Seòmar agus comataidhean

I had a supplementary, but Mr Stewart has interrogated quite well a lot of the questions that I wanted to ask. Mr Stewart in part quoted Dr Dixon’s point about the numbers being understandably “vague”. I think that that was what you said, Dr Dixon, but you prefaced that by saying that “any mature observer” would surely realise that the numbers would be understandably vague. One of the issues that the Government has—be it the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government or others—is that a lot of observers are not mature and they might want to wilfully mislead people about net zero.

Dr Dixon, do you think that the Government is nervous that, if it makes predictions out to 2040 on something that is not an exact science, the numbers will invariably eventually be proven to be wrong, because life gets in the way of modelling work, and that is why the Government is not showing its workings, as the convener would say? Do you understand the Government’s reticence? How would you respond to that? How do we ensure that there is a cross-party, cross-Government view that we need to call out those who are not mature observers?

I had finished, but I wanted to give Clare Wharmby the opportunity to respond—although she may not wish to come in.

I will not follow up on that, Mr Dixon, but you make an important point. Your point clearly highlights the interdependence aspect, because mapping out those plans will require real, serious, proper and mature partnership work between the UK and Scottish Governments. That is helpful to put on the record.

Good morning, and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2025 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies from Collette Stevenson and Michael Marra.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I understand and appreciate that, but I just wondered whether you had an example of a public body saying that it was working on sustainable development in what it does, whereas your view was that what it was doing was actually contrary to the definition in the bill. I am genuinely not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think that what you are saying is that it is more about pushing the issue up the political agenda than about the definition itself.

Of course. I am not known for speaking quietly—[Interruption.] There is no need to laugh at that, Mr Stewart, thank you very much.

It was pointed out to me that the policy memorandum refers to the definition of “sustainable development” as an overarching definition. I am wondering what that would apply to. Would it apply to individual public bodies, which would have to have due regard to it, or would it apply to all public policy and to every piece of legislation that goes through the Parliament? What is meant by “overarching”?

We will check the evidence, just in case I have reflected that inaccurately, which is certainly not my intention. We will reflect on your comments.

I am just smiling, Ms Boyack. I have inadvertently afforded you the opportunity to make a closing statement, which might be no bad thing. I think that the committee will fully take on board all the points that you have made.

It is worth noting that the committee has not had any opportunity to scrutinise what is or is not happening in other countries, so we cannot really make any judgment on whether those initiatives are effective. We were able to take a very small amount of evidence that was indirect, via Scottish organisations, on what is happening in Wales. One thing that came through from that—members of the committee will have their own views on this—is that the new commissioner in Wales focused minds rather than having any particular direct impact. There was a cultural change; that came through quite strongly in evidence. We have to deliberate on that as a committee—it is important to say that. We also have to deliberate on whether the reform of the national performance framework and embedding the national outcomes across public bodies will be an effective way to push all this forward.

However, irrespective of whether the bill progresses, your passionate delivery this morning has already dramatically raised the issues up the agenda in Scotland, and I think that the committee would like to thank you for that.

I am sorry if my memory is failing me, but I think that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s office said that it did not agree with the definition of wellbeing. I think that I have got that right. How would you reflect on that?

I genuinely was not suggesting anything, Sarah. I was only reflecting that I think we have heard evidence that a rigid definition of wellbeing might not be desirable. I will correct the record if I am getting wrong what the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said, but is the concern about the definition valid?