee that what is important to us as a society cannot always be measured, but we would still be able to express it, and if we can measure it, we should try to do so. I think that that is a reasonable position. We know that it is the right thing to do, even if it is not always easy or possible to measure it. That is certainly a sentiment that the committee can agree with, and we know that although those things specifically cannot be measured, there are other proxy measures that can be used to indicate process, so it is important that they are included as part of the national performance framework. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the national outcomes will impact on every person in Scotland, and it is therefore vital that this Parliament is given the opportunity to provide its views to the Scottish Government. I know that the local government committees committee will continue to monitor the direction and progress with them, especially as part of the new outcomes focuses on the budget scrutiny process. It gives me pleasure to open the debate, and in doing so, I also move motion S5M-12324, in my name, on behalf of the local government and communities committee. I welcome the opportunity on behalf of the environment committee to provide our views on the review of national outcomes. In practice, having just 40 sitting days to complete parliamentary scrutiny of such an important document proved from our perspective quite inadequate limiting, as it did engagement with stakeholders. We wrote to 12 stakeholders seeking their views on revised national outcomes and proposed national indicators within our remit, receiving responses from seven of those, and those responses informed both our deliberations and interactions with the cabinet secretary and her officials when they appeared before us. The committee did make the best use of the limited time at its disposal, but, self-evidently, in the view of the committee, the scrutiny process would be more robust if a more flexible approach could be deployed, as was discussed earlier. Considering the review, members looked at the three key existing national outcomes that relate to the remit of the environment committee, noting that those have been replaced by just one. We recognise the desire to have focused outcomes. However, Scotland has, for example, world-leading research capacity, and that underpins everything that we do. We would welcome the Scottish Government's view on the call for re-inclusion of research and innovation within the national outcomes before the framework is finalised. We also looked at the national indicators to track progress in achieving the revised environment national outcome. Those two have changed. The committee has a number of recommendations on the indicators. We asked that the Scottish Government give further consideration to including a climate change adaptation and mitigation-related indicator and an indicator of resilience from a climate change adaptation perspective. The committee also heard calls for Scotland's carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions in consumption to be a national indicator. We would welcome the view of the Scottish Government on this and on how it might be calculated. We will be considering the climate change indicators for greenhouse gases and carbon footprint and the target against which to track progress within our scrutiny of the forthcoming climate change bill. We heard concerns about the absence of an indicator in relation to land ownership by type. Some thought that this was a missed opportunity in light of the renewed policy emphasis on land reform as a driver for sustainable development in Scotland. The committee itself had concerns in relation to the indicators for the green economy and resource efficiency, and we would welcome further information as to why the indicator relating to growth in the green economy was not included, why there is no resource efficiency come in circular economy indicator and why the indicator to increase renewable electricity production has been dropped. The committee has recently completed an inquiry into air quality in Scotland, and we would welcome further consideration of the need for and the benefit of including an indicator that assesses the reduction of pollution and the impact of that on the health of the population. The committee will be focusing particularly on the marine environment over the next three years, and there are three additional indicators associated with that. We consider that the health and quenlyness of the marine environment is a priority, and an overall assessment of the marine environment requires additional indicators. However, we question the usefulness of an aggregate indicator for Scottish Seas as this could potentially mask problems in specific locations. We sought assurance that the Scottish Government reporting on the sustainability of stocks will focus on specific issues and areas of concern in addition to reporting on the general trend. While the new indicator relating to sustainability of fish stocks is an improvement, we wonder whether it alone is sufficient in providing a good indication of the health of Scotland's marine environment. We understand that the biodiversity indicator is to be revised to include terrestrial and marine biodiversity, and we welcome that. However, we note that there is no clear descriptor for the indicator, and we are disappointed that that has not been included in the review. The committee explored how the outcomes and indicators will be measured and what further work is planned in relation to that. We are concerned that the proposed draft NPF does not specify targets, and we consider that it could be improved by better connecting the outcomes to the underlying targets. More work needs to be done to ensure that indicators are more specific and measurable. The committee expects to see environmental indicators embedded across all outcomes, and we welcome the alignment of the NPF with the Sustainable Development Goals. We encourage the Scottish Government to consider further opportunities to connect the NPF more closely to the SDGs and reflect that in the final framework. Memberson is last minute, but I will let you make up the time. It is just to make the point that, before that turns into a trend, the Sustainable Development Goals are absolutely aligned to and fundamental to every aspect of the national performance framework. I think that all members should be aware of that. I thank the minister for that clarity. The committee considers that it would have been helpful if the review had clearly set out the criteria used for assessment of the indicators and recommended that the Scottish Government include that in future review documents. Overarching all our consideration is a concern that reporting progress and meeting the indicators on an aggregate basis may, and I stress may, mask problems or issues in particular areas and in meeting specific targets, so we would welcome an assurance that information on specific areas of concern will be highlighted when reporting on indicators at an aggregate level. Thank you very much, Mr Day. Colin Gordon, Lindhurst's convener of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, speaking behalf of the committee. Mr Lindhurst, please. Five minutes also. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me begin with the bard, not that one, the other one. Because, to paraphrase from 12 night, some are born niche, some achieve niche-ness and some have niche-ness thrust upon them. The Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee is on rather a run here. Whether we are natural-born Anorak waiters, I will leave for others to judge. I will leave for others to judge, although that can be dangerous. But earlier this year, we completed an inquiry into the joys of economic data, and our 90-page report is the talk of the steamy in the statistical community at least. Currently, we are looking at European structural investment funds, the regulations for which are 600 pages long—that is just nuts—NUTS, nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, or nuts for short. Thank you to the officials for my copy of the mere five-page jargon buster. And then along came the opportunity to consider the national outcomes consultation. How could we resist? There are three areas that I would like to cover from my own committee's perspective. Consultation, alignment and national indicators. CBI, SEDI and Women's Enterprise Scotland provided input to the consultation. What is unclear is the extent to which the views of the wider business community were sought. For example, how SMEs, the mainstay of the Scottish economy, were encouraged to have their say in this consultation. Those who were consulted said that they wanted something simpler, shorter and more accessible. The number of indicators has gone from 54 up to 79, therefore raises a collective eyebrow. How will the Scottish Government ensure that tally is manageable and meaningful? The second area is alignment, which is a bit of a buzzword since the enterprise and skills review. A key role of the new strategic board, chaired by Nora Sr, is better aligning the enterprise agencies. We are told that covers prioritisation, avoiding duplication, reviewing performance and encouraging joined-up thinking. It can also mean clarifying terminology. Pinning down the meaning of inclusive growth, for instance, has been something of a hobby for the committee. Last year, the chief economist said that there was, and I quote, no single measure, that it was multidimensional and again quote, challenges you to look beyond GDP. Nora Sr told us in February that there is a discussion to be had on the definition of inclusive growth and whether it should focus on gender, geography or generation. On the first of this month, Keith Brown informed us that the fundamentals were distribution, equity and fairness. I trust that the enterprise agencies are all following this and, indeed, are following all of this. A further aspect of alignment concerns the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. The cabinet secretary described them as a fundamental building block of the national performance framework. His officials said that reporting of the main goals will be done through the Scotland performs website and the annual budget statement. Our question, particularly for devolved policy areas, is whether the Scottish government intends to report on progress in a disaggregated way from the United Kingdom. The third area is national indicators. They are leveled down from outcomes. Our concern, as we move away from previous time-based purpose targets, is impact and measurement. What will the benchmark be? How should policy be tracked and monitored without a time frame? In the words of Montesquieu, success in the majority of circumstances depends on knowing how long it takes to succeed. The NPF is seen as an international leader for approaches to wellbeing and public policy, but it remains merely a means of improvement, not the improvement itself. That said, we welcome the aspirational dimension of the national outcomes and NPF review. In the data inquiry, we called for a more agile, imaginative and ambitious approach. The national outcomes must be an integral part of that. The principle being to consider not only what is readily measurable but what could more usefully be measured, measure what we treasure, as the Carnegie UK Trust put it, because what might seem a niche topic can shape decisions. As I come to my close, we are back where we started, and I have closed by saying that with decision making comes accountability. You do not have to be in anorak to work here, Deputy Presiding Officer, but it can help. Yes, I am just getting over anorak references there. Can the cabinet secretary please to open for the Scottish Government eight minutes please? I know, Presiding Officer, that you are in awe of Gordon Lindhurst's use of poetry and the bar than setting out the evangelisation for the national performance framework. I was thinking which bar he was going to use, so I could only think fast enough of Rabi Burns in relation to the national performance framework, and then I will make the connection. If only Lord the Gift would give us the powers to see herself as others see us. Why is that important and not scripted, of course, is because we have engaged comprehensively with the public to establish what the public, yes, and the parliamentary process that I have followed and gone beyond my statutory requirements in that regard, but to engage with the public to establish what kind of country they want Scotland to be. We just did not leave it to the self-selecting people