Seòmar agus comataidhean

It could, but that would not be my preference. One of the decisions that I had to take was on the name of the commissioner. I thought that calling them the future generations commissioner would be more relatable than if the name was about wellbeing and sustainable development, because this is about people and the planet. That is why I went for a clear definition that uses the Brundtland definition but which also brings in wellbeing, because we need to ensure that we join it up.

Something that came through strongly in the evidence on my proposal for the bill, evidence to the Scottish Government and, indeed, some of the evidence to the committee is the importance of stakeholder support for defining both terms—it is really important to raise both terms up the agenda through the bill.

Yes. You raise a really important question, given the issue of how to spend public resource effectively. The Christie commission of 2011 had a fascinating stat. It said that

“as much as 40 per cent of all spending on public services is accounted for by interventions that could have been avoided by prioritising a preventative approach.”

That statistic is quite stark. I have focused on that and thought about the practical changes that could be made.

Legislative underpinning makes it easier for public bodies to prioritise policy and decision-making approaches that will contribute to sustainable development and wellbeing for future generations, as well as having a benefit now, which is key. A lot of responses to my consultation and the call for views highlighted the cost-effectiveness of preventative policies in certain sectors, which would reduce demands on public services over time and deliver better outcomes for Scotland’s communities.

There are lots of difficult issues. The on-going Covid inquiry, which is very difficult, benefits from hindsight. I am also thinking about other issues, such as mental health support. Providing better mental health support now enables children to be children and takes pressure off families and the public sector. If young people get support now, they perform way better. I am a bit nervous about giving too many examples of such preventative investment, but that is an example that I have seen in my constituency.

Other issues can be tackled through spend to save, which means investing in sustainable policies that will save money further down the line. If you spend to save now, you will not waste money and you will get income back. One good example is energy efficiency and how to be energy efficient, about which there is a lot of discussion in the Parliament. It is not about saying that you have to do X, Y and Z; it is about having a collaborative conversation with public sector organisations.

We can spend to save and make prevention a higher priority, and we can share best practice about how to do those things. On that point, I have had some really interesting discussions with the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales about the office’s day-to-day discussions with organisations. Some good examples were given to me about how the preventative approach has been used in national health service and transport investment. Some third sector organisations also gave some good examples in evidence.

I have been thinking quite a lot about terminology, and a few suggestions have been made about how to strengthen some of the terminology in the bill. When we were considering the aspect of advice and guidance—with my excellent team here on this front bench—we discussed terminology and how to legislatively frame issues. For instance, we considered whether the bill should mention “having due regard to” the public duty. Perhaps Caroline Mair might wish to come in on this. We discussed using terms that are well understood and that actually mean something to public bodies.

In the bill, it should be guidance, because it is about a public duty to implement the public duty. It would be up to the Scottish Government of the day to think about secondary legislation, and that would be months, or years, away, so I did not go into that area.

I was thinking about the framework of having regard to a public duty and to guidance, and the backstop of investigation. The combination of those things would push the issue significantly up the public sector agenda. If we think about bringing local authorities and major public organisations together, it helps if we explain to them, with good examples, how their organisations need to think about changing what they are doing. That would be a very practical way to change outcomes.

It is absolutely critical. As somebody who has been very supportive of sustainable development activities, I have seen the term “sustainable development” mentioned in lots of pieces of legislation without actually being defined, so I think that a definition would be very helpful to public sector organisations in making them think through the details. It would help to provide clarity and would help people with decision making, because they would know what they should be focusing on, which is important. It has been good to get stakeholders’ views on that. It is critical that a definition is provided, because that puts the issue centre stage for public sector organisations.

We have gathered lots of evidence. Basically, I used the Brundtland definition, because it has existed for years and countries across the world use it. We have the sustainable development goals, but the Brundtland definition provides clarity, and including it in the bill makes it not just a nice thing to have but a clear requirement that public sector organisations would be able to understand and then implement.

It is critical to bring those together, because wellbeing is the outcome of implementing sustainable development, but it means thinking about people now and about future generations. I was thinking back to the Campbell Christie commission, which was well over a decade ago, and the need to invest to prevent, not to cure. With regard to sustainable development and wellbeing, there is a need for investment now that will support not just our constituents but future generations. I thought that that definition was really important.

As a lawyer, Caroline Mair might want to say more about the issue of definitions. We looked at that, because it must be clear and it must be understandable for public sector bodies, so that it helps them when they implement the public duty.

That was not a concern to me. It is more a question of pushing the issue further up the agenda and providing clarity. People can see what the Brundtland definition has meant over the years, and they can see the sustainable development goals, but explaining that in the bill—setting it out in detail—pushes it up the list of priorities of public sector organisations. That is the aim of the bill—to give sustainable development more focus and clarity. There are definitions out there, but the bill is about saying, “If you are implementing sustainable development, this is the definition that you should be using.” We are allowed to modernise legislation. Doing so in the way that I propose would not rewrite all the previous legislation that we have passed; it would say, “Here is the definition that public sector organisations should now be using.”

I have just been given some very helpful advice by Sean Taheny, which is that it was the view of Scotland’s International Development Alliance, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland, Carnegie UK and Oxfam that the lack of consistency and clarity in definitions has diluted the effectiveness of measures. Clearly defining sustainable development in the bill will mean that public sector organisations know what they are legally expected to do, because it is a requirement. It is not simply a case of having a look at things and referring to sustainable development; it is about implementing sustainable development. The view of those organisations was very clearly that, without such clarity and without ensuring that all our decisions are aligned with sustainable development and wellbeing, we will not get the long-term decision making that is absolutely critical.

Good.

It considered the definition to overlap with existing human rights protections. I go back to the point that I made earlier. It does not duplicate existing rights or enforcement mechanisms, and it does not go into the specific human rights of key groups in society. It is about a general wellbeing approach, which affects us all. That is the distinction.

The key issue is having work done jointly by different commissioners, so that they do not try to do the same thing. The work that is being done by the children’s commissioner is fantastic, but it does not think about 2050, because that is for future generations. A huge amount of work needs to be done in this area, and that is not currently happening. I have absolutely no worry about overlap, because the experience in Wales is that joint work is really good.

I do not know whether you are suggesting that we should strengthen the definition of wellbeing in the bill.

Absolutely. The point of the bill—the point of having the combination of the duty, the definition and the commissioner—is to get on with delivering that systemic change. The support, oversight and scrutiny functions are critically important. You can see that if you look at the experience of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, which has carried out two major reviews: one into how the Welsh Government has implemented the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and one into how that act has informed public bodies’ procurement decisions. We can learn lessons from what has been done in Wales.

Having a commissioner in Scotland with teeth is critically important, because that is how we would bring about that systemic change. You need the oversight to be in place, you need the work that is done by public bodies to be supported and you need to have that scrutiny function.