Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good.

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.

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.

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.

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 NHS and transport investment. Some third sector organisations also gave some good examples in evidence.

There is one thing that I thought you might ask me about. You mentioned the Carnegie UK report and best practice from other countries. I have been quite focused on that so that we can learn from other countries. Scotland has led on things such as the climate emergency and legislation, but, with this bill, we are following other states. I went to a conference two and a half years ago at which there was a link to the Carnegie UK report about what the other opportunities are. I hope that the committee will look at what the choices are if we want to do what the bill proposes. Although I looked at the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, I have also engaged with and looked at other experiences globally. I have been very conscious of the fact that I do not want us to be left behind on sustainable development and wellbeing ambitions.

We all know about the challenge of implementing the climate legislation. These are not simple things; they require advice, guidance and support. Australia and Norway are looking at what they can do on sustainable development and increasing accountability on wellbeing issues. The Italian Parliament is looking at embedding action. The Kenyan Senate is looking at a committee of the future. Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all looking at joining up investment now to deliver for future generations. Cameroon has just appointed its first future generations commissioner, and the European Union has created its first intergenerational fairness commissioner. This is a live issue in other countries.

We have capacity issues in the Parliament, and there is an issue with investment—I totally get that in terms of the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review. I am looking forward to having discussions with the Scottish Government over the next few weeks. However, I am concerned that we are now towards the end of this parliamentary session, and I do not want us to kick this into touch. There will be a huge change in who is elected to the Parliament next time, and in future elections. I do not want the Parliament in the next session to have to start again on looking at what will happen next. This is an opportunity for us to legislate now and make the change that our constituents need.

I will end on that point, convener, because you are looking at me. I do not want to go beyond the time that you have allocated and cut across the opportunities to be constructive and positive.

I appreciate that, convener. The Welsh commissioner has been in place since the legislation there came into force. It is a seven-year term—the postholder does not change every time that there is an election.

I have had very constructive discussions with a variety of ministers in the Scottish Government. I think that we need somebody who is there full time, who is appointed and who is held to public account, because ministers and Governments come and go. We can have ambitions, but the key thing is to implement them, whether we agree with them or not, and to support the public sector to deliver on ambitions that are not nice to have but are absolutely critical for the wellbeing of our constituents now and that of future generations. That is tough, but the bill provides a solution that would help us, whichever party we represent, to implement ambitions that can transform people’s lives now and in the future.

I appreciate being invited to speak to the committee. I thank the non-Government bills unit, because, as an individual member of Parliament, you cannot do this without its support. It has been fantastic.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to colleagues on the committee. As the member in charge of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill, I am looking forward to answering your questions.

The bill is about putting wellbeing and sustainable development at the heart of public sector decision-making. It seeks to create a clear legal framework to help public bodies to think long term, act sustainably and promote the wellbeing of current and future generations. Committee members will be aware that I feel passionately that we have to do more to further embed wellbeing and sustainable development as the key drivers that inform policies, decisions and actions that are taken across the public sector.

Scotland faces major challenges, and they are interconnected. They include the climate and nature emergencies, poverty and inequality, and they threaten the wellbeing of people today, including our constituents, and future generations. Too often, short-term priorities have driven decisions over long-term sustainability. That is understandable, but it has led to decades of decisions that harm the environment, entrench inequalities and will make the lives of future generations worse. To fix that problem, we need to embed wellbeing and sustainable development as core considerations in decision making in order to get policy coherence. We need to support public authorities to do that—to think long term, act sustainably and put wellbeing at the heart of their work.

Attempts by the Scottish Government to embed wellbeing and sustainable development at the heart of public sector decision making have not gone far enough. Committee members will recall that, before the last election, there were more than 150 organisations campaigning for us to put those ambitions into legislation. Without a clear legal framework, public bodies are left without the tools, the guidance or the accountability to make meaningful progress and deliver joined-up thinking. We need a different approach.

My bill does three things. It places a statutory duty on public bodies to have due regard to the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development. It defines those terms in law, to provide clarity and consistency. I am conscious that, over the years, we have had numerous references to sustainable development in law, but we do not have a definition of it. Finally, my bill establishes an independent future generations commissioner, drawing on the successful Welsh model, to provide guidance, share best practice and hold public bodies to account.

Public bodies face real challenges and pressures, and that is why the commissioner’s role is not only about oversight, but about support. That is critical. The commissioner would help public bodies to meet their responsibilities and improve outcomes over time. There is a challenge in that Governments and Parliaments change too often for us to get that consistent focus on long-term issues. That makes it even more challenging to tackle those issues. I have been looking at different pieces of legislation, reviews and reports that have been produced over the time of our Parliament, and we do not have that consistent, joined-up thinking and accountability. That makes it even more challenging to tackle the issues that are in front of us, and stakeholders with deep expertise in the area have made it clear that we need to do more. It is not just a campaigning issue; it is an issue of policy coherence, joined-up thinking and action.

I worry that, without an independent body to offer continuous and dedicated oversight, Scotland will continue to fall behind on the United Nations sustainable development goals and we will see a cycle of short-term fixes. The bill is a chance to change that.

I have found it constructive to hear the questions that the committee has asked and the discussions that you have had thus far. I thank all those who have given evidence in Parliament or provided written evidence for their helpful insights. I have been reflecting on the issues that have been raised and I look forward to discussing them with the committee this morning.

Having looked at the frameworks that are in place, I am very conscious that I want to get that joined-up thinking, which has not happened thus far. It is not about a lack of ambition or support—it has just not been happening, and the challenge lies in being able to deliver it.

The national performance framework was introduced in 2007. There are regular thoughts about the issues in Parliament, but they are not joined up. We need both policy coherence and accountability. It has been interesting to look at how other legislatures across the world are joining up their decision making and holding organisations to account. The key is to have support, policy guidance and a backstop that says that this is a duty and we need to be doing it now.

Those issues go together. The issue of how we ensure that the principles of the bill and the public duty are actually delivered is critical, so that question is important.

Some people think that the “have due regard” wording is not sufficiently strong. However, if we look at the framing of the duty, we see that it is based on the public sector equality duty, which has been very impactful since it was introduced in 2010. It is not a new framing—it is something that public sector organisations are well experienced in doing. It is about ensuring that, when guidance on sustainable development principles is produced, organisations are accountable for making the principles deliverable. That is the critical point. We all love the principles of sustainable development, but there is currently a critical gap in terms of implementing them.

Having evidence from the commissioner will be important, so that aspect is critical.

I will let Caroline Mair come in on that.