who may complete every survey. We went out and we went across through the great work of Oxfam UK and the Carnegie Trust UK as well, commissioned them to undertake the exercise for us, and it was certainly yes things that can be measured, whether that is economic growth, but absolutely inclusive economic growth. What came across as a sense of wellbeing and kindness that people want to ensure that we instill in our society as well, so yes, this is about actions across society, but also the cultures that we create too. The first national performance framework, over 10 years old, changed how this government did business, changed how we helped directors, agencies and departments, and worked with partners such as COSLA at local government and others. I have to say that so far the proposed national performance framework has been exceptionally well received by environmental organisations, human rights organisations and many others, and not least COSLA as well, which have unanimously backed the proposition that we are putting forward. I accept that more parliamentary scrutiny, more than the 40 days that is proposed, would be welcomed by Parliament. I have already said that I am open to that, but let us not diminish the pre-parliamentary scrutiny with the community groups, the stakeholders and, incidentally, the cross-party forum in which all political parties in this chamber were represented and have been for the last while, totally engaged on the direction of travel, the consultation exercise and the process that I was undertaking as lead minister. I appreciate that the local government committee has been the lead committee, and I am very grateful for the work of all the committees that I will respond shortly to that. Of course, the national performance framework sets out the vision purpose, how we intend to deliver our outcomes and the measurements that we will use, recognising that not everything can be measured, but it is the sense of culture and collaboration that I think has helped to transform the way we do business within the public sector. This purpose, this national performance framework, goes much further. It is a purpose and a vision for the whole nation, where we can try and collaborate all partners and stakeholders, private, public and third sector, to align our efforts to create the kind of country that we want to be in. Bob Doris is right that the outcomes are beyond objection, but that is because of the nature of collaboration that we have had to arrive at those. Bear in mind that the first time a national performance framework came about, there was absolutely minimal parliamentary scrutiny. This is a far-enhanced process. Up for refinement, absolutely. Improvement, absolutely. However, this is a far better-engaging process than anything that we have had before in that regard. As for the new indicators, I am unapologetic for some of the new indicators that we are proposing to insert. There is an interesting balance in the chamber already between those that argue for fewer or the same number of indicators and other conveners who have said, have more. Why have not you included certain other indicators? There has to be an appropriate balance of that, which we are measuring for the purposes of the framework, whilst recognising, as the local government convener has appropriately done, that many measurements will still be undertaken but reported elsewhere. I know that Andy Wightman will probably make reference to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, would be right to do so, but I want to impress upon members the point again that they are absolutely aligned and fundamental. Some of the indicators that we have already met are clear, such as basic sanitation and are more appropriate to other nations than Scotland, so our focus needs not be there, but in the other things where we know we have far more progress to make, gender inequality, for example. That is why some of the new indicators and measurements are so important, representing the progress that we want to make. As a society, child wellbeing, happiness, ability to influence local decisions and, importantly, an engagement with the trade union's work-related ill health. Those are the kind of new and improved indicators that I think speak to our purpose and the values that we want to express. We are living new national outcomes, describing what we want to achieve, and then, in an open and transparent way, setting out the progress that we make towards that. Again, I believe that I am content with her purpose, not just adding words for their own sake, but defining our mission around wellbeing and inclusive growth is, in fact, world leading. Indeed, this Parliament, for those efforts, is internationally recognised, and that is why, when we launch that framework, I think that there will be a great deal of international interest just as there was for the inclusive growth conference, that the Government hosted earlier this year, with a 10-day Zoom, other Governments, OECD and the IMF. People are watching very closely in our strategy here, recognising that we want to deliver sustainable economic growth in a fairer, more progressive and more inclusive way. Well-being is indeed multi-dimensional, but we are clear that we want to align all our public sector agencies, the private sector and wider society towards that goal. I have had particularly constructive working with local government and the trade unions, with the charities that are involved, and we have already relied on the extent of consultations from the earlier fairer Scotland and healthier Scotland consultations, which amounted to not just tens of thousands of participants of public events but hundreds of thousands of people engaged and reached online. Not the consultation churn that we always go through, where we sometimes go back to the same people, but drawing upon the range of engagements that this Government has had with Scottish society. It is interesting to note that 220 organisations were invited to our consultation activities to ensure that we left no stone unturned in identifying what the priorities are for the people of Scotland. I know that Parliament and committees will ask us to do more and will rightly probe us on what we should be reporting and trying to achieve, but I do say this to Parliament. We are substantially aligned so far on what we want to achieve as our purpose and the outcomes for our nation. Let us not try and find ways to divide us over the process, because what we are trying to do is, in a cross-party, cross-sectoral way, set out what we want to achieve for our country, so that we can positively align all our efforts to create a fairer, fairer and welfare society in which we have tackled inequality in a cohesive and confident manner. In that regard, I look forward to the rest of this debate this afternoon, and I am presenting the complete national performance framework to the Parliament and to the people of Scotland. I am delighted to be able to participate in the national frameworks debate this afternoon as a member of the local government and community committee, and I would like to acknowledge the work of other committees that they have done to support this process this afternoon. Those national outcomes are the Scottish Government's broad policy aims, which are part of the national performance framework, which sets out Scotland's Government's proposed and provides a way of holding the Scottish Government to account against its own stated aims. The national indicators are a high-level measure that shows the Scottish Government and how it is performing. However, those new outcomes are slightly more vague and more ambiguous, and that gives me some cause for concern about that, because it may prevent effective scrutiny of its performance. What we want is effective scrutiny of performance. Those outcomes were set, as we have already heard, in 2007, with other outcomes added in 2011 and again in 2016. The Scottish Government chose to seek those views in phases of gathering opinions from the general public and from experts within a range that it involved. We have already heard today that tens of thousands of individuals have engaged and hundreds of organisations. That is very encouraging that we have that kind of support and that kind of mechanism, and I very much welcome that. Those include stakeholders in lots of different organisations—adults, young people, as well as Scottish Government officials and ministers—with the consultation asking for people's views on what kind of Scotland they wanted to live in. That is a good question to ask. What kind of Scotland do we want people to live in in today's society? It is important that we understand those views and reflect on them, charge them and challenge them. There are 11 national outcomes, but with regard to local government committee, there were only three that we were involved in considering. We live in communities that are inclusive, empowered, realistic and safe. Very good. Those are all that we should take on board. Once again, I think that they are slightly vague and they can be quite ambiguous. To tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally. No one can disagree with any of that, but it is how that is managed and how that is affected, and to grow up love, safe and respected so that we can unlock our potential. Yes, exactly. Everyone should have the opportunity to unlock their potential, but it is quite difficult to gauge what love is and what safe is in some of those constituations, so it is important that we understand that. Those are all well and good, but it can and it does, and it is difficult sometimes to equate some of those views to the fact of the ambiguity that we are looking at. Would Mr Stewart not agree with me that sometimes some things are worth expressing even if they cannot be measured, such as kindness? You may not be able to measure it, but if the people want it, if there is a joint aspiration towards it, then it is still worth saying. Those are all aspirations. Nobody would deny that, but when you are trying to manage and put into group and organise what you want to achieve as a Government and as a nation, that is very difficult to equate. We need to do more to make that happen, and I hope that you will consider expanding that whole process. Those new outcomes show a shift by the Scottish Government away from hard targets to more vague promises. If the Government were committed, it would welcome the serious rigorous scrutiny to determine the success. In fact, those challenges give the impression that the Government does not want to be held to account as much. Can Mr Stewart give an example of an indicator where he believes that we are trying to be vague rather than deliver progress? We are even at Mr Stewart's. As I have said already, you have lots of indicators out there that want to see prosperity and things happen, but they can only happen if you deliver and you put funding behind all that process to make it happen. Moreover, it is increasingly important that any challenges to the national integrals do not mean that they are no longer comparable with the previous indicators, so that we can look year upon year to see that there is actual progress. We, in the Scottish Conservatives, are also determined to ensure that the majority of indicators and targets that are there, and we talk about the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that have been indicated. They are very important that we realise that national income comes out from that. Although the Scottish Government might argue that they have gone beyond what is required by the Community Empowerment Act in terms of the provision of the details, the draft outcomes and indicators, the fact remain that 40 days of consultation period was seen as insufficient, and others have indicated that it is inadequate. I think that the cabinet secretary, if he intervenes, it will be helpful because your comment— No, I have already taken to you. I want to continue. Excuse me for a minute, heckling does not help. Mr Stewart, on you go. You are stirring it up a wee bit. There we go. