Official Report 320KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20414, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible, and I call Sarah Boyack, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.
14:27
This has been a long journey. I thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, the clerks and all the stakeholders who contributed to the consultation that the committee conducted in advance of today’s debate. I also thank those who have worked with me over the past few years to enable me to get to this point, and the fantastic non-Government bills unit team, without whose support I would not be here today.
I started work on my bill in 2021. Support for legislation on wellbeing and sustainable development, with clear definitions, a public duty and a commissioner who could deliver accountability, guidance and advice and hold the Government and public sector bodies to account was included not only in the Scottish Labour manifesto; other parties signed up to a wellbeing and sustainable development bill, too.
I held several round-table sessions with key stakeholders to ensure that I understood their views. In response to my consultation, there was overwhelmingly positive support for a public duty, a clear definition and the establishment of a commissioner who could provide advice and guidance and who, critically, would have investigatory powers, the need for which is referenced in the committee’s report.
When the Scottish Government announced its intention to lodge a bill of its own and initiated its consultation, I was disappointed, because I thought that if the Scottish Government progressed its bill, my bill would have to fall. However, I remembered the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the fact that I was able to persuade the then Deputy First Minister to include the proposal in my draft member’s bill that all new housing developments would have to include some form of renewables. That was successful.
I also thought that I would be able to feed in the incredibly valuable insights on issues that people had raised with me, such as procurement, which was not covered in my draft bill, and how to achieve a joined-up approach that would link wellbeing and sustainable development directly to the national performance framework, on which the Government could be held to account to ensure that it was effectively implemented. I also wanted clarity to be provided on the definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development, which are mentioned in a number of pieces of legislation.
Will the member take an intervention?
If it is brief. Will I get the time back?
You will get the time back.
The proposals that are contained in Sarah Boyack’s bill are the final frame—I had been going to say “jigsaw piece”—that sits around so many important strategies that are being sought and pursued in Scotland. Indeed, her previous achievement, which she commented on, is reflected in all the new housing that has solar panels on the roof.
I thank the member for that acknowledgement. It is definitely a practical way to create jobs, lower bills and deliver on climate ambitions.
What I was going to say was that I did not anticipate the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-appointed commissioners review and the conclusions that it came to. I have been absolutely clear from the start that my proposals for a commissioner were not about appointing an advocacy commissioner. In the responses to my consultation and to that of the Scottish Government, there was strong support for having someone who is independent, who can provide guidance to help to implement wellbeing and sustainable development principles and, crucially, who will have the investigatory powers that would be used to hold public sector bodies to account. In the view of many stakeholders, our Parliament needs the capacity to make sure that that happens.
The work of our committees is vital, but colleagues need to reflect on the challenge that we face in the capacity of our committees to carry out the work that was called for in the 2021 election. It also begs the question whether the Scottish Government has been performing that oversight role effectively to date, especially given the failure of the national performance framework to deliver as intended.
The sustainable development goals are meant to be delivered by 2030. There is a real danger that short-termism and the lack of the joined-up thinking that is needed to push wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda will mean that we miss out on the investment that we need to make now to support future generations. We have the experience of Wales, where the legislation was passed a decade ago and which is now being served by its second future generations commissioner. It is inspiring to hear about the success of its work, the culture shift that it has delivered and its five ways of working.
When the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with its bill, although I was absolutely delighted that the Deputy First Minister said that she would be prepared to work with me constructively on my bill, I did not anticipate that the minister would say that he was not going to support it. I was deeply disappointed by that. We are here today after the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s extensive consideration of the proposals in my bill. Notwithstanding my disappointment, there are some incredibly helpful recommendations in its report, and I hope that the Scottish Government will respond to them positively and with clarity.
The committee recognises the importance of policy coherence, and my view is that guidance is needed to embed wellbeing and sustainable development in policy making. The committee also questions the Scottish Government on oversight and the measurement of the implementation of national outcomes. I thought that it was significant that the committee specifically asked the Scottish Government to clarify, if there was not to be a commissioner, who would provide guidance, support and oversight, but there was no clear answer in the minister’s response to the committee.
The committee noted the evidence that, in the absence of clear statutory directives linked to a shared long-term national vision, there is no accountability. If the Scottish Government will not back my bill, will it consider strengthening the duties in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015?
As Carnegie UK also stressed, a point was raised in extensive evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee about the need to reform the national performance framework so that it works. Will the Scottish Government commit to that, as well as to the committee’s recommendation that it should set a time period to evaluate the impact of a revised national performance framework on the delivery of wellbeing and sustainable development outcomes? The national performance framework is being reviewed, so we do not have the answers in front of us.
