Chamber and committees

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.

That report highlights that the joined-up thinking and support for organisations have been critical and have started to change outcomes. I can give some practical examples of where there has been change. A new hospital was being built in Swansea, and the then Future Generations Commissioner for Wales asked what was being done about environmental impact. The response was, “We’re NHS Wales—that’s not our job.” The commissioner pushed hard on the matter, and a solar farm was built at the hospital that generates £1 million a year, which goes straight into NHS Wales.

Another practical example is the metro work that has been done in Wales. That has made significant changes to public transport, with increased passenger use, and it too was a direct result of the work of the commissioner. The approach has also involved reducing fares in areas of deprivation.

I am not saying that those things are happening everywhere or that such initiatives account for every single change that has been made, but those are practical examples of policy changes that have been made as a result of the commissioner’s reports and engagement with significant public sector bodies in Wales. The public sector investment that is being made now will deliver both short-term and longer-term benefits to people in Wales.

I absolutely believe that we need to have both legislative change and the commissioner in place to push that forward. It is partly a matter of raising awareness across the public sector. There are lots of pressures, and people have to make short-term decisions. That is a reality of public sector life. The important thing is to push wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda and share best practice.

Some excellent work is being done in different areas of Scotland, but it has not been replicated. You mentioned the excellent work that has been done in North Ayrshire, and I note that Aberdeen Heat & Power has existed for more than 20 years. There are some really good organisations. However, there is also risk. A commissioner would help public sector organisations to avoid taking risky decisions that could result in bad outcomes. Given the risk-averse nature of decision making, we need to share both best practice for what works and challenges that need to be overcome. That is really important.

Having a clear public duty pushes wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda, and having definitions puts them centre stage. That approach means that, when public sector organisations make decisions—when a new building is being planned or new infrastructure is being put in place—wellbeing and sustainable development can be on the agenda. That is not the case at the moment. It is a question of building on and sharing best practice and enabling public sector organisations across the country to deliver wellbeing and sustainable development. The critical change is to have the definitions, the duty and the advice and guidance.

It is partly about having the commissioner there to hold those organisations to account. The commissioner will have powers of investigation, so if somebody thinks that they can just tick a box and say, “We’re doing this”, and that was a significant issue and the particular public sector organisation could be doing significantly more, the commissioner could hold an investigation and hold that organisation to account.

There is a combination of the duty to “have regard to” guidance, advice and support and a backstop in the form of the commissioner, who could say, “I am looking into your organisation—at the moment, you’re just ticking the box. Where is the significant change that your organisation could deliver in terms of the sustainable development principles to which you are supposed to have due regard?” That combination is important.

From looking at the experience in Wales, we can see that there have not been dozens of investigations, because no public sector authority wants to be investigated. We can also look at the experience with Audit Scotland, which looks at decisions after they have been made. That is another way of holding public bodies to account, and it has a big impact on organisations. It creates public awareness, and it makes the Government aware of issues with a public sector organisation. There is a whole raft of ways in which to hold people to account.

The duty would also empower those staff members, in public sector bodies that are signed up to the principles, who know that more can be done. It would also assist organisations in which—as Elena Whitham mentioned—there are people leading the way. More people would feel comfortable with that, because that would be what was expected under the legislation.

The other aspect is the guidance on how to implement sustainable development and the investigatory power. Yes, I have been looking at public sector authorities and thinking about how they might improve and about the lobbying that I might do in my region with my health board and my local authority to push sustainable development further up the agenda. Should the bill be passed, those organisations will have a public duty to implement sustainable development, as defined in the bill. That might help when, for example, the health board is thinking about planning a new hospital, because I will be able to lobby the board on that. If the bill is passed, it will have a public duty in that regard, rather than it being something that is nice to have.

There is an issue to do with changing the way in which public sector organisations invest now so that it will deliver savings. I gave you the example of the hospital in Swansea that built a solar farm that makes £1 million a year. That is the kind of different thinking that I am seeking to encourage. Think about the challenges that the public sector is facing. Getting to the point of embedding sustainable development is difficult, but introducing a legal obligation will push the issue up the agenda. Sustainable development is an opportunity that is not being seized currently.

We also have the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and we have rights embedded in law, but the bill brings a broader approach in terms of sustainable development and wellbeing. There are also the outcomes that are defined by the Scottish Government in the national performance framework. I think that there is scope for more discussion, and part of that is about collaborative work.

One of the things that I have recognised from the outset is the challenge of getting the definition perfect for now and for five or 10 years down the line. I wanted to have a focus on this so that we raised it up the agenda and enabled organisations to focus on it, too. The collaborative work is critical.

Is there another question that you would like to ask me?

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.

We were thinking about implementation. This is about real people and the fact that we need to think through what the impact of legislation will be. That is why we went for it. I looked at Scotland’s national outcomes and the national performance framework, and I thought about the opportunities for people’s lives from implementing wellbeing goals. I mentioned earlier that we have both sustainable development goals and wellbeing outcomes; the bill joins the two together. It is about the impact on real people of the decisions that we make.