Meeting of the Parliament 22 January 2026 [Draft]
As other members have done, I commend Sarah Boyack for her diligence and dedication to the bill and her commitment to the general policy area over many years in the Parliament. I also commend all those who gave evidence for our committee’s scrutiny of the bill.
At the heart of this member’s bill is a hugely ambitious and important policy aim, which is to further embed wellbeing and sustainable development into the work of Scotland’s public sector. Indeed, the Scottish Government has been considering its own legislation on the matters that we have heard about, but ultimately decided that a refreshed national performance framework was a better way of successfully pursuing the policy aim.
On balance—and it is on balance—I agree with the Government. The bill gives a statutory definition of wellbeing, whereas the national performance framework is, by definition, a far broader wellbeing framework and sets the vision for the kind of Scotland that we all want to live in, with 11 national outcomes and 81 associated indicators, which is a broader suite of indicators for achieving wellbeing and sustainable development. As set out in the 2015 act, public bodies have a duty “to have regard to” those outcomes and indicators, so there is already a statutory obligation. The bill’s statutory definition of sustainable development is intended to align with the UN sustainable development goals, as are the indicators and outcomes within the national performance framework, so there is a match-up with legislation that already exists.
The policy memorandum for the bill states that the policy and objectives include that it will
“foster a joined-up approach to sustainable development across the public sector, which will complement and enhance the existing national frameworks for tackling the challenges faced by society, including climate change.”
That is very important and commendable. However, I believe that, if existing frameworks need to be enhanced, that is just what we should do, rather than add another layer of statutory duties on public bodies. Our committee heard concerns about such an overlap.
Sarah Boyack wishes to achieve policy coherence. Again, that is absolutely right, but there could be a risk of the opposite happening. Our committee did not think that the evidence was sufficiently clear that the bill would deliver policy coherence.
The issue that needs to be addressed is how we ensure that public bodies are meeting existing duties regarding sustainable development and wellbeing. For me, a key recommendation in our report is that
“public bodies must have the tools, guidance, support and accountability mechanisms to ensure a consistent approach to delivery of the wellbeing and sustainable development goals.”
That is a truism, with or without the bill.
The Scottish Government must be clear about how its review of the national performance framework will deliver that. There is still work to be done in that regard. Our committee suggested that any review of the NPF could also include consideration of how public bodies use impact assessments and asked whether the requirement to “have due regard” is strong enough.
The bill seeks to deliver such aspirations through the creation of a future generations commissioner for Scotland. There are benefits to establishing such a commissioner, but given the potential costs involved and the overlap with other commissioners and public bodies, and other potential options for accountability mechanisms, I agree that there should not be a new commissioner.
Our committee is clear that accountability, monitoring and transparency absolutely must be secured with any refreshed national performance framework. Carnegie UK set out other models for doing that. One of our committee’s recommendations is that a new committee of the Parliament, or a cross-committee approach, must be created in the next session of Parliament to ensure that there is absolute parliamentary focus on that.
We also have existing commissioners, such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the human rights commissioner, and public bodies, such as Environmental Standards Scotland, which could all play a role, rather than creating a new commissioner. I agree with the policy intent, but—