I hope that the issues raised in the committee report, which the Scottish Government has not yet given clear commitments to act on, will be reflected in the legacy papers that committees prepare in the final few weeks of the current parliamentary session. What can be done now, without waiting for future legislation? Which committee in the next session of Parliament will be responsible for delivering the wellbeing and sustainable development goals? How will the SPCB deliver the accountability and oversight that we have, for years, consulted on, supported and campaigned for? We urgently need answers to those questions, because we cannot let Scotland fall behind.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill.
14:34
It is my pleasure to open the debate on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank Sarah Boyack for introducing the bill. I also thank all those who provided evidence, as well as my fellow committee members for their thoughtful consideration of the provisions in the bill. I thank the minister, too, for providing a response to our report ahead of the debate. A majority of the committee concluded that the bill should not proceed to stage 2, while a minority felt that there is a strong argument for the bill to proceed.
There are three key components to the bill’s policy objectives: to establish statutory definitions of the terms “sustainable development” and “wellbeing”; to impose a statutory duty on public bodies to consider wellbeing and sustainable development in the exercise of their functions; and to create the office of the future generations commissioner for Scotland. Sarah Boyack told us that all three are necessary to achieve the bill’s policy objectives.
We heard convincing arguments about the positive role that statutory duties could play in assisting public bodies to meet sustainable development and wellbeing objectives. However, a key concern was the potential for the new duty to duplicate rather than complement existing public sector duties—in particular, the duty to have regard to the national outcomes in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. We asked the Scottish Government to be open to amending legislation by exploring what could be achieved by strengthening the duties in the 2015 act. The minister indicated in his response that the focus at the moment is on improving implementation of the duty. However, the Scottish Government is open to considering legislative improvements or changes in future. That is very much welcome.
The bill would establish a future generations commissioner for Scotland. The intention is for the commissioner to champion the issues underpinning the bill, ensure its successful implementation and build policy coherence for sustainable development throughout Scotland’s public sector. The committee does not disagree with the need for effective oversight to ensure implementation of the bill’s provisions. However, issues were raised in evidence about the overlap of commissioner’s remit with the remits of existing commissioners and oversight bodies. Compared to other options, the cost of that approach and that of establishing a commissioner do not meet the criteria agreed by Parliament.
Does the member accept that it would be possible to establish memorandums of understanding with existing commissioners so that there is no overlap? For example, I discussed with the Auditor General that overlap and a waste of public money can be avoided by having constructive conversations at the start, just as took place in the case of the Welsh commissioner.
On the issue of overlap, I hope that the evidence from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will feed back into the Scottish Government’s review of the national performance framework, future development and sustainability.
The Scottish Government told the committee that its review of the national performance framework and the national outcomes provides an opportunity to achieve the policy objectives of the bill. Given the timing of the review coinciding with the introduction of the bill, it was not possible for the committee to come to a view on that.
During our scrutiny of the bill, we received suggestions for improving the NPF and the national outcomes. Witnesses told us that there needs to be a more effective way for public bodies to demonstrate compliance, so that it is not a tick-box exercise. We asked the Scottish Government to take into consideration, as part of its review, the evidence that we received.
I welcome the minister’s confirmation that the review will focus on areas that are identified in our report, such as strengthening accountability and oversight mechanisms, alignment with the United Nations sustainable development goals and consideration of the investment that is required to improve the embedding of wellbeing and sustainable development to achieve policy coherence across public bodies.
In conclusion, although the committee supports the policy objectives of the bill, we also recognise the significant doubts that have been raised about its likely impact, cost and effectiveness.
14:40
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill, which was brought to the Parliament by Sarah Boyack. I thank her for lodging the bill and for her constructive contribution to what is a very important debate in relation to Scotland’s future.
I also extend my thanks to Collette Stevenson and her Social Justice and Social Security Committee for their detailed scrutiny and all the engagement that they have carried out. Their work has certainly helped to shine a light on many important issues.
I recognise the positive intentions behind the bill. The Scottish Government shares its core objectives of embedding wellbeing and sustainable development across public sector decision making, strengthening accountability, and planning for the longer term. Those aims certainly reflect the values of fairness, sustainability and collective wellbeing that underpin our national performance framework, which in turn aligns with the United Nations sustainable development goals and sets out the kind of Scotland that we want to build.
