Chamber and committees

That is a core purpose of the review that is currently taking place, so it is probably too early for me to know the answer to that question. The advisory group will look at those issues. Carnegie UK is part of that, as are other organisations. Answering that question is a key outcome that we will be looking for.

Okay—I am happy to write back to the committee.

A couple of debates are happening on that aspect. The first, which I mentioned earlier, is that there is concern about either having wide-ranging definitions or, indeed, the opposite of that—laying down too many definitions in a world that is changing fast, given that each organisation or public body considers sustainable development in its own context. A lot of Governments do not define “sustainable development” or “wellbeing” in their legislation. The concern that I referenced is one of the reasons why we do not do so at the moment. The other view is that the commissioner’s powers could be so wide that they could lead to all kinds of confusion and to investigations taking place.

We believe in changing the culture of organisations and public bodies and in allowing the culture in Scotland to change so that sustainable development and wellbeing become the norm, as opposed to a commissioner launching investigation after investigation, with all the costs and bureaucracy associated with that.

I can only repeat what I have just said, which is that many Governments do not include such definitions in legislation. We have not done that before in Scotland; we are using the national performance framework. “Sustainable development” has a very general definition and can mean different things in different contexts, depending on the organisation concerned.

Some of the views that Scottish organisations have shared, either with the committee in past evidence sessions or in consultations, express concern about confusion and overlap in definitions. They say that they are content with what is in the national performance framework—albeit that we all agree that that needs to be improved and made more robust and accountable.

For those reasons, our preference is not to include such definitions in legislation.

The fact that past programmes for government have included the issue is a sign that we are taking it more seriously. Of course, the member and the committee are playing a valuable role by raising the issue. I am confident that it will be high on the agenda for the next Administration that comes into power in Scotland.

All MSPs and committees will be looking at what the priorities should be for the next five-year session of the Scottish Parliament. A lot of big issues will face us, such as the climate crisis, issues relating to sustainable development, how we use the planet’s resources, and other environmental pressures. Those issues are high on the agenda and we have to get that right in the next five years of the Parliament. I am confident that, with the work that the member is doing, the committee’s discussion, and the fact that the Government has already included the issue in programmes for government, the issue will reach a crescendo, which will allow us to have proposals ready for the next session of the Parliament. I hope that the Parliament will then take them forward.

First, to take the big picture, as the national performance framework and the 11 national outcomes and 81 indicators that underpin it show, we are making progress in a number of areas, and there are a number of areas where we need to make more progress. That is the backdrop, which applies not only to this parliamentary session, but to future sessions. There is a long-term direction of travel in Scotland towards wellbeing and sustainable development. That is the backdrop.

It is difficult to always use legislation, because there are some 130 public bodies in Scotland and 32 local authorities. We are trying to create a framework, which we have done in a pioneering way since 2007, to drive the country in one direction. The review will address some of the concerns that have been expressed, and an advisory group has been set up.

As I said, proposals for consultation will be published in early 2026, with a view to the civil service having a proposal for implementing the reforms ready for the new Government that will come in in May 2026. We will keep Parliament updated on that.

I am saying that its absence has been raised as a concern, which we would agree with, because there would be definitions that excluded it. In contrast, the 11 national outcomes in the national performance framework, and all the indicators that lie below them, are very clear for people to see and use—but then, there would be another definition that excluded that reference.

Again, that is one of the concerns that has been expressed by some of the bodies that would potentially be subject to those investigations. We would have a carrot-and-stick approach, with bodies being subject to on-going investigations. Given the costs of responding to an investigation, the bureaucracy around that and the time that it would take, that would place a burden on public bodies. We do not know how many investigations there would be, and they could be quite wide ranging. Those concerns have been expressed by many of the public bodies, and we sympathise with them.

Again, that goes to the heart of what I have been describing so far. Many of the organisations that are already active in this area and which are subject to the duty on public bodies in existing legislation are expressing concerns about duplication and confusing overlap if a commissioner were to be created. We have to take those concerns seriously, notwithstanding the other issues around costs and Parliament’s view that we should avoid creating new commissioners and should do so only as a last resort. Parliament has endorsed that approach, so our view is that, although the intentions are wholly commendable, creating a new commissioner is not the way to fulfil them.

We are happy to hear your views. The issue is very close to your heart, and we commend the work that you are doing on it. Clearly, as I have discussed today, we have some concerns about going down a legislative route and about some of the bill’s proposals, such as the creation of a commissioner and other issues. However, that is what the current exercise is all about.

The Government has dealt with a lot of issues over the past few years—the pandemic, Brexit and everything else. We should have perhaps found more time to look at the issue, but we always have to balance priorities as a Government. We recognise the issue and are now taking action, because we have to listen to the concerns and ensure that the NPF is now reformed. It is 19 years, give or take, since it was created, so it is time to look at it again and make it better.