���˿���

I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence. I will make a few opening remarks. I begin by acknowledging the positive intentions behind the member’s bill. Its focus on wellbeing and sustainable development is, of course, commendable. We welcome the chance to outline the Scottish Government’s position. I want to explain why we do not consider legislation to be necessary at this time and to provide an update on the on-going reform of the national performance framework.

Following commitments that were given in previous programmes for government, the Scottish Government also explored the potential for a bill, including through a public consultation. Although most respondents supported having clear definitions of “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”, the broad nature of those concepts presented challenges. Many thought that having new duties would be a way of reinforcing existing obligations under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, rather than introducing entirely new statutory requirements. Instead, the bill would establish parallel duties that do not align with the national outcomes.

After careful consideration, ministers concluded that legislation was not required. That decision reflects both the viability of non-legislative approaches and the limited parliamentary time that is available. The Deputy First Minister communicated that position to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in October 2024. In January 2025, she announced our intention to reform the NPF. Our goal is to deliver a more strategic, coherent and impactful framework. That work is now well under way.

Prior to the bill’s introduction, the Government held two constructive meetings with the member in charge of the bill. To clarify, we have not previously expressed support for the bill. We maintained a neutral position until we had reviewed the draft. The bill was introduced after our NPF reform plans had been announced. The Government is not opposed to legislation in principle, and we recognise the positive intention behind the member’s proposal. However, non-legislative alternatives should be explored before legislation is considered. Such alternatives are viable and should be pursued to avoid unnecessary and potentially costly statutory obligations. We must also be mindful of the pressures that are facing public bodies and avoid creating additional burdens on them, unless it is clearly justified.

Scotland’s NPF is aligned with the United Nations sustainable development goals and provides a coherent structure for measuring progress. It sets out a shared vision for Scotland that is intended to endure beyond any Administration. Legal underpinning is already provided for in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which requires public bodies to

“have regard to the national outcomes”.

The previous Finance and Public Administration Committee inquiry identified areas for improvement in how the NPF is used, how accountability is ensured and how the impact of decisions is measured. We are committed to addressing those recommendations. That is the rationale behind the Deputy First Minister’s decision to reform the NPF. We want to take the time to properly develop the framework for the longer term, and we intend to publish proposals in early 2026, including a high-level implementation plan.

On the proposal to establish a future generations commissioner, we recognise that such roles have worked elsewhere. Equally, some countries with ambitious wellbeing frameworks do not have a commissioner. Furthermore, the Parliament endorsed the recommendations of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, which clearly signalled that new advocacy-type commissioners should be created only “as a last resort”, when alternatives have been exhausted.

Finally, as the financial memorandum acknowledges, it is difficult to estimate the full costs of such a commissioner. That uncertainty raises legitimate questions about whether such a role would represent value for money.

In conclusion, in relation to what is set out in the policy memorandum, the Government does not believe that primary legislation is required at this time, particularly when viable non-legislative alternatives are already being actively pursued.

That is what we have to get right going forward, and it is part of the on-going reform exercise. We would welcome input from the member and the committee into getting it right.

That concern applies to everything. Even if the bill were to be put through in time for next year’s election, in theory, the next Government could reverse it, so that is an open question.

All I can assure the committee of is that the outcome of the consultation in early 2026, which will include proposals that show how we intend to reform the national performance framework, will be presented to the next Government, so it will be able to choose whether to keep the national performance framework or to scrap it.

The NPF has been in place since 2007. Proposals will be made to reform and improve it, and the next Administration will have a choice to make about that. Our Administration is committed to continuing that process.

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 ���˿��� 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.