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.

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.

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.

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.

Community Land Scotland has suggested that we think about including the Scottish National Investment Bank, national park authorities, Forestry and Land Scotland and Crown Estate Scotland, given their influence and ownership of landholdings. Would the minister look at that to enable new opportunities for community wealth building and ownership?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of her statement. Shell has returned its CampionWind lease to Crown Estate Scotland. Is she worried that other leaseholders are considering handing back their licences? What will she do to develop confidence in offshore wind and its supply chains and to promote new manufacturing?

The cabinet secretary referenced the Pentland project with investment from Great British Energy, the National Wealth Fund and the Scottish National Investment Bank, each of which has the option to invest up to £50 million. Does the Scottish Government have a plan to ensure that we will see more of that funding to get training opportunities and to create permanent jobs and investment?

Feedback from the renewables sector is that speeding up planning decisions is crucial to building investment confidence so that we can get manufacturing investment in Scotland rather than importing renewables components. For example, manufacturing renewables components at the port of Leith would be a huge opportunity. What is the Scottish Government doing to deliver on that ask? When will we see the energy strategy and the just transition plan?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments about citizens assemblies. Is there an issue with getting the timing right? Would she support amending not the ambition of having citizens assemblies but the timing of having them, so that we could make it work? After all, involving people in the process will be critical to ensure that they understand the targets and can see how they are being pulled together.

This has been a really good debate on a series of incredibly well-intentioned amendments. The ambition to strengthen the bill is important, and I thank all the stakeholders who have been in touch and those who helped us to craft our amendments for today’s proceedings. The question is what the bill will actually deliver once it is passed at stage 3. Therefore, the detail is important, and I will certainly reflect on some of the amendments in this group in advance of stage 3.

The aim of amendment 103, which was supported by the RSPB, Open Seas and the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, was to clarify matters and to enable future Governments by giving them a clear rationale for subsequent target setting. The ambition was to ensure that future Scottish Governments could not take a narrow interpretation without giving wider consideration to the true ecological impact. Like Lorna Slater, I am happy to work with colleagues in advance of stage 3, but I want to be clear that that is the ambition—to make the Scottish Government’s drafting of the bill more effective.