This debate comes at a key moment. In January 2025, the Government committed to reforming the national performance framework and, since then, officials have undertaken substantial work to strengthen the framework as a long-term strategic goal.
We welcome the committee’s stage 1 report, which recognises the importance of embedding wellbeing and sustainable development in public policy and welcomes our commitment to reforming the national performance framework. We also acknowledge the constructive conclusions and recommendations in the report. As Collette Stevenson said, we responded to that report in advance of this debate. We share the committee’s view on the importance of enhancing policy coherence across the public sector and ensuring that the national performance framework is implemented consistently, and we are committed to doing that through a reformed framework.
The committee concluded that, on balance, the bill should not proceed to stage 2, citing, among other reasons, the issues of duplication, cost and complexity, and the Government shares that view. We can achieve the bill’s aims more effectively and efficiently through a strengthened national performance framework, so we believe that legislation is not required at this time.
Will the reformed national performance framework enable measurement against national outcomes, wellbeing principles and sustainable development goals? Will it include best-value audits so that there are ways to monitor implementation and ensure that the reformed NPF does not fail as the previous one has failed?
I can give you the time back for the intervention, minister.
The new model for the national performance framework will be concluded shortly and it will come forward for consultation in the current session of Parliament. The member will have an opportunity to give her views on that, and we will take her views and those of other members seriously. There will be an opportunity to reflect on the consultation at that point.
There are three main reasons for our position. First, the bill would lead to duplication. We already have a statutory basis for the national performance framework through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which requires public bodies to have regard to the national outcomes. Introducing parallel duties would risk creating confusion rather than more clarity.
Secondly, costs would attach to the duties. The bill proposes the establishment of a future generations commissioner with a broad remit, which would require significant resources at a time of real fiscal pressures. We have to consider whether that would be proportionate and whether alternative approaches have been fully explored in line with the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review, which previous speakers have mentioned.
Thirdly, there are issues to do with timing and priorities. The committee notes that the national performance framework is the right route to achieve the aims and it recommends that a timeframe be set to evaluate its impact. We agree with that.
We believe that strengthening accountability through the framework is the most coherent and cost-effective way forward. Legislation is not the only route to cultural change. Many countries with strong wellbeing frameworks, such as Canada, Finland and the Netherlands, do not legislate to create definitions or commissioners but achieve impact through clear vision, shared purpose and effective implementation. We believe that Scotland can do the same.
Building on the proposals that were developed in the reform programme, we will soon invite a wider conversation—as I referred to—to help to shape a stronger proposition for the next Government and the next Parliament. Our aim is to embed wellbeing and sustainable development in a way that drives real change and does not create additional bureaucracy.
Reforming the national performance framework is a core objective of the public reform strategy, to ensure a clear connection between the national outcomes and achieving new ways of working and accountability across Scotland. Our ambition is for the refreshed national performance framework to sit at the apex of decision making, which would ensure that there is a clear and visible link between strategy delivery and national outcomes, regardless of the Government of the day.
I believe that our shared goal is a Scotland that is prosperous and fair, and one that plans for the longer term and delivers for future generations. We are intent on achieving that, but we do not believe that Sarah Boyack’s bill is the best way to do so at this time.
14:45
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.
14:49
As other members have done, I thank my colleague Sarah Boyack for her ambition in and commitment to introducing the bill. A great deal of work has gone into the bill, and I commend her for her on-going dedication to protecting the environment, tackling poverty and promoting collective wellbeing. Scottish Labour agrees with the general principles of the bill and will support it at stage 1.
The integration into legislation of definitions of “wellbeing” and “sustainable development” will not only improve policy coherence and guidance for public bodies but provide structure and accountability that will contribute to Scotland’s progress towards achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals. More must be done to further embed wellbeing and sustainable development principles into public bodies’ decision making. It is clear that, too often, short-term priorities drive decision making over long-term sustainability.
The committee’s evidence sessions supported the value of creating statutory definitions and assisting public bodies to meet their wellbeing and sustainable development obligations. Evidence to the committee overwhelmingly supported the aims and ambitions of the bill. Indeed, organisations such as Oxfam have long backed calls for the bill and see it as a way of enhancing the national outcomes with decision making and delivery. They remain sceptical about whether non-legislative approaches will be sufficient to achieve sustainable development and wellbeing goals.
The Scottish Government has dismissed the bill, because it believes that its aims can already be achieved in the current policy landscape and that additional legislation would be unnecessary. However, despite what the minister said in his speech today, the Scottish Government has been promising a reformed and strengthened national performance framework for years. I believe that those promises were first made back in 2021, but we have yet to see them come to fruition. Instead, we are left with an outdated structure and legislation that is not delivering.
