Seòmar agus comataidhean

I met the previous and current commissioners and it was really helpful to get their insights. The fact that the Welsh commissioner can produce policy guidance has been critical. Independent reports have shown that their work has changed the culture in public bodies in Wales and pushed wellbeing and sustainable development up the agenda. Lots of work has been done in Wales that we can learn from.

I am sure that you will come on to the discussions that you have had about shared knowledge and information. I remember that, in one of your evidence sessions, a witness spoke about the joined-up working in Wales and the fact that somebody from the Children’s Commissioner for Wales’s team worked for a short time in the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales’s team in order to share knowledge and best practice so that their work did not overlap, which is really important.

Another interesting thing is that those who are working on wellbeing and sustainable development in Wales have a body that pulls together organisations such as businesses, trade unions and public sector representatives, which enables them to ensure that the approach is coherent. It strengthens accountability and opens things up.

A concern was raised at a previous evidence session about overlap with existing organisations such as Environmental Standards Scotland. In Wales, interestingly, Natural Resources Wales sits on the statutory advisory committee. The joined-up approach to thinking brings stakeholders together, but also pushes the principles into the heart of Government. They work in partnership, and the reports to the Senedd’s Equality and Social Justice Committee and Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee have raised the profile of the commissioner, held them to account on their work and helped to move the Government and public bodies further ahead. There is public transparency, and those bodies know that, if progress is not being made, the Senedd committees and the commissioner will raise the issue up the agenda, which has been really helpful.

The commissioner partners and shares resources with the Welsh Language Commissioner and works with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, so the approach is much more joined up, even when it comes to considering how the commissioner works. That has been very successful, and there is good evidence in the reports that have been made to the Senedd, which Carnegie UK picked up on in its report on the commissioner’s work.

The bill certainly does not replicate what is already there. There is a degree of overlap between wellbeing and human rights, because both are about protecting and enhancing quality of life, but it does not duplicate existing equalities rights or enforcement mechanisms. I would argue that it complements existing rights.

The bill would require public bodies to take a broader, proactive approach to wellbeing and sustainable development in all their decisions, not just in areas where there are rights. That is important.

I mentioned earlier the interaction that we have seen working in Wales, where responsibilities intersect, and we can see that in Scotland, too. There are now ways of working together, such as through memorandums of understanding. To avoid duplication, we must ensure clarity. My expectation and hope is that that is exactly what we would do here. The guidance must not be repetitive; it must add value and take us to another stage.

I am not suggesting that. I am just saying that it was not raised as a big concern in the breadth of feedback that I received.

Yes.

Yes. That is why I said that we already have human rights protections, which the bill does not duplicate or attempt to change in any way. The bill has a broader definition.

The commissioner would have to prioritise. They would not be able to do absolutely everything, every day of the week, but one of the points about having a commissioner is that they can prioritise. They would be able to take feedback from organisations that are looking for support, and the ability to have round-table discussions would raise matters up the agenda. Furthermore, as with other commissioners, members of the public would be able to write in and ask, “Are you aware of X, Y or Z?” The commissioner would not have to pick up every piece of correspondence, but they would be able to look at issues that have been raised.

The key thing is to have themes across public sector bodies. As we have said, there is a raft of such bodies, and the support provided could take the form of themes for different organisations and covering different topics. You could explore, say, different elements of sustainable development goals, or the fact that different types of public sector bodies would need different types of guidance. That sort of prioritisation would be a key issue for a future generations commissioner, just as it is for other organisations. How can a commissioner, an auditor and so on investigate everything all of the time? They have to prioritise, and that would be a key role of this commissioner.

Yes. The fact that the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review was being carried out at the same time meant that I had to focus quite carefully on the issue. I believe that it is important that we have a commissioner with this title, supported by staff with experience and knowledge.

In your previous question, convener, you referred to the fact that there are more than 130 public authorities in Scotland, so what is proposed will mean adding a lot of work on to that of another commissioner. You would still have to resource that commissioner or some other public sector body to do the work that needs to be done if we are going to implement sustainable development goals and deliver the wellbeing aspects. Therefore, this approach is critical. If we are to deliver policy coherence and accountability, that will need investment and, as I have said, this is work that needs to be done.

I have been thinking quite a lot about terminology, and a few suggestions have been made about how to strengthen some of the terminology in the bill. When we were considering the aspect of advice and guidance—with my excellent team here on this front bench—we discussed terminology and how to legislatively frame issues. For instance, we considered whether the bill should mention “having due regard to” the public duty. Perhaps Caroline Mair might wish to come in on this. We discussed using terms that are well understood and that actually mean something to public bodies.

In the bill, it should be guidance, because it is about a public duty to implement the public duty. It would be up to the Scottish Government of the day to think about secondary legislation, and that would be months, or years, away, so I did not go into that area.

I was thinking about the framework of having regard to a public duty and to guidance, and the backstop of investigation. The combination of those things would push the issue significantly up the public sector agenda. If we think about bringing local authorities and major public organisations together, it helps if we explain to them, with good examples, how their organisations need to think about changing what they are doing. That would be a very practical way to change outcomes.

It is absolutely critical. As somebody who has been very supportive of sustainable development activities, I have seen the term “sustainable development” mentioned in lots of pieces of legislation without actually being defined, so I think that a definition would be very helpful to public sector organisations in making them think through the details. It would help to provide clarity and would help people with decision making, because they would know what they should be focusing on, which is important. It has been good to get stakeholders’ views on that. It is critical that a definition is provided, because that puts the issue centre stage for public sector organisations.

We have gathered lots of evidence. Basically, I used the Brundtland definition, because it has existed for years and countries across the world use it. We have the sustainable development goals, but the Brundtland definition provides clarity, and including it in the bill makes it not just a nice thing to have but a clear requirement that public sector organisations would be able to understand and then implement.