The bill certainly does not replicate what is already there. There is a degree of overlap between wellbeing and human rights, because both are about protecting and enhancing quality of life, but it does not duplicate existing equalities rights or enforcement mechanisms. I would argue that it complements existing rights.

The bill would require public bodies to take a broader, proactive approach to wellbeing and sustainable development in all their decisions, not just in areas where there are rights. That is important.

I mentioned earlier the interaction that we have seen working in Wales, where responsibilities intersect, and we can see that in Scotland, too. There are now ways of working together, such as through memorandums of understanding. To avoid duplication, we must ensure clarity. My expectation and hope is that that is exactly what we would do here. The guidance must not be repetitive; it must add value and take us to another stage.

I am not suggesting that. I am just saying that it was not raised as a big concern in the breadth of feedback that I received.

Yes.

Yes. That is why I said that we already have human rights protections, which the bill does not duplicate or attempt to change in any way. The bill has a broader definition.

The number that I gave was 130. I will check with the team that I am correct—it is 131.

No, actually—I am hoping that it would be the opposite, because it would involve both support and guidance. Rather than repeating what is being done, this is about looking at what is not being done at the moment. I think that it would support organisations, and it would lead to a constructive relationship. That is certainly the experience in Wales—and I have already mentioned the culture change that has taken place in the decade since the commissioner there was appointed.

There would have to be respect between public authorities and a new commissioner, if they were to be established, just as there is respect when the Parliament holds public bodies to account. Of course, that does not mean that you do not ask difficult questions. I think that the combination of advice and guidance will support the proposed approach, with that backstop of the knowledge that an inquiry could be carried out. This is absolutely about empowering and supporting organisations to do what we would like them to do and what we have talked about as the ambition.

I just want to double-check whether any of my team wants to come in and add to that or say anything else. Have I said enough on that or is there anything helpful that I could say? Sean, do you want to come in?

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.