Seòmar agus comataidhean

I referred to the planetary boundaries in the policy memorandum. We certainly do not want to transgress environmental limits or planetary boundaries. That is a key part of sustainable development and collective wellbeing. I would be up for looking at that aspect in advance of stage 2, but I would not want to change the definition and get it wrong. We would have to get the definition right, and I thought that the way forward was to use the Brundtland definition and the past experience with regard to the sustainable development goals. As that definition is clearly—and internationally—understood, I do not think that there would be a challenge in that regard. The bill is intended to strengthen and accelerate our progress towards meeting the United Nations sustainable development goals. That is the overarching ambition.

I met the previous and current commissioners and it was really helpful to get their insights. The fact that the Welsh commissioner can produce policy guidance has been critical. Independent reports have shown that their work has changed the culture in public bodies in Wales and pushed wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda. Lots of work has been done in Wales that we can learn from.

I am sure that you will come on to the discussions that you have had about shared knowledge and information. I remember that, in one of your evidence sessions, a witness spoke about the joined-up working in Wales and the fact that somebody from the Children’s Commissioner for Wales’s team worked for a short time in the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales’s team in order to share knowledge and best practice so that their work did not overlap, which is really important.

Another interesting thing is that those who are working on wellbeing and sustainable development in Wales have a body that pulls together organisations such as businesses, trade unions and public sector representatives, which enables them to ensure that the approach is coherent. It strengthens accountability and opens things up.

A concern was raised at a previous evidence session about overlap with existing organisations such as Environmental Standards Scotland. In Wales, interestingly, Natural Resources Wales sits on the statutory advisory committee. The joined-up approach to thinking brings stakeholders together, but also pushes the principles into the heart of Government. They work in partnership, and the reports to the Senedd’s Equality and Social Justice Committee and Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee have raised the profile of the commissioner, held them to account on their work and helped to move the Government and public bodies further ahead. There is public transparency, and those bodies know that, if progress is not being made, the Senedd committees and the commissioner will raise the issue up the agenda, which has been really helpful.

The commissioner partners and shares resources with the Welsh Language Commissioner and works with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, so the approach is much more joined up, even when it comes to considering how the commissioner works. That has been very successful, and there is good evidence in the reports that have been made to the Senedd, which Carnegie UK picked up on in its report on the commissioner’s work.

It comes back to sharing best practice, and to guidance. Having effective guidance is important, because we cannot put it all in legislation, and things change over time. It is about making sure that functions are actually implemented; it is also about what more public bodies could do.

One or two of the organisations that submitted evidence to me when I was looking at introducing the bill and which have given evidence to the committee talked about examples such as how procurement decisions are taken, which could potentially ignore sustainable development principles. The bill pushes that further up the agenda, so that it becomes about what public sector organisations do and how they invest their money—for example, if they are contracting functions out to somebody else to do that work for them.

Some people have suggested that I should amend the bill. However, I have kept it tight; we cannot have a member’s bill that is extensive and goes on forever, so I focused on three elements. If the committee feels that the aspect that you mention is important, I could certainly look at that before stage 2, if the bill was to get to that point.

Part of the guidance could be to get people to think about how they frame the procurement process—what their ambitions are and what criteria lead them to award contracts. Guidance could be useful for that kind of thing. That function and the decision making by public bodies are part of the duty. Good guidance, collective and shared knowledge, and good practice could start to change views. You are right that stage 1 of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill is coming up this afternoon and that we have the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. We need to think about pulling together best practice and pushing that further up the agenda. Just the guidance and wider support could help local authorities or public sector organisations. As I mentioned, if they are under pressure, practical support could be critical.

Can you speak up slightly, convener? I do not know whether it is just because I have a bad cold or whether it is to do with the sound levels in the room, but I am struggling to hear.

Is that a legal question that you would like to come in on, Caroline?

That is a very good question. I ask Roz Thomson to respond to that. Roz, who is part of the team, has been very helpful in pulling this together.

The evidence has been fascinating to me. I got permission to introduce my bill when there was enough support from colleagues, and that was when the Scottish Government announced its bill on wellbeing and sustainable development. I have been looking at the issue because the Government is now talking about reviewing the national performance framework, but that will not happen until next year and it will be a long time before we see the proposals. A potential piece of legislation is before you that could address those issues.

I am keen that we get that joined-up thinking. We are looking at NPF reform in early 2026, but we will then go into an election and we will have new ministers and people will move on. Retaining on-going and consistent oversight and accountability is a real issue. The wellbeing and sustainable development principles in the bill would assist the national performance framework—I am also thinking about the wellbeing outcomes—because they totally complement each other. The bill pushes all those things up the agenda. We should not keep delaying.

I reiterate that there was huge push for such a bill before the 2021 election. We are now at the end of 2025, so we need to get on with it. Passing the bill would support the Government’s ambitions and mean that more of the focus was on implementation rather than just targets, which is critical.

