Meeting of the Parliament 22 January 2026
I recognise Sarah Boyack’s long-standing commitment to the issues that sit behind the bill. She has campaigned on questions of sustainable development and long-term thinking for many years, and that dedication is acknowledged by members across the chamber. On a personal level, I have a lot of respect for Ms Boyack, and I greatly admire her passion and determination.
I also agree with much of the content that the member in charge of the bill has set out. There is widespread concern that policy making can be approached in a way that is too short term. There is frustration that public bodies are often constrained by annual budgets. There is shared understanding that scarce public resources must be used more efficiently and effectively. There are legitimate questions about how well the national performance framework is working in practice. Those points came through clearly in the evidence that the committee took on the bill.
However, agreeing on the problem does not automatically mean that the bill is the right solution. At stage 1, the Scottish Conservatives remain unconvinced that new primary legislation is either necessary or proportionate, and we do not believe that the bill would deliver the system-wide change that is promised. The bill places a new statutory duty on public bodies to have “due regard” for the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development, and introduces statutory definitions for both concepts.
Credit is due to the member for attempting to grapple with undeniably complex ideas, but that complexity is precisely the challenge. Wellbeing is a highly subjective and multifaceted concept. It means different things to different people at different stages of their lives and in different circumstances. It encompasses physical and mental health, economic security, social connection, environmental quality and personal autonomy. Is it realistic—or even wise—to attempt to fix such a concept in statute in a way that will stand the test of time?
The committee heard clear evidence that such definitions could add confusion rather than clarity. Public bodies already operate in a dense landscape of strategies, frameworks, impact assessments and reporting requirements, and the committee was not persuaded that the bill would simplify that landscape—nor am I. There is a risk that it would instead add another layer of process without improving outcomes.
That brings me to the proposal to create a future generations commissioner. I understand the intention behind that, and I do not doubt the sincerity of those who support it. However, the Parliament has already agreed clear criteria for the creation of new commissioners, following the supported bodies landscape review. Those criteria include clarity of remit, complementarity, simplicity and accountability. At stage 1, the committee was not convinced that the criteria had been met, and I share that view. There has been a steady expansion in the number and cost of commissioners over the years, and I am yet to be convinced that such an increase creates an exponential change in outcomes.
There is also a constitutional point. Commissioners can unintentionally dilute ministerial responsibility and blur lines of accountability. Ministers should be accountable to Parliament for delivering outcomes, and parliamentary scrutiny should not be outsourced.
The committee recognised that there is support for the bill’s broad ambitions, but the majority of its members concluded that the bill should not proceed to stage 2. The committee cited doubts about effectiveness, cost, overlap and delivery, which have already been mentioned. I believe that its conclusions were well founded.
The bill has undoubtedly promoted valuable discussion about how we think for the long term and how we can improve policy coherence, but discussion alone is not a sufficient justification for legislation. For those reasons, although we respect the intentions behind the bill and the work that has gone into it, the Scottish Conservatives will not support it at stage 1.