Meeting of the Parliament 22 January 2026
I begin by paying tribute to Sarah Boyack, as others have done. Back in 1999, Sarah Boyack and I were elected to Parliament. At that time, I was a young whippersnapper on the back benches, probably giving the minister at that time a hard time. Things have changed over the years, but one thing that has been consistent is Sarah Boyack’s contribution to Parliament. I can testify personally to the fact that she has promoted the sustainability and wider environmental agenda in Parliament over many years and has made a real difference. She will leave a strong legacy behind in that regard, despite the fact that we are not on the same side of today’s particular issue.
I assure Sarah Boyack and others that, as we reform the national performance framework, we will continue to listen to her and others and to reflect on and value their input in the coming couple of months. I recall that when we came into government in 2007 and adopted the national performance framework and all the national outcomes and indicators that go alongside it, it was seen as trailblazing. Here we are a number of years later, and the Government accepts that the past few years have shown that it is not perfect and that there is room for quite considerable improvement, which is why we are undertaking the reform of the national performance framework.
Let us consider the principles on which we can agree. First, we all agree that Scotland should embed wellbeing and sustainable development in our decision making. We all agree that accountability has to be strengthened, and we all agree that planning for future generations is absolutely essential. Where some of us differ today is on whether the bill is the right way to achieve those aims. The committee’s report concluded that reforming the national performance framework is the right route to achieve that.
That work is well under way, as I said, and we hope to deliver the improvements that Parliament has called for. Our position is clear: we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. The future may be different, but with the on-going review of the national performance framework that is well under way, and in the light of all the issues that the committee and others have highlighted, this is not the right time for legislation. However, we are not ruling that out for the future if things change.
We believe that the objectives of the bill that we are discussing can and should be delivered through the reform of the national performance framework. That will close the implementation gap that many people, including here in Parliament, have identified, and will embed wellbeing and sustainable development principles across the public sector without creating new statutory duties.
The committee’s report makes it clear that although the policy aims are supported, legislation is not the appropriate route for change. It highlighted the risk of duplication with existing duties, as we have heard from members of the committee and from submissions from stakeholders to the committee, and recommended strengthening accountability through national performance framework reform. We are already acting on that recommendation as part of the overall public service reform strategy.
On accountability, which has been a key theme throughout the concerns that have been expressed about the national performance framework in past years, the committee and stakeholders have rightly highlighted that there are weaknesses in the current system. That is why the reform proposals include stronger governance and clearer reporting, and there will also be enhanced accountability.
In relation to international comparisons, which several members mentioned, the committee also noted the lessons from Wales, where legislation was passed in 2015 to create a commissioner and statutory duties. Although the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 raised awareness, Audit Wales reported that system-wide change remains incomplete and enforcement is costly.
As I said in my opening remarks, other countries, such as Canada, Finland and the Netherlands, have achieved strong wellbeing frameworks without legislation, and Scotland should learn from those examples.
In relation to timing, we have been developing proposals for reform in collaboration with experts, including our reform advisory group. In early 2026—in the next few weeks, I hope—we plan to invite a wider discussion on the proposed model, prioritising key stakeholders including members of this Parliament and those who have a legislative duty to have regard to national outcomes, such as public bodies and local authorities. They will all be consulted and invited to be part of that wider discussion.
Creating new statutory duties or a new commissioner would only add cost and complexity without clear evidence that it would add value. In this time of financial pressures that we all know about, we must avoid unnecessary burdens on public bodies. In the light of all that, we believe that the Government’s approach is pragmatic, proportionate and focused on outcomes. It is about delivering change through a reform of the national performance framework.
I welcome today’s discussion of important issues for Scotland’s future. I believe that Scotland has made progress in recent years on sustainability and environmental outcomes, but we all know that there are lots of challenges and a long way to go. Therefore, we have to get the reform right. Although the Government cannot support taking the bill beyond stage 1, we welcome many of the objectives that people have outlined and the aims that they want to achieve. We want to support those going forward.