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am passionate about the whole process, so therefore I want to ensure that we have a good debate today. But, as I have said before, we have been told that it is inadequate, and that is something that we must take on board. The committee has recommended that the Scottish Government takes steps to extend the timescales of parliamentary scrutiny on the next draft performance framework. I request it, and I really do support that. In recent years, Audit Scotland has highlighted concerns about the extent to which public sector bodies contribute to achieving national outcomes. Many public sector bodies have failed to include national outcomes in their reports, and that has made it difficult to determine what impact their activities and their expenditure are having on national outcomes. It is therefore encouraging to hear from the cabinet secretary the commitment to ensuring that future national performance framework is fully embedded in the public sector. Although the inclusion of reference to the poverty within the national outcome is, of course, welcome, I, like many others, still feel that it is a bit ambiguous. The child poverty action group has questioned whether tackling poverty is a fact and outcome, or it is suggested that it is a means to which we can achieve in eroding poverty. The outcome also does not make reference to the drivers of poverty and its limited approach. In conclusion, we welcome the opportunity to debate the committee's report to the national outcomes. Despite certain reservations about the new draft outcomes, we welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to ensuring that the national performance framework is embedded within the public bodies. I hope that the contributions from the debate today will lead to the Scottish Government confirming that the data protect by the national outcomes will remain comparable. That will ensure that progress against the national outcomes can be properly evaluated by this Parliament. That is very important, so to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I thank all those who have participated. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and welcome the involvement. I thought peace must have broken out when I was looking—I called James Kelly to over for Labour. Mr Kelly, you have six minutes, please. Yes, I will do my very best, Deputy Presiding Officer, to support the consensus approach. I have noticed this afternoon that I feel that the cabinet secretary is a wee bit grumpy at times for some of the contributions, which is not like him. On to the debate, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the committee report. I commend the work that has been carried out, not only by the local government committee but all the committees of the Parliament in terms of the consultation that has taken place on national outcomes. Also, the work of the round table and the other consultations that took place pre-parliamentary consultation, that is important. As Bob Doris said, the national outcomes is not a recent measure that has been introduced. It goes back to 2007, when Scotland performs in the idea that there was a feeling at that point eight years into devolution that vast sums of public money were allocated in budgets, but they did not have any measure as to whether that was successful or not in terms of outcomes. That was the genesis of the national outcomes debate that we are having today. I think that it is very much welcome. In a previous life, before I became an MSP, I was a business analyst, so I welcome the fact that we have measures, we have evidence and we look to assess whether the public money that we are investing is achieving the outcomes. For all the issues that we debate in this Parliament on a week-to-week basis, I think that, from that point of view, that work is absolutely essential. On some of the outcomes that have been set up, I do not think that anyone can disagree with the fact that we want to see people well educated, we want to see people healthy and we want to do things such as tackle poverty. Crucial to that is that there has got to be a strong link to the budgetary process. There remain massive challenges for the Scottish Government in terms of the budgetary process in delivering properly on outcomes. I say that because there is now a £40 billion budget, and there remains a culture around budget, not just in the Scottish Parliament budget, but I have seen it in the private sector as well, where budget holders will try to hold on and defend their budgets so that, when it comes round to the budget review at December, January, they will want to defend the amount of money that they have been allocated in previous years. Sometimes budget holders do not have as their primary purpose looking at what the outcome that they have been given the money to deliver. I think that because of the number of budget holders that the Scottish Government budget has, that is a challenge in terms of changing that culture. I thank Mr Kelly for taking the intervention in flowing on from that point. Would Mr Kelly agree with me that there is a requirement for all public services, wider than public services, but public services are at least to align around that outcome that should be transformational, focusing on outcomes, not just on inputs. Equally, we have a responsibility in Parliament to focus a bit less on inputs and more on outcomes. I absolutely endorse that approach of not just about inputs. We need to change the debate in terms of outcomes. I think that the changes to the budget process that have been made are helpful. I think that a longer term view and cycle in the budget process would help. I acknowledge that it is incumbent not just on the Government but on all the political parties to change that approach. The other thing that I would say is that it is absolutely fundamental to all of this is that we actually need to change the way that we do the debate. If we really want to change outcomes, it means that we need to change that debate. For example, on health, the reality is that on the ground people in the area that I represent are struggling at times to get GP appointments. People are left on the waiting list for longer than—not just longer than—the legal time but longer than the required time for the ailments that they have. We are struggling to meet those health targets and that means that we struggle to meet the health outcomes. I will develop more of that in my closing speech but I would say that we need in terms of what is happening on the ground—it is all very well having a debate this afternoon and agreeing the definitions, agreeing the indicators, clapping everybody in the back and saying how inclusive we are—if, on the ground, we do not have a—the health service is failing, there are problems in education, the number of homeless applications for children in temporary accommodation is rocking. There are real issues in terms of achieving those outcomes. To change that, we need an honest debate involving not just the Government—have I got time to take this? You can, but it will have to be very short, Mr Doris. I will make important points about how public services fit into that and you talk about negatives in relation to that. If we were to properly measure nationally, we would not always have to look at the positives and track what we do well rather than the negatives the whole time. I am all for being positive, Mr Doris, but the point that I would make is that there are issues that are happening on the ground. You will see them in your Mary Hill constituency, I am sure, and if we are really honest about tackling these issues as a Parliament, we need an honest debate. It needs to talk about priorities and how you manage taxation, and if we do that, we can then be serious about making a real attempt at achieving some of these outcomes. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you very much. That was swift. I call Andy Wightman to open for the Green Party. Six minutes, please, Mr Wightman. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Today's debate focuses on the national outcomes contained within the national performance framework. As Gordon Lindhurst is paying close attention to the debate as it proceeds observed, this is not always a topic that immediately arouses political passions. Nevertheless, on the committees in which I set the local government and communities committee and the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, it is fair to say that members found themselves more interested and engaged in the debate. When we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, they first thought that they might be gratifying. As Bob Doris mentioned in his opening remarks, having a clear idea of where one is going is important for any Government and the national planning framework is as useful a framework as any to provide some direction. Accountability, as James Kelly talked about, and purpose to everything that Government does. As has been emphasised, our role in Parliament is to perform some modest scrutiny of the proposed national outcomes as part of a statutory consultation process. In the short time that I have available, I want to focus on two areas that have been the subject of debate and have been mentioned already today, the economic outcome and the status of the sustainable development goals. In doing so, I am aware that the statutory role of Parliament is restricted to being consulted on the outcomes, not the purposes, values or indicators. Nevertheless, as will be clear from my comments in relation to the sustainable development goals, no one part of the overall framework can be considered in isolation from the others. I commend the Cabinet Secretary for Recognising this in the consultation document and in going beyond the strict statutory obligations that the Scottish Government has in this regard. In the economy committee report, I was a sole dissenting voice on the question of the overall purpose, and I had an interesting exchange with Mr Mackay on the topic when he gave evidence to the local government committee. The purpose, as it is currently framed, is to focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing and sustainable and inclusive economic growth. As members are aware and as became evidence, inclusive economic growth is a contested term. Never mind that economic growth itself is problematic, since it is predicated on a flawed metric of GDP, making that growth inclusive is as yet not defined. To have the concept embedded in the highest level of the national planning framework is, as the Carnegie UK Trust pointed out, and as Bob Doris highlighted in the local government's report, to confuse the means and ends. The proposal has also been questioned by Oxfam and SCVO. The economic outcome, by contrast, is framed as having a globally competitive, entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economy. I would rather have a co-operative economy than a competitive economy, but I agree that our economy, however framed, should be sustainable. Why, then, is this broad outcome, with no means or metrics associated with it, subverted by an overarching purpose that commits to a flawed contest and ill-defined progress of what constitutes economic progress? I hope that, in the next iteration of the national planning framework, it will be abundantly clear through the growing body of evidence most recently exemplified by a report called Measuring What Matters from the IPPR commission on economic performance that the purpose needs to be changed to one that reflects the very real limitations of any economy based on the current crude metrics of economic growth. The second I want to reflect on are the sustainable development goals. Those are a set of global goals, agreed by all members of the UN, and binding on Scotland. They comprise 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators. The indicators are really quite specific. For example, goal 5 is on achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls, and it includes the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments. It includes the proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land by sex. I welcome the incorporation of the sustainable development goals into the national planning framework, but just to be very clear, and the cabinet secretary has commented on this twice now, just as the national performance framework comprises a purpose, values, outcomes and indicators, the sustainable development goals, too, comprise the goals themselves and targets and indicators. Yet those goals, targets and indicators are only very selectively and broadly incorporated into the NPF. Although I understand that it would be inappropriate, and I agree that it would be inappropriate to incorporate them, I am concerned that there is global framework for performance, which is measurable and reportable in a common framework across all UN member states. I am concerned that it is not being used as the foundation for Scotland's national performance framework. Those concerns are reflected in the report from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, which Gordon Graham Day highlighted earlier. I would ask the Government to consider how it could connect the