I found the Carnegie UK report really helpful. I had looked at other countries’ models, which include the option of having a parliamentary committee play the role of the future generations commissioner. You could do that, but you still have to resource it, because the issue is that the role involves giving advice and guidance right across the public sector. The bill would impact more than 130 public bodies in Scotland, and somebody could invent more public bodies, so capacity is an issue here.

I looked at the range of options that Carnegie UK set out, and it is fair to say that it saw the future generations commissioner as the most effective option because it was at the top of its hierarchy when it came to impact and effectiveness. Carnegie UK looked at the option of sharing responsibilities across multiple SPCB-supported bodies to leverage the impact of existing bodies and collaboratively advance wellbeing and future generation and sustainable development goals without establishing a new commissioner. However, you would still have to resource those bodies because it is new work. If you are preparing policy and guidance and you have investigatory powers, that has to be done. It needs staff, it needs people and it needs resources.

I absolutely considered the Audit Scotland option and I spoke to the Auditor General for Scotland when I was working through my own process on this. Audit Scotland looks at what has happened and audits what organisations have done; it would need more resources and more staff to do this. We discussed the possibility of having a memorandum of understanding so that you do not cut across public sector bodies; instead, they would complement each other. That is what has happened in Wales.

The relationships with other commissioners that I have mentioned, including the children’s commissioner, and the work of Audit Scotland would definitely be critical, but this is not about replicating that work. It involves much more work, and it would be an addition.

The parliamentary representation issue is a good point. I would envisage the future generations commissioner reporting to Parliament. That is what the Welsh commissioner does; they report back to two committees regularly.

Another issue to consider is the capacity in this Parliament. When my bill was introduced, I could have listed a raft of committees to scrutinise it, and they were all busy. This was the lucky committee that got to scrutinise my bill. In terms of wellbeing and sustainable development and policy coherence, I think that it is important that all committees think about these issues, but whose day job is it? Who will do the overarching work on a regular basis? There are capacity issues.

On the Government-appointed advisory council that could report to the First Minister, I thought that the approach in Wales, where they have their advisory committee working with a commissioner, brings a range of bodies together and avoids overlap. I mentioned the organisation that was involved in Wales. I could see that happening in Scotland as well, and I think that it would be a good way to do it. You would bring people together without replicating or overlapping, and it would raise awareness. You could have a wellbeing round table or an independent advisory board. Again, it is a nice thing to do, but who would do the policy guidance? Who would have the investigatory powers? I thought that the Carnegie UK report was good, because it captured the different options. Different countries across the globe have looked at these things. Big Parliaments could potentially take that approach, but I think that the capacity of our Parliament and the independent function are critical issues.

If you look at the work of the Poverty and Inequality Commission, the Scottish Commission on Social Security and the Scottish Law Commission, you see that there are lots of pieces of work out there that support what the Parliament does, enable accountability and enable detailed work to be done. However, having looked at the Carnegie options paper, I genuinely think that, without a commissioner to hold public bodies to account and work collaboratively with the Government, we will not see this being accelerated. It is not enough just to have a duty and a definition; we need the implementation. That is critical.

I was thinking about the fact that there would be an opportunity to take different kinds of steps. The commissioner could be contacted by public sector bodies for advice and could provide tailored advice and support to them. That would add expertise to decision making, and it would avoid getting to the stage where the commissioner would need to conduct an investigation. That early oversight is critically important.

In a situation in which a public sector authority knows that it needs to do more, but doing so is a challenge, and it has looked at the bill and is worried that there is going to be an investigation, there is absolutely a space before that stage where there could be engagement that involves constructive support, advice and guidance. That is the opportunity that would be there as a result of the bill. The commissioner could support the body by enabling the sharing of best practice and having roundtable discussions. That sharing of best practice could involve written guidance or it could involve having people in the room. In the example of solar farms that I mentioned earlier, people from other health boards could discuss how a solar farm could be established, what the risks are, how to avoid those risks and what the opportunities are in terms of funding and innovative approaches. That same approach could be used in relation to heat recovery technology. Some innovative work is going on in those areas, and there should be a way to share that innovation and best practice. The commissioner could play a key role in that regard. It would have a set of priorities of its own, but it would also be informed by the views of the public sector.

One of the first things that a new commissioner would do is reach out to public sector authorities and say, “Here is the legislation. Here are your new duties. Here are the definitions. I am here to help. What would be your top priorities where support is needed?” That could be the work of a commissioner. There has to be engagement. It is not a top-down, you-will-do approach; it is a consultation approach that involves support.

Telling people what to do is not as effective as working with people to support them. That is the way that they have done it in Wales—it has been a culture shift, but it has also been about ensuring best practice, which is critical.