Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.