national performance framework more closely with sustainable development goals and that the next iteration of the national performance framework should consider doing just that, given that it is not least because we have an obligation as part of the UK to report on the sustainable development goals. Please conclude right now. Outcomes are important. I was deep listening to you. That is my problem. Just go on. Outcomes are important and the national performance framework remains a work in progress. Just as its introduction was welcomed in 2007 and was a novel departure from conventional means of measuring progress through typically inputs, so too it will be important over a decade from its introduction that the next review is more fundamental and assesses whether the current framework really does provide the best way in light of international best practice to measure the performance of the country. Thank you. I do apologise, Mr Wightman, but you kept your balance. That is important. I call on Willie Rennie to open for the Liberal Democrats. Six minutes please. Six minutes. Remember that, Presiding Officer. Six minutes, Willie Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a good thing. Having the national performance framework is a good thing. The fact that we measure beyond strict economic growth is a good thing. The fact that we consider happiness and satisfaction, which is influenced by things such as the environment, public services, performance, infrastructure, equality and the economy just in a second, and the fact that we try to align them with UN's sustainable goals is a good thing. It is good that we review what is in and what is out of the national performance framework. That is all of those things are good things. What is not good is that this is not part of the national discourse. If I went down the body gate in Cooper, in my constituency, and I started talking to people about the national performance framework, people would not have the faintest idea of what I was talking about. That happens quite often, but we would certainly be the case in this circumstance. But neither do we debate it in this Parliament, because if you look back through the official report, it has had a handful of mentions in the past five years. In fact, the most mention that it has got in the past five years was when we last reviewed the national performance framework. It is not even part of the discourse in this Parliament. I think that it should be, because I think that the indicators are important. They should be the subject of big debates and we should be looking at it strategically rather than just in an isolated way, which is what we tend to do in this Parliament. I would suggest to the minister that, perhaps on government time—I am not saying that we should have a debate like this every year, but we should certainly have a debate on the substance of the indicators every single year. The Government should have to come forward and explain itself. Derek Mackay I appreciate that comment, and I will certainly give it thought. The one point that I would make, and I am not disputing anything that Willie Rennie has said so far, is that every year on production of my draft budget, I also produce the scorecard on the outcomes of our performance against that, but it is also true to say that members are far more interested in the input measures back to James Kelly's point than necessarily the outcomes, so they are duty upon us all to focus on that debate also. Willie Rennie The Government could help to force the Parliament to consider it by creating time for a debate every year and putting it forward, putting the results forward in a broader sense, rather than perhaps some of the other debates that we have in this chamber that are of perhaps less value. He agreed with me so far. I am afraid that I am going to bring a bit of disagreement into it, because I want to look at some of those targets. Of the 11 purpose targets, eight of the 11 show no improvement or a decline. The decline in the performance on income equality and regional equality is especially concerning. Performance overall, I would say, is stagnating and sluggish at best. The national indicators are poor too. Of the 55 indicators, 43 show no improvement or a drop in performance. Educational attainment has fallen, and that is particularly concerning. We are failing on the number of people in poverty. The abundance of breeding birds has declined as well, so in a variety of different areas we are not performing. That is why I think that it is important that we have a debate, so we can argue those points, because I am sure that the minister would have a contrary view and an explanation for some of those things, but we never get into the guts of that. That is why we should have a debate on an annual basis, so that we can properly scrutinise in a strategic sense. Of course we debate those individual issues and individual debates, but let us look at it in a strategic sense, because I think that it is much more valuable that way. I thought that it was intriguing—I think that the minister pointed it out—that there is a conclusion that we should not measure everything. Some people say that if you do not measure it, it does not count, but if you measure everything, does it devalue it? I suspect that it does devalue it, but when everybody agreed that we should be measuring everything, then everybody else comes up with a long list of things that should be in it. It is much more difficult to take things out. My argument, perhaps, should be that we should be focusing on what we are trying to change in the next five years, rather than trying to have the ultimate, comprehensive set of targets and indicators, because that way we can perhaps focus on what the priorities are for change. I noticed that one of the backbench members of the SNP pointed out to James Kelly that we have been far too negative. I think that this Parliament is about focusing on the things that are going wrong to try to fix them. If we are not here to try to change society, why are we bothering to turn up to this Parliament in the first place? If we just want to be complacent and dwell on the things that we are getting right, I think that we are going to deliver any change. As the backbench MSP that Mr Rennie was referring to, I was not accusing anyone of being too negative. If you could actually measure outcomes, you have to measure all outcomes, good, bad and indifferent, and not just focus on the negatives, that is how you measure outcomes. Will I, Rennie? I do not agree, because if you measure everything, we will not have a real focus on what we are trying to do in this Parliament, which is to make a better society. If it is just to satisfy the Government, we are not going to get any further forward. I know that it is difficult for Government members and Government ministers, but that is what they are there for, to try to change society. Of course, we will get the First Minister trotting out the greatest list of achievements in the previous week at First Minister's Questions. There are plenty of opportunities to do that, including Patsy's backbenchers questions. That is always there for everybody, but let us focus. I know that Bob Doris would never do such a thing, but what we should really be trying to do in this national performance framework, in an objective way, is to focus on what we are trying to change to improve. The other important factor was that the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise pointed out that how do we know what the effect of policy actually is? Of course, things might have improved, but is it because of Government action or was it going to happen anyway? Finding a way to measure that, I think, would be valuable. We now move to the open debate. Speeches of up to five minutes, please, because we are a bit pushed for time. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by John McAlpine. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the local government and community committee for bringing this debate to the chamber, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute. In considering national outcomes as a tool to set a tone for the direction of travel that the Government wants to go, I think that it would be obvious that we would all support that whole heartedly. For me, in business parlance, it kind of equates to a business mission statement, if you will. In sporting parlance, where I am now going back to my roots, it is having that long-term aspiration such as a young sportsperson wanting to be Olympic champion or wanting to lift the football world cup for Scotland. I am trying to take the chamber with me in this one. We may not end up at the final goal that we set, but if we have managed the process well, we will be able to understand how close we came to that goal. Not hitting that goal perhaps does not necessarily equate to a failure. Again, I am taking my own experiences here. I am a great believer in aspiration of setting down the highest of goals so that we can read them and refer to them. We can constantly remind ourselves of where we are heading, ensuring that whatever we do is delivering on those objectives. I am also a great believer in committing to those goals and those aspirations to do so. It requires short, medium-term deliver objectives that we are able to measure, that are time sensitive, that have enough flex to be able to adapt as goals are met or otherwise. The road will not be straight and without its bumps, so having that ability to adapt as things change is key. The best strategies are consistent but have that flexibility to adapt. I am glad that the Government and welcome the fact that the Government have written down their high-level objectives. The strategy in delivering against those objectives is not a strategy unless it is written down. Far be it from me to quote somebody like Alistair Campbell, but I agree with him when he said that developing a strategy is about having arguments, not avoiding them. I would go further, especially having taken in many arguments in this chamber and say that those arguments should at least attempt to be constructive and that the Government therefore should open itself up for scrutiny. I think that that is really where the debate here is. I would go on to say that a good strategy is about action and not theory. That is where effective tactics must come into play. In other words, what are the step-by-step initiatives that will ultimately deliver on those national outcomes? I think that the cabinet secretary talked about having a debate around process or not having a debate about process, but I think that this is where we should be able to scrutinise that particular process because without that, national objectives will not be reached. I think that this is where we are. As the Government has come a little bit light, I think that there is an unwillingness to open up ideas to scrutiny, and I think that sometimes the Government does try to close down debate. To me, that inevitably leads to a much weaker proposition and an outcome. I think that they take high-level objectives that we all agree with and absolutely support, as I have already said, but we need to look at how we deliver on the nuts and bolts that are required to deliver on those objectives. Governments and politicians are always being accused of avoiding issues such as making high-level promises and commitments, using vague language without backing those up with business-like strategy. I think that my concern here is that the Government may be following into the same kind of pattern. It is not in love to take an intervention. Derek Mackay If Mr Whittle thinks that I have got something wrong, can he identify the proposed national performance framework? Just one outcome that he would like me to change to suit his contribution so far. Brian Whittle I think that if you have listened to what I have said, your outcomes are not the issue, it is how you are going to deliver on those outcomes. That process of how to deliver on those outcomes is what I am questioning here. I think that it is not enough to set an objective or a national outcome, to deliver sound bites and use language in a way that the public want to hear. In setting national outcomes, I think that the Government must be able to understand that objective and to understand the steps that will need to be taken and in what timeframe. It must be prepared to make sacrifices needed to reach their goal. One could suggest in certain circumstances that the SNP is particularly good at working towards a certain goal, in respect of all the sacrifices and goals that it entails to the rest of the country. However, my feeling reading the