The current approach is clearly not working—that is our position—and the committee’s report found that the proposed legislation is not incompatible with any of the planned reforms to the national performance framework, yet the Government still will not support the bill.
Scottish Labour welcomes the ambition of the bill and the clear structure, guidance and accountability mechanisms that it would give to public bodies and other organisations. The fact that it complements the national performance framework should be welcomed, and the Government should view the bill as something that strengthens existing ambitions instead of something that is unnecessary.
The world has entered precarious times, with some world leaders denouncing the UN’s sustainable development goals. Setting out a clear framework that embeds the principles of sustainability and wellbeing into the heart of public bodies’ decision making can only help to ensure that poverty and inequality, the climate and the wellbeing of future generations are consistently at the forefront of decision making instead of being an afterthought. That can only be a good thing, which is why Scottish Labour will support the bill at decision time.
14:53
I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for all the work that she has done on this important bill.
The bill makes me wonder where we would be had we not waited until now to formally recognise in law the wellbeing of future generations. If we had not left it so late to think about decarbonising, would we be experiencing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events that we see now? If planning law had been written with nature in mind, would as many as one in nine of our native species be under threat of extinction?
So much destruction was and is done knowingly. As early as 1954, the fossil fuel and car industries had clear evidence that their activities would cause global warming in the future, yet they drilled and burned like there was no tomorrow. Indeed, there might not be a tomorrow if we do not take radical climate action today. The wealthy few’s greed for profit in the present was put ahead of the wellbeing of future generations and of the poorest. For too long, politics has been trapped in the short term—the next headline, the next budget line and the next election cycle.
Meanwhile, the planet burns, nature collapses and inequality deepens—by design and not by accident. It is no wonder that we have young people going on climate strikes from school, protesting that their futures have been sacrificed and struggling daily with existential dread.
The bill is a start, but I believe that we must go further. When climate scientists are saying that we are likely to breach 1.5°C of warming within a few years, we cannot just have regard for sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations. The duty could be strengthened so that public bodies must, as Oxfam and Stop Climate Chaos have suggested,
“promote and deliver sustainable development while protecting the wellbeing of current and future generations”.
That comes closer to the definition in the Welsh act, which is now approaching its 10th birthday. Public bodies there are under a duty to carry out sustainable development. We are starting 10 years behind other parts of the United Kingdom, so we should be doing more, faster.
I would like the definitions of sustainable development and some other terms that we use to be broadened. No less than radical climate action will do, and in everything, everywhere and by everyone. The definitions of wellbeing and of sustainable development are entirely anthropocentric, but that must change to reflect the nature emergency faced by the animal, plant and insect life that we share our planet with and by the habitats and ecosystems that sustain all life.
Also, as shown by the thousands of tonnes of waste still being exported to low and middle-income countries, we must recognise that the actions that we take here have an impact far beyond Scotland. Further, because we must all take climate action, the duty should be expanded to all public organisations and to any other organisations or businesses that carry out public functions on their behalf.
Stakeholders have made some helpful, proportionate and well-crafted comments about the issue of procurement. There is the capacity to amend the bill as it goes from stage 1 to stages 2 and 3. I am keen to engage with stakeholders between stages 1 and 2 because I think that we could resolve some of those issues. Does the member agree?
If the bill progresses, there is ample opportunity to look at exactly how we can use all the levers at our disposal to get ourselves into as strong a position as possible.
We must also make clear that the duty to act should be prioritised over all other duties, especially when there is a conflict. For example, Scottish Enterprise is under a duty to promote industrial growth, but such growth without any reference to sustainability and wellbeing is a recipe for climate breakdown and social injustice.
The climate crisis that we face means that we must take radical climate action, not just here and there, not just a little bit and not just by some while others are left out. We need nothing less than radical—some might say revolutionary—climate action. To do that, we need a system that ensures that everything that we do makes our future more sustainable and liveable and that ensures that climate and social justice are done now and in the future.
The bill is a really good start and could be strengthened, as I outlined in my response to Sarah Boyack. Those who do not support the bill today will have to answer to their younger constituents when they are asked why, given that time is so badly running out, they did not take every opportunity to create a sustainable future for them and for future generations.
14:58
I speak as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank the clerks for their assistance with our report and thank everyone who responded to our call for views.
The bill would create a new duty requiring public bodies
“to have due regard for the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development”
in the exercise of their functions.
