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?

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 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.