report is that there is a potential here for abandoning hard targets in favour of vagaries that are difficult to quantify and difficult to measure against. Therefore, the Government cannot fail. For example, I look at the national outcomes in education. I was reading here that we are better educated, more skilled and more successful. I absolutely agree with that. I cannot disagree with that. We are renowned for research and innovation, which I think that we already are. We would like that to continue. Our young people are successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsibles to their citizens, etc. We have seen in recent weeks in a Conservative debate that, on FMQs, the Government is reluctant to have their educational record scrutinised against its own targets. I see that I am coming to the end of that. In conclusion, the local government committee's report highlights from me a lack of clarity in goals and objectives and measureables and strategies and tactics in delivering against objectives. I remind everyone that it is up to five minutes. That is Joan McAlpine to be followed by Michelle Ballantyne. I am delighted to speak today on the local government and community committee's report on the national performance framework. It is important to remind ourselves, as the Carnegie UK trust says in its briefing, that the Scottish Government broke new ground globally when it introduced a holistic definition of social progress back in 2007. I think that that is something that we should all celebrate as a Parliament. I am convener of the Culture, Tunism, Europe and External Relations Committee, but I am speaking in a personal capacity today. That is because, as Mr Doris indicated, my committee lacked time to scrutinise the draft outcomes as we would have wished, although we have responded to the committee's request for reviews. I welcome the proposed new draft outcome for culture. It reads, "...we are creative and our vibrant and diverse cultures are expressed and enjoyed widely." And attached to that are several indicators. Those are attendance at cultural events, participation in cultural activity, growth in the cultural economy and people working in arts and culture. All my colleagues on the committee welcomed the new outcome in a letter that appears in the report that we are debating today. That specific outcome and culture will also be welcomed by stakeholders who have long campaigned for one, although none of them contributed to the local government and community committee's call for evidence. I assume that they just did not have time, but I acknowledge that they contributed to the extensive pre-parliamentary scrutiny and I welcome that. Those organisations include culture counts based within the Federation of Scottish Theatre, which represents 40 different arts organisations. It has led the campaign for an improved place for culture in Scotland's national outcomes. In 2011, the campaign resulted in the inclusion of an indicator on cultural engagement. That was very welcome because there is an increased understanding across the world that cultural engagement is valuable not just in and of itself but because it has a beneficial impact across other policy areas, such as in health and wellbeing, learning, equality and contributing to sustainable economic growth through our vibrant creative industries and the work of many thousands of individual artists. As a convener of the Parliament's cross-party group on culture, I chaired a meeting in 2015 devoted to the issue in which culture counts pointed out that culture is the glue that holds society together, it can address inequality and it can empower communities. It was pointed out that Sweden in particular has for some time recognised that cultural participation and enjoyment impacts on a broad range of policy areas, and that is also apparent in its budget streams. Of course, we see that in practice in Scotland, too. I think that it is certainly something that the cabinet secretary, responsible for culture, Fiona Hyslop, understands very well. If I can quote just one example, some members here will have been able to enjoy the event last night celebrating the 10th birthday of System of Scotland, big noise orchestras, which transformed the lives of children living in parts of Scotland that face many social and economic challenges. The funding for that amazing project did not just come from the culture budget stream, it was considered an infrastructure investment because the orchestras would help to build the resilience of communities. That is just one example. I would like to know what other examples there are of that and will the new outcome and creativity result in more cultural spending across all budget strands? There is something that makes me slightly nervous in that we are told that the UN sustainable development goals underpin the national performance framework. In the Government's document on the framework, underneath the creativity outcome, there are three linked UN sustainable development goals. Those are improving gender equality, reducing inequality and building sustainable cities and communities. I agree with all that, but I wonder why culture is not aligned to a wider range of sustainable development goals. It is simply to make the point that the document can only express so much what will appear online will absolutely show that interconnectivity right across the outcomes and the indicators and the UN sustainable goals in a more comprehensive fashion. I was actually going to ask the cabinet secretary for reassurance at that point, so I am very pleased for his reassurance because I think that that will benefit the whole of society and not just the culture strand in itself. Thank you very much. Over the 37 years of my working life in the public, private and voluntary sector, I have witnessed and participated in numerous new approaches, fresh ideas and re-thinkings on how frameworks should look, feel and be worded, but one thing fundamentally does not change. Frameworks are there to say what you are going to do, how you intend to do it and how you will know if you have done it. This is the debate that we are having today. Is this going to deliver that? I welcome the extensive conversations that the cabinet secretary has had, not personally, I believe, but with his staff. I also welcome his willingness to be flexible around the consultation. We are hearing today that there is obviously quite a lot of debate around some of the points. For me, the challenge lies in ensuring that the indicators are understood and that the relationships between the indicators are coherent. In answer to the question that has just been asked, the cabinet secretary might stand up and say that he has done what I am about to ask, but we will see. For example, a coherent and well-considered approach to tackling poverty is required, and those indicators, as they stand of what I have seen, will not tell the full story. It appears that the indicators at present fail to appreciate that, say, the more employees that there are on the living wage, the more this will impact on the cost of living and potentially even food poverty. We must tackle poverty not simply by sharing wealth, but by generating it, improving economic growth and productivity, but more than that, there must be a focus on the drivers of poverty beyond income. The national outcome, as I have seen it, fails— Claudia Beamish As long as it is very brief— I thank the member for taking a brief intervention. Does the member agree with me, then, that being a living wage employer, for instance, is one of the things that would come through in policy, which the indicators underpin and how important that is? Michelle Ballantyne I return to my point that living wage employers, which I hope eventually everybody will be, but it potentially drives up the cost of whatever product they deliver, so we have to see the interconnectivity between the outcomes, the drivers that we are asked for and the implications of what they mean on the workplace or on the marketplace. The national outcome fails to take into account the root causes of poverty, such as the attainment gap, parental addiction, broken families and worklessness. On that note, it struck me that there appears to be a salient emission in the indicators, and that is the provision of not just fair work but flexible work. If there is to be opportunities for everyone, then there needs to be the availability of flexible work to allow single parents or carers, for example, to participate and use their skills. Then we have growing up, loved, safe and respected. I am slightly concerned that this is one of the weakest outcomes, because we know that growing up loved will instill confidence and resilience in our children. However, there must be a means of measuring the extent to which that is achieved, otherwise we do not know whether we have done it. A good start in life can benefit people in so many ways, and therefore this outcome is perhaps, to me, one of the most important. I have a request among the many that you are going to get. I am disappointed that there is no indicator regarding breastfeeding, because that would be an easily measured, appropriate indicator for— Derek Mackay. I appreciate taking the intervention. I think that the answer that I would give is what I gave at local government committee, and it is important to stress this point. There are many measurements that will still undertake, particularly NHS and health and social measurements that may not feature in the national performance framework. For the reason that Gordon Lindhurst and Willie Rennie said that you cannot count everything, we continue to measure it, and it will still be a health target but for the purposes of the NPF it will not feature, but I agree that it is a priority, we want to deliver on it, it will still be measured and it will still be reported upon. Michelle Ballantyn. That is good news. Can I make an argument for why I think that it should be higher up the agenda? It is fundamentally because there is no breastfeeding culture in this country, and it is undermined by the promotion of formula milks, which are not an adequate substitute, and the breastfeeding network constantly points that out. It is worrying because, after six to eight weeks, only around 30 per cent of children are breastfed, and that sometimes means that because mothers are coming out of hospital early now, and that is a good thing, they are discharged before breastfeeding is properly established and there are not enough resources to properly support mothers in the community, and therefore supplementation rates are high, but we know that breastfeeding contributes to healthy weight, healthy cognitive development, and it can also be important for forming positive relationships between mother and baby, which can be vital in determining children's mental health and attainments outcomes in the future. You have a very simple thing here that can have a massive difference right across your framework, and that is why I think that it should be much higher up in what we are saying we want to do, what our outcomes will be, and it is very measurable, so you will know if you have succeeded. There has not been much improvement in the number of mothers breastfeeding in Scotland, and similarly there has been little improvement to support and encourage more mothers to breastfeed, so yes, it has always been a health target, but it is not getting the attention that it needs, I do not think. That is why I want it up there. Can you close now please, Ms Palantane? Yes. Fundamentally, I need to know if policies are working. I agree with what Mr Rennie said, and that would be my challenge to you. I like the way it looks, that is my upside to it. I think that you have done a really good job in the presentation. Ivan McKee to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Much of this debate has been around what should be or should not be included in the national performance framework outcomes, and that is important, but I want, during my brief contribution, to explore the process whereby we can deliver those outcomes in the relationship between outcomes, indicators and targets, because only by understanding those relationships and how they support process improvement can we effectively direct resources towards the outcomes, ensuring that there is something that we are making progress towards and not just aspirations with no road map for delivery. Without getting this right, the process of public service delivery runs the risk of drift, lack of focus and succumbing to the simplicity of sound bites over substance. Delivery and high-quality public services is as efficiently as possible