The committee received a substantial amount of evidence in response to our call for views, with those who were supportive of the bill highlighting a number of reasons for strengthening the integration of sustainable development and wellbeing into public policy.
Those included the climate and biodiversity crises, rapid societal and industrial change and the increased use of artificial intelligence. On the other hand, those who were not supportive indicated that those objectives could be delivered through existing policy and legislation. It is my view, and that of the majority of the committee, that the latter position is correct. Although the committee supports the policy intention of the bill, the majority concluded that it should not proceed to stage 2, for reasons that I will now set out.
The central concern that was raised throughout our consideration was the potential for the bill to duplicate existing public sector duties, such as in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. That concern was highlighted by many, including Aberdeenshire Council, which described much of what is outlined in the bill as a potential duplication of work. Historic Environment Scotland raised a similar concern about overlaps and similarities between the bill and other legislation and policy initiatives. That was pointed out by the minister, who confirmed that public bodies already have wellbeing and sustainable development reporting duties through the national performance framework and their accountable officers.
On part 2 of the bill, regarding the future generations commissioner for Scotland, although the majority of the respondents to the committee’s call for views indicated support for the establishment of a commissioner, concerns were raised that that could result in an overlap between the duties and responsibilities of other commissioners and oversight bodies. That point was highlighted by Scottish Environment LINK, which stated that that could be a key challenge, and by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which did not support the establishment of a commissioner due to the risk of overlap with its office and that of the Scottish Human Rights Commission.
Although I agree that improving public policy coherence and embedding long-term policy making across the public sector is essential, it is vital that that is done in such a way that it does not burden public bodies with overlapping duties. Indeed, it does not seem appropriate, given the Scottish Government’s on-going review of the national performance framework, which will play a significant role in strengthening accountability and embedding wellbeing and sustainable development in all that we do. It would therefore seem more sensible to focus on and complete the NPF reform process, rather than to create new legislation at this time.
To conclude, although the committee supports the policy objective of the bill to embed sustainable development and wellbeing as primary considerations in public policy making, the majority of the committee concluded that the bill should not proceed at this time to stage 2, due to the potential for overlap, duplication and confusion.
15:02
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.
15:07
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—
Will the member take an intervention?
There is time in hand, Mr Doris.
Does the member agree that additional resources would be required? If he read the evidence from Audit Scotland, he will remember that it said that having extra duties to implement some of the measures in my bill would require more resources and could divert Audit Scotland from its existing work.
That is a very helpful intervention from Sarah Boyack. I put on the record that, when the refreshed national performance framework is ready for delivery, the Scottish Government should be clear about the resources that are required to ensure that it is monitored and implemented appropriately, whether by Audit Scotland or any other body that has that role.
I agree with the policy intent. Unfortunately, through no fault of Sarah Boyack, the bill came at the wrong time. We should await the outcome of the national performance framework review.
I call Clare Adamson, who is joining us remotely.
15:12
I commend Sarah Boyack for her work and her commitment in this area. The proposals to define “sustainable development” and “wellbeing” in law, and to have oversight by the proposed commissioner, are reasonable asks. However, I note the work that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee has done and that it has rejected the proposals for a number of reasons.
I worked with Sarah Boyack on the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, which I convene, and we looked at culture as being a key part of wellbeing in our society. Only last week, I hosted an event in the Parliament with Art27 Scotland, which brought together artists, practitioners and communities to discuss cultural rights and how access to culture embeds wellbeing, equality and participation in our communities. Participation in the arts, heritage, language and community life improves mental health, reduces isolation, strengthens social cohesion and supports lifelong learning. Such participation is also a preventative measure. We have been talking about taking preventative measures to ensure that people are helped and that interventions happen well before they get to crisis point. In doing that, we are supporting our health service and other public services in our area.
Given the work that has been done and the Government’s response, it is important that we act in this area.
It is 10 years since the UN sustainability goals were first established and 15 years since the Christie commission published its proposals. I think that we would all agree that the implementation of those proposals, which would have led to the embedding of wellbeing and sustainability in our decision making, has not occurred to the extent that we would have expected or, indeed, to the extent that we are capable of. That is why I welcome the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s work on that proposal in the bill. I welcome the fact that wellbeing is regarded as important. In the budget report that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has produced, we are looking at the ways in which wellbeing is being embedded across portfolios in the Government.
