Chamber and committees

Our non-legislative route is to enhance the national performance framework and how that is scrutinised and accountability is built in. That is our preferred route.

I am happy to write back to the committee. We are undertaking work with the advisory group just now to look at those issues, with a view to publishing proposals in early 2026 and having final proposals ready for the incoming Administration after the next elections. If I can shine any light on what the advisory group is looking at in terms of potential routes forward, I will write back to the committee on that.

As I said, we currently have mandate letters that go to public bodies with the NPF and outcomes built into them, and there are existing duties on public bodies in current legislation. It is clear that there are mechanisms already in place, but we want to make them work better.

I, and other ministers, want to wait for the outcome of the advisory group’s work, which is currently under way. As I referred to already, we have existing duties, and the national performance framework is reflected in the mandate letters that are sent out from ministers to public bodies annually; the Scottish public finance manual also refers to it. The key for us is how all that is followed up and how we make sure that it is as effective as possible. That work is currently being undertaken by the advisory group, so it is difficult to give a view on anything until the proposals are before us.

I will take a step back first. When the NPF was introduced in 2007—I was in the Cabinet at that time—it was seen as groundbreaking and pioneering. As you have acknowledged, it involves a long-term approach; the whole debate is about how we bring about long-term change and draw up guidance for public bodies to create a better Scotland.

There are 11 national outcomes, and some go up and some go down. We pay attention to those over the long term, but, over the past few years, we have recognised that we need to look at the accountability and scrutiny issues in order to make the NPF more robust. At the time that the Government proposed its bill, that was seen as a potential way of addressing those issues, but, having listened to some people and thought about it, it is clear to me that the non-legislative route should be further explored first, and that work is currently under way.

I disagree with none of that, but we cannot allow an assumption to sink in that everything is bad at the moment. Since 2007, Scotland has made a lot of progress in promoting sustainable development and wellbeing, which are reflected much more across legislation. Earlier, I said that 30 bits of Scottish legislation refer to sustainable development; I am sure that, pre-2007, the figure was not nearly as high.

Progress is being made, and I hope that things are better in a number of areas, but we recognise that there is a lot of room for improvement. We need to issue better guidance, look at ways that we can improve things and learn from how other Administrations, such as Wales, do things. Canada, the Netherlands and Finland have well-regarded frameworks that are not reliant on legislation, so we should also learn anything that we can from them.

I have seen some organisations and commentators expressing that concern, and I share it. Again, those issues are already covered in the national performance framework. Therefore, if the bill were to pass there would be two different sources, one of which would include that reference and one that would not. Our approach goes back to the need to avoid duplication or confusion.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence. I will make a few opening remarks. I begin by acknowledging the positive intentions behind the member’s bill. Its focus on wellbeing and sustainable development is, of course, commendable. We welcome the chance to outline the Scottish Government’s position. I want to explain why we do not consider legislation to be necessary at this time and to provide an update on the on-going reform of the national performance framework.

Following commitments that were given in previous programmes for government, the Scottish Government also explored the potential for a bill, including through a public consultation. Although most respondents supported having clear definitions of “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”, the broad nature of those concepts presented challenges. Many thought that having new duties would be a way of reinforcing existing obligations under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, rather than introducing entirely new statutory requirements. Instead, the bill would establish parallel duties that do not align with the national outcomes.

After careful consideration, ministers concluded that legislation was not required. That decision reflects both the viability of non-legislative approaches and the limited parliamentary time that is available. The Deputy First Minister communicated that position to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in October 2024. In January 2025, she announced our intention to reform the NPF. Our goal is to deliver a more strategic, coherent and impactful framework. That work is now well under way.

Prior to the bill’s introduction, the Government held two constructive meetings with the member in charge of the bill. To clarify, we have not previously expressed support for the bill. We maintained a neutral position until we had reviewed the draft. The bill was introduced after our NPF reform plans had been announced. The Government is not opposed to legislation in principle, and we recognise the positive intention behind the member’s proposal. However, non-legislative alternatives should be explored before legislation is considered. Such alternatives are viable and should be pursued to avoid unnecessary and potentially costly statutory obligations. We must also be mindful of the pressures that are facing public bodies and avoid creating additional burdens on them, unless it is clearly justified.

Scotland’s NPF is aligned with the United Nations sustainable development goals and provides a coherent structure for measuring progress. It sets out a shared vision for Scotland that is intended to endure beyond any Administration. Legal underpinning is already provided for in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which requires public bodies to

“have regard to the national outcomes”.

The previous Finance and Public Administration Committee inquiry identified areas for improvement in how the NPF is used, how accountability is ensured and how the impact of decisions is measured. We are committed to addressing those recommendations. That is the rationale behind the Deputy First Minister’s decision to reform the NPF. We want to take the time to properly develop the framework for the longer term, and we intend to publish proposals in early 2026, including a high-level implementation plan.

On the proposal to establish a future generations commissioner, we recognise that such roles have worked elsewhere. Equally, some countries with ambitious wellbeing frameworks do not have a commissioner. Furthermore, the Parliament endorsed the recommendations of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, which clearly signalled that new advocacy-type commissioners should be created only “as a last resort”, when alternatives have been exhausted.

Finally, as the financial memorandum acknowledges, it is difficult to estimate the full costs of such a commissioner. That uncertainty raises legitimate questions about whether such a role would represent value for money.

In conclusion, in relation to what is set out in the policy memorandum, the Government does not believe that primary legislation is required at this time, particularly when viable non-legislative alternatives are already being actively pursued.

That is what we have to get right going forward, and it is part of the on-going reform exercise. We would welcome input from the member and the committee into getting it right.

That concern applies to everything. Even if the bill were to be put through in time for next year’s election, in theory, the next Government could reverse it, so that is an open question.

All I can assure the committee of is that the outcome of the consultation in early 2026, which will include proposals that show how we intend to reform the national performance framework, will be presented to the next Government, so it will be able to choose whether to keep the national performance framework or to scrap it.

The NPF has been in place since 2007. Proposals will be made to reform and improve it, and the next Administration will have a choice to make about that. Our Administration is committed to continuing that process.