is what is at stake, making a difference to people's lives and doing so in a financially sustainable way is the prize. While the Scottish Government's use of the performance framework is recognised as being world-leading compared to other Governments, in terms of global best practice across all sectors, there is more to be done. The issue of embedding the NPF in public bodies is something that is recognised in the local government committee's report. Like all good, continuous improvement activities, embedding is not an event but an on-going process. The more that public bodies build the framework outcomes and indicators into their own work, the more effective it will be and the more joined up Government will be. Of course, not every activity, every objective or every operational target is included in the NPF and nor should they be, but the relationship between those day-to-day operational measures and objectives in the higher-level strategic national performance outcomes has to be clearly understood and mapped out. The hierarchy of key performance indicators cascading down from the national performance framework to local indicators and targets needs to be clear. If local service delivery is focused on a set of measures and objectives that exist in an island with no bridge to the NPF, then we will struggle to succeed at all levels. The test of a truly well-functioning performance framework is not just what it contains but how relevant it is seen to be by those delivering on the ground. In any system in which there is such a disconnect, there is inefficiency but also scope for improvement. The work of Harry Burns's review into targets and indicators in the health context also contributes to this discussion. It presents in a coherent fashion the way outputs, indicators and targets are related as all are part of a continuous improvement process under a whole systems approach. However, in the health context and I expect across other public services, it also highlights the existence of multiple suites of performance indicators, not all necessarily linked to each other or to the NPF indicators. When it comes to the relationship between spend and outcomes, more work has to be done. The budget review process has put more emphasis on understanding those links, and while it is not always possible to directly map spend on a specific outcome, much spend is, for example, process infrastructure that contributes to multiple outcomes. That does not mean that we should not try to do so where possible. And, indeed, constantly assessing the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes is essential to focusing resources most effectively. The Christie commission stresses the importance of moving beyond a focus on inputs towards assessing the impact of our actions on outcomes, and that has been mentioned previously in the debate. That is something that does not come naturally, however, to politicians. The lure of headline, grabbing and extra resource commitments is difficult to ignore. Viewing the answer to all service delivery problems as I need for more spend rather than assessing the equally important relationship between spend and results is a trap that we all too easily fall into, yet we have to have the matured debate on effective service delivery. We need to move beyond discussing just inputs. Finally, I will preside a word on measurement. The great Scottish scientist and engineer William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, is credited with saying that when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it. However, when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind. While that might not be true in all cases, the default position should be that we should seek to measure where possible to ensure that we know where we are, which is a key part of making sure that we keep moving forward towards our destination. In conclusion, the national performance framework is a powerful vehicle for driving public service improvement. I hope to see more work by the Government to ensure that the framework is further embedded and deployed to deliver high-quality and cost-effective services across the public sector. The national performance framework is fundamental to ensuring that our policies are embedded in our collective vision and principles for Scotland. That goes beyond the electoral cycles. As a member of the NPF round table representing Scottish Labour since the time when John Swinney was chairing it, I have followed progress closely. I want to draw focus on one of the criteria at the new national outcomes to better reflect the values and aspirations of the public expert stakeholders and ministers. In my view, the consultation arrangements and feedback achieved the public part pretty well, not by asking people down the pub what they thought of the NPF to follow on from what Willie Rennie was saying, but actually because phase 1 of the review involved consulting with the public on what kind of Scotland they would like to live in and was supported by the Carnegie Trust and had street stalls undertaken by Oxfam as well. Let's also be aware that there were 515 participants involved across a range of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation areas and covering eight electoral regions. Marginalised communities were, in my view, thus actively involved. The round table itself activated stakeholders. I found one of the particularly interesting contributors was the children's parliament, which was again involved in phase 1. Whenever the children's parliament talks to children about their needs and their rights, we find our conversations revolving around love. If there is a bottom line, a key message, this is that children need to be loved. I think that whatever Alexander Stewart says, that most people know what that means. It is a bond, as the children's parliament says, and I quote that they have, the protection they need and the basis of confidence, agency and resilience that they need to grow and flourish and manage adverse childhood experiences. Childhood wellbeing is one of the most important developments in the MPF. It was challenging, in my view, for the committees to receive the review findings once they had been laid. However, I cannot see how else that could have been done. Perhaps a part from asking for committees' inputs at phase 1 might be considered for the next review. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution stated that he was open to improvement and has said that, if it is about further collaboration, engagement and scrutiny, the MPF could well be enhanced by that. Here we go with a few short points. The local government committee stresses that there is room for improvement in terms of monitoring, both ultimately vital in tracking our progress and ensuring that the MPF is more than just aspirational words. Data should remain comparable from year to year and accessible online. I appreciate the challenges with that, but I think that that is really significant. I would also add my support to the call for more information from the cabinet secretary how the MPF can be applied and monitored in the public sector for a consistent approach towards the same ends. A further review criteria is to improve the alignment of the SDGs and Scotland's national action plan for human rights. I welcome the briefing from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and its recognition that the wording reflects Scotland's human rights obligations and duties under international law. That is the right approach. I also believe that we have made a good start, even if we are not completely there with the SDGs. To focus on one of those, highlighted by the cabinet secretary himself, to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls is fundamental. In the context of the SDGs, my own eclair committee notes the view of the Scottish Government on sustainability and sustainable economic growth. We would welcome further clarification as to whether sustainable development was considered instead of sustainable economic growth. I hope that the cabinet secretary might respond to that in his closing remarks. A further review criteria, which, in my view, is the most important of all, was to allow us to better track progress in reducing inequalities, promote equality and encourage preventive actions. The Trussell Trust has recently stated that the food banks are now the fourth emergency service and that they gave almost half a million emergency food supplies to children last year across the UK. In Scotland, there is a real cause for concern, and the cuts to councils and other issues are things that must be addressed within the context of the NPF. More broadly and finally, what is prosperity for all? Do we really go beyond GDP in the NPF and measure what matters to the people of Scotland? I know that this is a challenge, but I do not think that we are quite there yet. Surely the time has come for a pilot to be reported on those measures that are parallel to GDP. In my view, the NPF would be even more fit for purpose and inclusive than it is in this review. The last of the open debate contributions is from Tom Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I remind the chamber that I remain an Abilene City councillor? I am happy to speak today on the revised national outcomes and the national performance framework, and the whole process reminds me of my teaching MBA, trying to teach them how to strategic documents. So far, the Scottish Government has informed its decision in amending those outcomes by seeking views from many sources, from adults and experts, to children and even Government ministers. I welcome that approach and would like to see it continue into the future. Turning to the revised outcomes, I feel that they have become rather vague. In fact, motherhoods and apple pie come to mind. It seems that the Government is abandoning hard and measurable targets in favour of vague promises that seemingly cannot fail. That brings me to the topic of management. Spice has said that they do not know how well the national indicators will measure those revised outcomes. When management can no longer be directly tied to the outcomes, accountability is lost. If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it, but we have seen that behaviour before. As the results were going from bad to worse, the Scottish Government scrapped the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy, and literacy and numeracy levels have plummeted under the SNP's tenure. I fear that the national performance framework no longer deals with performance. The Government will claim that the outcomes of work still track through the national indicators, but my point is that they no longer explicitly measure against them. For every one statistic that exposes a failure or area to be improved, the Government still points to five other vague measurements that pretend that nothing needs to be done. However, if we are going to discuss those indicators, let us do it properly. According to the Scottish Scotland performance website, over four-fifths to 55 national indicators are not improving. Does the member not see the blatant inconsistency in the remarks that he has just made to say that we do not judge performance and then turn to the very measurement in which we judge performance and we publish even those areas that show that we have not met the kind of performance that we want? My commitment is that Scotland's performance will continue, it will continue to measure and it will continue to report, and that is available not just to Parliament but to all of public. You cannot say that there is no scrutiny and then turn to the scrutiny to criticise the Government's performance. Tom Mason The scrutiny is just that. It is judging the Government's performance against the indicators, and since the indicators so far indicate that four-fifths have not improved at all. On top of that, the Government is missing its current economic performance targets, costing Scotland billions of pounds. The SNP should have believed that that is not their fault that the UK Government or even Brexit is to blame. However, in the finance constitution committee session yesterday, Andrew Chapman from the Government's own fiscal responsibility division said that the current problem that we face is Scotland's specific economic shock—a wiring indictment of the Government's performance. In the face of his information, he would expect a robust response, perhaps a decluttering of the economic landscape or lowering taxes on businesses and people to encourage them to interact, because consumer spending is by far the largest part of our economy. What do we get instead? An increasingly vague