This is a pivotal time—a really important time. We are at the end of a parliamentary session and are moving to new objectives. The Government is reviewing its own sustainability goals in light of developments. I think that this is an opportunity to start to act in this area to embed wellbeing and sustainability into our policy making and decision making, and that will indeed require a cultural change across Scotland. We need to stop talking about it and get on and do it. This is the opportunity that presents itself to all of us, now and in the future.
It will take co-operation. It will take every single local authority getting on board with the ambition that Sarah Boyack has put in her proposals and getting on board with the work that the Government is doing to implement those proposals. We need that cohesion in order to fully engage and achieve the ambitions of these proposals.
We now move to closing speeches. I call Patrick Harvie to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
15:16
I congratulate and thank Sarah Boyack for her work on the bill. I regret that today looks like it will be a missed opportunity. We need to begin with a recognition that long-term thinking is not, in fact, happening. We are not collectively taking into account the interests of future generations in our decision making in the way that we should. Right-wing opposition to sustainable development and wellbeing economics is not anything new. It is sad that the minister is relying on support from the Conservatives’ side of the chamber to find a majority to block the bill.
Differences between the Green and SNP positions are not news, either. The Green manifesto supported the creation of a future generations commissioner, and the SNP manifesto did not. When we sat down to negotiate the Bute house agreement, we said that we would keep the issue open in the hope that we might reach agreement as the issue developed. I regret that that opportunity was ended when the SNP broke that agreement, but there was still an opportunity for the Government to find a way to make progress, even if it meant reaching a compromise with the member behind the bill, instead of acting as a block. The Government has chosen not to do that. That stands in contrast to the SNP having never been reluctant to impose new statutory duties on public bodies to prioritise economic growth, and I can therefore see no principled reason for the Government not to support duties regarding sustainable development.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
As for the commissioner proposal, Sarah Boyack has recognised the new context of the Parliament’s changed approach to the general issue of the landscape of commissioners and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported bodies. That is a serious issue, and I agree that the principles that we have all agreed ought to be applied. However, has the last resort test been met on this occasion? Maybe not.
There are alternative ways in which the policy objectives might be met, but in evidence to the committee, a very strong case was made that having a commissioner would be the most effective way of meeting those objectives. The point is that, for Parliament to be able to reach a genuine, fully informed judgment on that question, we should be able to consider the option of a commissioner alongside the Government’s preferred alternative of the NPF review, with both those options fully formed. If the bill were to pass at stage 1, and we simply amended the commencement date for the commissioner provisions until the NPF review had been progressed and we could see the detail, Parliament would be in a stronger position to make that judgment properly. That approach would be consistent with the agreed principles on the creation of new bodies.
Personally, I still take the view that the option of a commissioner would be the most effective approach. It would lock in the long-term vision of sustainability in the interests of future generations. Even if the Scottish Government is right that the NPF can include those principles, the NPF is a statement of current Government policy that lacks key features. It does not bind any future Government in the way that legislation can and it does not bring an impartial, independent challenge in the way that a commissioner can.
Even if the Parliament decided, in the fullness of time, that the NPF review was the better approach and that I am wrong, it would at least be making the decision in a fully informed way, with both options having been fully fleshed out. It would be far better to do that than to kill off the bill at decision time. Sarah Boyack’s proposal should proceed, even if there could be amendments at stage 2 to make the changes that I have suggested.
I find the Government’s reasons for blocking the bill unconvincing at best. The Government’s choice not to seek a compromise so that the bill could go forward stands in stark contrast to its repeated willingness over the years to place other duties on public bodies that directly conflict with sustainability and wellbeing.
In closing, I once again recognise the work that Sarah Boyack has done and I commend the bill. The Greens will be voting for it at decision time.
15:21
In closing for Labour, I thank members for an important and interesting debate. There is real enthusiasm across the chamber for the work that Sarah Boyack has undertaken, which I thank her for. That enthusiasm is why I am confused as to why we cannot get the bill over the line at stage 1, as Patrick Harvie has mentioned.
Every member agrees that Sarah Boyack has been consistent in her approach, from the very early days following her election to the Parliament. Like others, I thank my Social Justice and Social Security Committee colleagues, who I am sure will allow me to say that we appreciated Sarah Boyack’s work and her passion for the bill. I thank the clerks and the witnesses who put in the hours and allowed us to understand and scrutinise the bill when it was presented to the committee.
As I set out in my opening remarks, Scottish Labour agrees with the general principles of the bill and will be supporting it at decision time. During the debate, we wanted to hear whether we could achieve some agreement to allow the bill to be passed at stage 1. I think that everyone agrees that setting out the definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development in legislation would not only improve policy coherence and public body guidance, but provide the structure and accountability that would help Scotland to contribute to the achieving of the UN sustainable development goals.
