Meeting of the Parliament 22 January 2026 [Draft]
I became a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee just before Christmas, so, although I was a member when the report was agreed, I was not involved in the committee’s evidence sessions. Thankfully, the stage 1 report provides an exploration of the arguments and the views expressed, so I feel that I can provide comments on the member’s bill and the committee’s work.
Sarah Boyack has outlined the twisty tale that has brought us to this point. Her description of false starts, assurances given but not delivered, and the Government’s rollback on legislation in this area encapsulates her frustration at the likely outcome today. She has shown commitment to the proposal in the bill, outlining forcefully why it is the right course of action, and she has been tenacious in her pursuit of it.
The summary of consultation responses shows that 92 per cent supported the proposals, with 78 per cent of those expressing full support. Many respondents stated that the key reason for support was the establishment of a commissioner post, and Wales was often given as a positive example of what can be achieved through the creation of such a post.
The bill has an ambitious aim. It recognises that, although progress has been made towards Scotland meeting its climate change targets, much more needs to be done in embedding sustainable development and wellbeing at its heart. That is for the benefit of all communities that will be impacted by the journey to net zero, to increase the positive impact of that change and to shift the focus away from short-termism to embedding a direction and policies that go beyond the electoral cycle and focus on future generations.
Public Health Scotland described the bill as a golden opportunity to place wellbeing and sustainable development at the centre of everything that the public sector does, saying that it would assist the necessary move away from short-termism to long-term thinking.
Once the committee got into the detail, several issues were raised and explored. Definitions became a thorny issue. There was a discussion about the definition of a public body, the definition of “due regard” and whether it was strong enough, how the outcomes would be measured and how the statutory definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development could be agreed and understood.
Sarah Boyack argued that some of those definitions were already in use and understood, that the role of the commissioner would support those definitions, and that they would have investigative powers that could be used to improve accountability and compliance. There was a lot of discussion about how the bill would relate to a host of existing public sector duties and whether it would complement or duplicate them.
The Scottish Government argued that the national performance framework, which is currently under review, will deliver similar aims to the bill, and shared the view of other witnesses that the bill did not add value to existing plans.
However, alternative views returned to the frustration at the lack of
“clear statutory duties linked to a shared long-term vision”,
as described by Dr Max French, co-author of the Carnegie UK options paper for Scotland, which was co-commissioned by Oxfam Scotland, Scotland’s International Development Alliance and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland.
Although the majority of the committee members did not support the bill, they did, throughout the report, recognise the weaknesses in the current policy framework and call for the duty in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to be strengthened.
The committee also recognised the lack of policy coherence across public bodies. Although the majority of the committee members were not convinced that the bill is the answer, they did say that it is unclear how the Scottish Government intends to address the issue. There was a general lack of confidence in the national policy framework, and the need was expressed for a review of the framework to provide clarity and drive forward the agenda.
With regard to the creation of the role of a commissioner, Sarah Boyack could hardly have chosen a worse time to reach stage 1 with this bill. There was widespread support from witnesses for the idea that a commissioner would be a positive addition, with the role being described as an opportunity to drive forward the aims of the bill, shift institutional behaviours and foster joined-up thinking. However, following the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s report, the majority of the committee members were not convinced that the criteria had been met.
In conclusion, I support the progress of the bill to stage 2 and believe that the issues that have been raised can be addressed through amendments and further discussion. However, if that is not to happen, what is the alternative? Weaknesses have been identified. I am not confident that the committee as a whole is convinced that any alternatives that are on offer at the moment will meet the bill’s admirable aims.