set of national outcomes and a 400-page fantasy novel on independence. At least we know where the SNP priorities lie. In looking at those revised outcomes, I could not help but notice that the previous commitment to high-quality public services did not make the latest cut. Obviously, the Government feels that the outcome has been achieved. Yes, if you wish. I have to be very quick, Derek Mackay. Does the member not recognise that high-quality public services are means to an end, not an end in itself? You have about 30 seconds. That is too complicated for me to understand that. However, last year, the policy satisfaction was local goods services fell by 10 per cent. At the time, I asked Derek Mackay, the minister, whether he thought that the best way to respond to this was the Government's plan to force councils to raise local taxes. Instead of stating the officer's answer, he claimed that the public services were local authorities' responsibility, not the Government's. Indeed, he said that devolved administrations were, I quote, autonomous bodies responsible for managing their own day-to-day business with money available to them. I sent him and I would like to see him apply to his own organisation. You come to close, please, Mr Mason. I worry that the simple accountability is being hushed out of the door in favour of normative statements that are easy to spin. I worry that the SNP won't measure it, and so they can't manage it, and I think that that is the worst outcome of all. We move to the closing speeches, and I call on James Kelly. Six minutes, please. I think that, in some senses, it's been an interesting debate. There have been a number of themes to it. What interested me in the initial stages was the contributions from the people speaking on behalf of the committees. There seemed to be some differences of opinion. I thought that Graham Day made a very good case for some of the indicators that he didn't feel were included, such as land ownership. We heard from Gordon Lindhurstam on behalf of the economy committee. A theme in that, the evidence to that committee was that perhaps there were too many indicators and they should get cut down. I thought that Andy Wightman made a good case for including a measure around the co-operative economy. However, I take the cabinet secretary's point that you have to be careful that you don't drown in definitions and that we need some element of clarity around that. One way forward on that was pointed out by Claudia Beamish when she said that the local government committee was looking for proper monitoring to take place, and that would help greatly in terms of what are the correct and most effective definitions. I think that Willie Rennie's contribution was excellent, and I brought straight to the heart about what the debate is about. There is a danger that we can spend all afternoon on too much of the process, debating what indicators and what measures should be included, and we will lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. I agree with the point that he made that there are too many debates in this Parliament that we do not necessarily need to allocate so much time to, and we should find more time to develop the themes that are coming out of this debate, not just in terms of the outcomes but in the scrutiny around the outcomes. The measure shows that the Government is struggling in some areas in one ward in Rutherglen, rather than in central and north, and child poverty is running at 28 per cent. That means that, in that ward, there will be children who are not being fed and clothed properly, that might begin out to school in winter mornings with holes in their shoes, and that is a real issue, and that undermines the ability for those kids to be safe and educated properly. We have frequently heard in the chamber in recent times about the challenges in education—three and a half thousand less teachers, not enough teachers in technology and engineering, and that undermines our ability in terms of economic performance. We need to be aware of those issues. That needs to be brought into the debate. That can be difficult in a political climate, where, understandably, the Government does not want to admit that it is wrong, and it can be quite heated particularly around the time of the budget process. To an extent, Ivan McKee outlined a way forward on that. We need a process that only looks at inputs, money allocated to the budget, but it also looks at output and outcomes. I do not think that it is just the monitor around that. We need to change the overall nature of the debate. As Willie Rennie suggested, we need more debates and more honest debates about that in the Parliament. When we debate these around the budget time, the debate can be quite charged. I understand that it is difficult for the Government to always bring forward a positive perspective, but if we are ever going to achieve proper progress in those areas, there needs to be an element of honesty about it. That not only involves the Government but also involves the Opposition parties. Derek Mackay Just again, in the spirit of transparency and openness to remind the chamber that, at every budget, I also produce, as I said to Willie Rennie, the Scotland Performed Scorecard, which sets out even challenging statistics on progress in relation to the national performance framework. However, we all have a duty to promote and scrutinise that, which has been published for years, but maybe this debate will add to that interest in future years. James Kelly That is very true. The other thing that is linked to that is that there needs to be an honest debate about priorities in the budget and how you find the money for that. Obviously, the most recent budget round that Labour put forward is an extensive list of spending commitments, and there is debate to be had about whether those are right and whether the level of taxation is correct. Ultimately, for all parties, there needs to be an honest debate about whatever budget you come to. It is a defined number, and there will always be challenges in that budget in terms of what you are able to achieve. However, the problem with the debates around the budget period is that we all get into locked party positions and sometimes we are not able to have a proper exchange around the issues and challenges. That therefore undermines our ability to achieve the national outcomes. Gordon Lindhurst said that this was a debate for anorax. We need to get anorax off and get down to dealing with the issues if we are going to deliver on national outcomes. I call Graeme Simpson up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pretty sure that you just called me anorac there, but in any case. I have to say that my heart soared somewhat when I saw our own list of speakers. I saw that Alexander Stewart was going first, because the whole subject left me a little bit cold. During the local government committee session with the cabinet secretary, I think that I achieved a first in that I asked no questions, none whatsoever. I did not rib Mr Mackay. I asked him nothing. It is not just because I like Mr Mackay—which I do—but I genuinely could not really think of anything, because I could not get my head round the waffle that is the national outcomes. It took me back to my previous employment as a sub-editor on a newspaper. If I had seen those outcomes coming before me, I would have been asking what they meant. I am going to run through them all because we have not had a comprehensive list in this debate. We have a globally competitive, entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economy. We are open, connected and make a positive contribution internationally. We tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally. We live in communities that are inclusive, empowered, resilient and safe. We grow up, loved, safe and respected so that we can realise our full potential. We are well educated, skilled and able to contribute to society. We have thriving and innovative businesses with quality jobs and fair work for everyone. We are healthy and active. I am, but I am not sure everyone else is. We value, enjoy, protect and enhance our environment. We are creative and are vibrant. Our diverse cultures are enjoyed widely. We respect, protect and fulfil human rights and live free from discrimination. The final one, which I think was there before, our public services are high quality, continually improving, efficient and responsive to local people's needs. He talks about this being awful, but would he not accept that the response of the stakeholders to the environment committee's call for evidence and, indeed, the depth in which the environment committee has gone into this and the number of recommendations and calls on the Government's means to suggest this actually really matters? Graham Simpson? I can only say what I think. That is my view of the language used. The child poverty action group welcomed the inclusion of poverty within the national outcomes but questioned whether tackling poverty is an outcome. Instead, they suggested that it is a process intended to achieve the goal of eradicating poverty for good. They said that, in the interests of clarity—that is very important—the outcome should state the eventual aim rather than the method of achieving it. I think that they are right. That is the problem. The wording is all wrong. It is bureaucratic, it is babble, it is Government's speak gone mad. Alexander Stewart and others were quite right to point this out when they spoke of ambiguous wording and vague promises. I was wondering who could be responsible. Was it the Cabinet Secretary? Well, apparently not, because when Derek Mackay appeared before the local government committee, he gave the game away. There had been a cross-party group formed. He said, this is the first time we have tried to define our mission and our purpose beyond just what the Government wants to achieve. We have tried to define our purpose as a society as well, which takes us into our values. Frankly, if I can get agreement around the table between people such as Murdo Fraser and Patrick Harvie, I suggest that I am not doing too badly. We have it, Deputy Presiding Officer. Murdo Fraser is the villain here, in collusion with the Cabinet Secretary and Patrick Harvie. Claudia Beamish, who has left, sadly, was spared. I know she was, but you did not mention her. I think that it has been an interesting debate for me, because I have learned some stuff that I did not know before. I will tell you something that you did not know. Michelle Ballantyne, who spoke about breastfeeding, is a bit of an authority. She has had six children who were all breastfed, which probably makes her the breastfeeding champion of the Parliament. She does know what she is talking about. Gordon Lindhurst, in a rather bizarre opening, I thought, quoted from 12th night. At least he went on to describe his committee as anorak wearers. I do not know what the rest of them will make of that. Just to prove his point, he went on to quote from a French philosopher. However, I think that Mr Lindhurst was agreeing that things have to be clearer, or something like that anyway. Despite what I have said, we welcome the draft national outcomes. They are important. That has been impressed on me by various speakers, so I commend the document despite its vagueness. Derek Mackay, up to seven minutes, please. I think that the last comment that Graham Simpson makes is that, despite some of the criticism in the debate this afternoon, it is to be commended. We have made a number of points—some party political, some genuinely about process, but fundamentally, is there a deep-seated challenge to the purpose, or the values, or the outcomes, that Government and Parliament ultimately are proposing? I genuinely do not believe that there is real divergence between us. The reason that is important is that there is consensus is that it will calibrate the public sector, the private sector and the third sector and wider community to help to deliver those kinds of outcomes. I would be very careful in describing some of it as waffle because it was developed in consultation with the communities of Scotland. Some of the language has come from children in the children's parliament in relation to them. Some of it has come from human rights organisations, environmental organisations and the business community. I would say that this is not political correctness gone mad, as you often hear. This is an evidence-based approach as to how we align our efforts to build a better society and one that can define as best we possibly can the kind of society that we seek. In that regard, yes, I have tried to balance the political