Does the member recognise that the power of the national performance framework is set out in statute under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015? Creating new legislation that would provide a different set of powers with other definitions of sustainability and wellbeing could lead to a lack of policy coherence. Therefore, does the member agree that including new definitions in a revised community empowerment act might be the way to go, once the NPF has been revised?
The critical point is that Sarah Boyack’s bill could give us the opportunity to action something—there has been very little action to date. We are talking about the fact that the policy landscape is incoherent. Sarah Boyack’s bill brought focus to the committee’s discussion on the issue. If she worked with the Government, we could reach a focused outcome.
The member is willing to work with the Government. She was disappointed about the lack of support for her bill but, when the Government said that it would lodge a similar bill, she could see that some joint work could be done. We can understand why she is so disappointed by the committee not agreeing to support her bill at stage 1 and by the fact that the Government will not be supporting the bill or even working with her to support it at decision time today.
I am aware of the time, so, in my remaining minutes, I will turn to the member in charge of the bill, Sarah Boyack, to say thank you from Scottish Labour. Members will know that she will be standing down at the next election. I thank her not just for her work on the bill but for her contribution to the Parliament over the many years that she has been here. From what we have heard today, colleagues agree with that sentiment, and there have been many kind words for Sarah Boyack in their contributions.
Sarah Boyack was elected to the new Scottish Parliament in 1999. She was Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Executive and went on to be Minister for Transport and Planning. She should be very proud that, during that time, she introduced one of Scottish Labour’s flagship policies, which was the free bus pass for people over 60 and disabled people. It is safe to say that Scottish Labour is proud to have had Sarah Boyack on our benches, whether in government or in opposition. I hope that, across the chamber, we can agree that the Parliament has benefited greatly from her ability to work cross-party with determination and a can-do attitude. [Applause.]
This is an important bill. Sarah Boyack has made important contributions on it in the chamber, and it will be unfortunate if it falls tonight. The important message is that this work must go on.
15:26
On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I concur with everything that Carol Mochan has just said. Sarah Boyack is not only a long-standing member of the Scottish Parliament but someone who has served her constituents—and the stakeholders whom she has represented, particularly on the issues that are before us today—extremely well.
On a personal basis, I understand exactly what it is like to take a member’s bill through the Scottish Parliament, especially one that runs for a very long time. You get knocked back, you try something else, and you get knocked back again. I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the difficulties that Sarah Boyack has encountered. I put on record again, having said it when bringing forward my own bill, that the non-Government bills unit is outstanding. I am sure that Sarah Boyack has gained a great deal from its expertise.
I agree with Sarah Boyack on the background context of her bill. There has been a long-standing need for a much more holistic approach to policy making—she is absolutely right on that. I also agree that public bodies have often operated under short-termism, which Mr Harvie also referred to, because of the constraints of one-year budgets. It is essential that we make much better use of scarce resources, and there are definitely concerns about the national performance framework.
I took the trouble to read some of the submissions in response to the call for views on the bill. I think that most people agree with that background context, and I very much understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from with her bill. However, I am sceptical about various aspects of it, and I want to sound those out.
On section 3, I think that Sarah Boyack made a valiant attempt to define the terms “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”. I give credit to her for that, because it has made us think. However, as my colleague Roz McCall said, it is extremely difficult to put such terms into legislation with definitive and comprehensive meanings for them, because they are multifaceted concepts that touch on emotional, cultural, mental and physical health, as well as social and environmental safeguards. It is therefore difficult to find a balance of those complexities that would suit all individuals, whether now or in the future.
There has been much discussion about the recommendation to establish a commissioner. I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which looked at the issue of commissioners in considerable detail. It was one of the most interesting aspects of parliamentary business that I have participated in. We were very conscious not just of the increasing number of commissioners, but of the associated costs—as one would expect of a finance committee. As somebody who has been representing patients on the Eljamel inquiry, I have heard a lot of discussion about the absence of commissioners when public bodies fail.
I understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from, because there has been failure, but I do not think that that means that there is a need for new legislation. However, there is a need for the Government and public bodies to take responsibility for decision making. If they get things wrong, they should be held accountable. I do not think that we are seeing enough of that, which is why I am very sceptical about the need for another commissioner.
