Chamber and committees

The commissioner would have to prioritise. They would not be able to do absolutely everything, every day of the week, but one of the points about having a commissioner is that they can prioritise. They would be able to take feedback from organisations that are looking for support, and the ability to have round-table discussions would raise matters up the agenda. Furthermore, as with other commissioners, members of the public would be able to write in and ask, “Are you aware of X, Y or Z?” The commissioner would not have to pick up every piece of correspondence, but they would be able to look at issues that have been raised.

The key thing is to have themes across public sector bodies. As we have said, there is a raft of such bodies, and the support provided could take the form of themes for different organisations and covering different topics. You could explore, say, different elements of sustainable development goals, or the fact that different types of public sector bodies would need different types of guidance. That sort of prioritisation would be a key issue for a future generations commissioner, just as it is for other organisations. How can a commissioner, an auditor and so on investigate everything all of the time? They have to prioritise, and that would be a key role of this commissioner.

Yes. The fact that the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review was being carried out at the same time meant that I had to focus quite carefully on the issue. I believe that it is important that we have a commissioner with this title, supported by staff with experience and knowledge.

In your previous question, convener, you referred to the fact that there are more than 130 public authorities in Scotland, so what is proposed will mean adding a lot of work on to that of another commissioner. You would still have to resource that commissioner or some other public sector body to do the work that needs to be done if we are going to implement sustainable development goals and deliver the wellbeing aspects. Therefore, this approach is critical. If we are to deliver policy coherence and accountability, that will need investment and, as I have said, this is work that needs to be done.

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.

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.