interests from the Conservative representative, Murdo Fraser, through to the Greens' positioning and Patrick Harvie. All political parties were invited to the round table that helped to shape the process and contributed very constructively. Of course I will. I hear what you are saying and I will not argue with that, but one of the things that I would ask in the process is that, if we accept what you are saying is correct, and I am happy to do that, but would you also accept that in order for it to be meaningful to Parliament, which is where it comes down to in terms of that measurement, that we do have to have a way of measuring and understanding whether what you have set out is achieved and in what context. When you come back here to late before us, will you make sure that we do have some actual things that we can get hold of and say, there is the baseline, there is where we are going? Can I remind all members that, even when you have been nice to each other, you should speak through the chair? Derek Mackay. Yes is the answer to the question, because the Scotland performs website is better than just an occasional report sent to some committees. It is live, it is transparent and the measurements through the indicators have been determined largely by the chief statistician in the Scottish Government, so officials have worked very hard to address what we think we can measure, but so do others. STUC and other organisations asked me to put in indicators that we had not proposed, and I changed those indicators. A few very important points in relation to the criticism and consultation. What I have done is what the law has asked me to do, and I have gone beyond that. I did not just publish the proposed purpose and outcomes, I also published the indicators. The law does not require me to do that. It was my imperative, it was at my instruction that the indicators were published, because of course it makes sense to set out how you proposed to measure that which you are trying to deliver. All of that indeed was shared with the cross-party steering group, on which there was business representation, charities, children and a whole host of other people as well. The indicators are, I think, credible. I think that they are helpful, and at times they will be critical, where progress is not made. I say again that there are many things that will not be published in the national performance framework for the reasons that other members have given, but will be published elsewhere, and absolutely the Government will be held to account for. Whether that is in parliamentary debate, whether that is in committee, whether that is in questions—and I get many parliamentary—yes, I will. Graham Dey. On that point of scrutiny, I wonder how the cabinet secretary views Willie Rennie's suggestion about more regular consideration in the chamber of MPF, and whether he might share my view that such an approach might best be undertaken in the form of joint committee debates on the back of individual committee work, rather than in government time, where, as James Kelly alluded to, we would see members contributing as individuals, and we would certainly see party politics creeping into that. I wonder whether, having scrutiny based on broader and detailed committee work ahead of that, it might get us a better outcome. Derek Mackay. Yes, I agree with that. It is a helpful suggestion, because, just as we are proposing all-year round budget scrutiny, of course we should have all-year round scrutiny of Scotland's performance and the performance, not just of government, but right across society as well. That is why the alignment is so important. I think that some members have got confused between purpose and values, outcomes and indicators, and then, going even beyond the indicators, what is crucially important is implementation and the policy actions that deliver success, hopefully, in that regard. By all means, criticise implementation, but that was not what today's debate was about. That is not what the current consultation process is about. It is trying to establish, if we can, as a Parliament at unite around the outcomes and the purpose. I have offered the indicators for further scrutiny, but I welcome all the transparency and contributions to this debate, which I will, of course, reflect upon. I think that I have tried to make, on a number of occasions, the point around sustainable development goals that are understood by United Nations as part of that structure. However, a key point I would make is that the interrelationship between the outcomes and those measurements, those indicators, are complex. The website will helpfully show how a range of indicators relate to a range of outcomes. Fundamentally, that is about the consensus on our vision for our country and our purpose. I have tried to balance those who want economic growth, those who do not want economic growth, those who want inclusivity, and those who do not think that inclusivity is as important as we believe that it is. However, the purpose itself captures all that and focuses on sustainable economic growth, wellbeing and equality for all, so that our country and all our people have an opportunity to flourish. I am particularly pleased that I have worked so closely with other political parties, with human rights charities, with community groups, with the children's Parliament, with STUC, with COSLA, with the business community and, yes, with Murdo Fraser, Patrick Harvie, Claudia Beamish and the Liberal Democrats were invited as well. I do think that we can disagree over implementation if we choose and performance. However, where surely we can agree is that we want to build a fairer society and a stronger nation. We need this. As Brian Whittle said, this is our mission statement and there is much agreement around it. If we can collaborate in the way that we have done for justice or early years or culture, as Joe McAlpine has mentioned, that is a whole new creation that I have just produced. However, if we can unite around this, find the points of difference in implementation as party politics will no doubt encourage. However, if we can at least agree around those kinds of outcomes, then I think that it puts us in a stronger place as a country and as a parliament to deliver the kind of society that we want and the public consultation has suggested that it wants to. Monica Lennon, to wind up the debate on behalf of the local government and communities committee. A wee bit brevity would be appreciated up towards decision time, if that were possible. Thank you, Presiding Officer. You have been very generous with your time this afternoon, which is made for an interesting debate. As deputy convener of the local government and communities committee, I am grateful for the chance to close the debate. I have listened with great interest to the views of members across the wide-ranging, broadly consensual and at times poetic debate, which reflects the fact that, on the whole—I caution that on the whole, looking at you, Mr Simpson—all sides of the chamber support the aspirations behind the draft national outcomes. It is the first time that the Scottish Parliament has formally been consulted on the Scottish Government's draft national outcomes. I was encouraged by the range of responses that our committee received during our call for views, especially given the very short time that we had available just one week over the Easter recess for stakeholders to share their views. All those responses helped to shape our questions to the cabinet secretary and informed our report's recommendations. The aspirations of the national outcomes have been broadly welcomed, and the views that we received illustrated that. Those have been said already. Our call for views raised concerns such as the wording of the overall purpose, how successfully the national outcomes align with the UN's sustainable development goals, and how some of the draft indicators can be measured. Measurement has been a theme that has been brought up many times today. However, those and other issues led to the recommendations contained within our report, and we look forward to the Scottish Government writing to us with its views on our recommendations in due course. As my convener, Bob Doris, mentioned earlier, the scrutiny undertaken on the draft national outcomes was not just the job of the local government and communities committee alone, but also several different committees, many of whom have made contributions to the debate today. I want to pay tribute to my fellow committee members, even Mr Simpson, and indeed to all of the members across the chamber who have contributed to the scrutiny. We have heard lots of different views today. The national performance framework and the outcomes mean many things to different people. Claudia Beamish talked about childhood wellbeing, Andy Wightman talked about the co-operative economy, Ivan McKee and Tom Mason and others talked about process and about measurement, and Joan McAlpine talked about culture as a global society together. I was pleased to hear Michelle Ballantyne speak about the importance of breastfeeding, and there is a bit of a recurring theme here. I will address Mr Simpson again, but I would say that he does not have to be someone who breastfeeds to champion breastfeeding, and that should be the responsibility of everyone in this place. We have heard a lot about anoraks, too. I do not self-define as an anorak. I would be delighted to take an introduction. I quite agree that I am a great champion of breastfeeding, and men should be. My own wife is breastfed, so she does not have to be breastfed to champion breastfeeding as the best way to feed her kids. I think that it is good that we have that on the record, thank you to Mr Simpson. However, the cabinet secretary touched on other issues such as trading and engagement, which is very important. What, to some people, has been described as waffle, concepts of love, happiness and wellbeing are very important, and yes, they are difficult to measure. I am not quite sure whether we can manage love, nor should we want to. However, as the cabinet secretary said, those ideas and those priorities have come from many people across Scotland, including our young people. I think that it is important that that has been part of the debate today, and it is a shame that it has turned some people cold. The president was very generous with taking interventions throughout the debate, so a lot has been said already, which I will not need to repeat now. However, in closing, it is really important that we have had the opportunity to scrutinise. We have heard from James Kelly and Willie Rennie that we need to get into the guts of this, and annual scrutiny is going to be really important. I thumbs up from Alex Cole-Hamilton, so I am doing something right today. However, if I just thank everyone across the Parliament, we did not have a huge amount of time for scrutiny, cabinet secretary, it is great that you have said that you will be more flexible to look at that in future. I think that colleagues would welcome that. I think that people across Civic Scotland would welcome that, and it is important that we get that right. The national outcomes are embedded across the public sector. We have heard from the Audit, Public Audit Committee and Audit Scotland that we have not seen that evidence, particularly in the recent annual report from Scottish Enterprise, which did not mention the national performance framework. However, I know that the cabinet secretary has said that he will be holding a high-level event, I am sure, and I will be very interested to see what that will entail. I thank everyone who has made a contribution to this important scrutiny. That concludes our debate on the report on the consultation on the Scottish Government's draft national outcomes. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I could ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau to move motion 1, 2, 4, 3, 2 on committee membership and 1, 2, 4, 3, 3 on committee substitution. We turn to decision time. The first question is that motion 1, 2, 3, 2, 4 in the name of Bob Dorris on report, on the consultation on the Scottish Government's draft national outcomes be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 1, 2, 4, 3, 2 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau on committee membership be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The final question is that motion 1, 2, 4, 3, 2 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau on committee substitution be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and that concludes decision time. Thank you very much and I close this meeting.