I will finish on the basis that it is always difficult when we are contemplating new legislation. It takes a great deal of effort and time to go through all the relevant evidence, and when there are differences of opinion, it is not always about the different parts of the evidence but about the process, and Sarah Boyack has perhaps run into a bit of difficulty on that basis. There should be processes that are workable. The fact that they are not workable and have not been doing their job is not a fault of the legislation but a fault of the people who are in charge of that.
On that basis, I will finish my remarks.
15:31
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 planning 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 planning 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 planning 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.
15:36
Other countries are implementing future generations legislation and there is a danger that we will fall behind. The School of International Futures has been sharing best practice globally, and it is time for us to act. As Clare Adamson correctly observed, the Christie commission recommended action—to prevent, not cure; to invest now, to save; and to keep people well and healthy.
However, we are still not delivering the joined-up thinking and action needed. It is not just about climate change; it is about broad, intersectional issues such as poverty and inequality and how those issues interact. Fifteen years on from the Christie commission, we are not getting that joined-up thinking to address wellbeing and sustainable development goals. As I said in my opening speech, we should be delivering the SDGs by 2030—that is less than five years away. We need on-going leadership and accountability, which are not happening. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road.
During the periods of consultation for my bill and for the Government’s proposed bill, I met several ministers, but they have all moved on, either to different responsibilities in the Parliament or from being ministers. Professor Colin Reid noted in his briefing to the committee that before our Parliament was established, it was recommended that there should be action on sustainable development. When I was appointed to Donald Dewar’s Cabinet, I set up a cross-ministerial working group on sustainable development—but I cannot tell you how long it lasted, because I did not last very long as a minister.
I reflect on the fact that, when ministers change, when there are reshuffles and when people move around the committees, we do not get on-going scrutiny. That is one reason why a full-time commissioner would be important: to be accountable to the Parliament and to our committees, and to have that head space and on-going responsibility. We need to make sure that future Parliaments continue to prioritise the issue. That needs strong leadership and accountability.
We need to think about how we hold the Scottish Government to account on the issue. Our public sector bodies need effective guidance and advice. They are under huge pressure, and they need clarity on how to translate wellbeing and sustainable development into culture change, new priorities and the investment that we need.
The national performance framework was established in 2009 and was refreshed in 2018. In his follow-up evidence to the committee, Max French noted that, in his research, he
“could not locate a single national policy in Scotland that the NPF has significantly impacted”.
He also noted that the evidence from Wales was that the Welsh wellbeing framework
“was far more systematically integrated in decision making than the NPF was in Scotland.”
There are lessons to be learned in that regard.
The need for action that generated support for my member’s bill and the Scottish Government’s initial bill proposal will not go away. I am very grateful to the committee for coming up with so many constructive recommendations. We need to get on and implement them.
One observation that the committee made was that it did not want to create
“confusion, duplication and additional complexity”,
but given the number of times sustainable development has been referred to in various pieces of legislation that have been passed since the Parliament was established, I think that the definition in my bill would provide clarity and guidance.
Patrick Harvie made a clever and constructive set of comments about the establishment of a future generations commissioner. He said that we could agree to the bill at stage 1 and then include in it a commencement date for the provisions on a commissioner that would enable us to link that with the review of the national performance framework. However, I do not think that that is going to happen this evening.
Comments have been made about the situation in Wales. It has been evidenced that a change of culture has been delivered in Welsh public bodies as a result of the ability of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales to hold people to account.
We are coming to the end of the parliamentary session, and we need to think about not only the current population of Scotland but our legacy to future generations. That is a key ambition of the stakeholders that I have been working with, such as Carnegie, Scotland’s International Development Alliance, Oxfam and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, as well as a host of other organisations and individuals.
I still strongly believe that my bill should be progressed to stage 2. It is not long, and it could be strengthened to pick up on the points that have been made in the chamber and in the evidence. We do not want to fall behind other legislatures.
I know that there will not be enough support across the chamber for my bill to be agreed to at stage 1, so I will finish on this point. I strongly support the committee’s recommendation that consideration be given to a session 7 committee that would have responsibility for future generations, sustainable development and intergenerational equity. That is really important. The question of how the SPCB will deliver the accountability and oversight that those who were consulted supported also needs to be considered. We need answers to those questions.
I will finish by thanking colleagues for their positive comments. I am not standing for election again in May, but I can tell members now that I will not stop campaigning. If the bill is not agreed to at stage 1 tonight, I will still give my views when we finally get the national performance framework consultation, and, in doing so, I will pick up on the fantastic contributions that we have had in support of my bill. The issues are not going away.
That concludes the debate on the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1