Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill: consultation analysis

5. Strengthening duties for National Outcomes and sustainable development

Introduction

This chapter presents analysis of the consultation responses to the three questions asked within the ‘Strengthening duties for National Outcomes and sustainable development’ section of the consultation.

Question 8

Around three-quarters of all consultation respondents answered Question 8 which asked, ‘How should a legal duty be defined to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations?’.

Theme 1: Definition of the existing duty related to National Outcomes is not strong enough and there could be better reporting

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 requires all public authorities to ‘have regard to’ the National Outcomes in carrying out their work. Some respondents (mostly third sector organisations as well as public sector) consider the current wording ‘not clear,’ ‘strong,’ or ‘sufficient’ enough for public authorities to deliver on the ambition set out in the National Outcomes.

Further, the wording of the duty is considered too ‘subjective’ which then ‘makes it difficult to know if wellbeing and sustainable development have been fully considered in decision-making processes.’ Reference is made by a few organisations to the Finance and Public Administration Committee report which concludes “there is still some way to go before the National Performance Framework is embedded in the work of all relevant Scottish organisations.”

An ‘implementation gap’ in the delivery of the National Outcomes is referred to in consultation responses. Support is expressed for improved regular reporting by public authorities on how they contribute to each of the National Outcomes in order to increase accountability, scrutiny, and transparency.

The benefits of having clearer and stronger wording in the duty or having a more explicit requirement to work towards the National Outcomes and sustainable development are identified by some respondents. Point raised include that this could:

• provide greater clarity, consistency, and accountability in delivery of public services across Scotland
• reduce to the extent to which current wording of the duty is open to interpretation
• empower duty bearers to explore and prioritise new ways of working towards a shared agenda
• help to ensure that public authorities take account of, and effectively work towards, wellbeing, sustainable development, and the delivery of the National Outcomes

A few organisation quotes are presented below.

“Lessons should be learned from the Community Empowerment Act and its implementation to ensure that legal duty does not become lost or lip-service. The Community Empowerment Act was well intentioned but again has not led to the real changes that were hoped for. Those that have been able to make the best use of its provisions tend to be from areas of less deprivation giving them the practical and financial capacity to achieve their aims, in essence increasing inequality rather than reducing it.” Braveheart Industries

“It is important that the Bill strengthens the duties on public bodies to compel them to actively pursue sustainable development and wellbeing. This is required because current duties are not sufficiently clear and coherent to enable effective action on the environmental and social challenges that are impacting the wellbeing of current and future generations. Consideration should also be given to actively promoting this approach across the private sector, given its significant reach and contribution across Scotland. There is currently an implementation gap on what policy wants to achieve and what it delivers, with resulting challenges around scrutiny, accountability, collaboration, and incentives.” Public Health Scotland

“To help narrow the well documented implementation gap in the delivery of the National Outcomes, the Bill could provide additional requirements for public authorities to ‘regularly publish how they contribute to each of the National Outcomes’ and ‘set out how they support a coherent approach to delivering sustainable development and wellbeing’ as defined in the Bill. It is important that the duties make clear that wellbeing and sustainable development, as expressed in the National Outcomes, become the overarching framework for all policy making in Scotland, effectively sitting above other existing duties and frameworks.” Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland

“This should be accompanied by a requirement for public authorities to set out in each of their plans and programmes how the National Outcomes will be achieved (for example, in local development plans, annual work programmes, local authority corporate plans etc) and supported by a requirement for reporting on National Outcomes within existing public sector reports (rather than creating a separate, siloed sustainable development or national outcomes report). This should apply across all areas of reporting and be integrated within existing reporting duties.” Institute for European Environmental Policy UK

Some respondents (mostly third and public sector organisations) suggest that the duty could be amended to use ‘more tangible, directional, and affirmative language,’ given the importance of upholding sustainable development and the interests of future generations. Suggestions range from minor wording tweaks to complete rephrasing of the current duty.

Among those consultation respondents who submitted the same or similar responses to Question 8 (and to other consultation questions), the following suggestion is made regarding rephrasing of the duty.

‘We propose to rephrase the duty so that public authorities are required to “promote and deliver sustainable development while protecting the wellbeing of current and future generations ensuring that they take all reasonable steps to support the realisation of the National Outcomes, minimise trade-offs, and resolve policy conflicts in a way that does not undermine sustainable development or the wellbeing of current and future generations.” Scottish International Development Alliance

The rephrasing proposed by Scottish International Development Alliance is further supported and referenced by several membership and third sector organisations, including Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland, Equate Scotland, Scottish Women’s Budget Group, and Scotland CAN B.

A few other respondents suggest that the wording ‘have regard to’ could be replaced by stronger phrasing such as ‘must have regard to,’ ’should actively pursue,’ ‘must comply with,’ ‘must contribute to,’ ‘act in a manner that contributes to achievement of the National Outcomes,’ or ‘to further sustainable development.’

Theme 2: There may be challenges and complexities in implementing a legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations

As outlined above, there is broad acknowledgement across consultation responses that the wording of the duty as it currently stands could be clearer and stronger to ensure that public authorities take account of, and effectively work towards, wellbeing, sustainable development, and the delivery of the National Outcomes. Consultation responses acknowledge that there are some challenges and complexities that would need due consideration by Scottish Government. Points raised by these respondents include that:

• a legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations should not be overly ‘prescriptive’ – rather, support is expressed for a more ‘flexible’ framework
• the varying size, resources, capability, and capacity of public bodies would need to be considered should a legal duty be introduced
• implementing a legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations should be accompanied by supplementary guidance to public authorities
• implementing a legal duty may require additional investment and support for effective implementation and to comply with enhanced legal requirements

A few organisation quotes are presented below.

“It is essential that any legislation is not overly prescriptive and that it allows public authorities to have flexibility in terms of approaches that align with locally identified needs and priorities, inspire creativity and transformation. A set of guiding principles that are aligned with the National Performance Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals would support public authorities to discharge the duty.” South Lanarkshire Community Planning Partnership

“In the context of a clear duty, we would welcome language which is flexible enough to emphasise that working to the National Outcomes and upholding sustainable development should be central to the work of public bodies, but within each body’s capabilities and resources.” Creative Scotland

“Public authorities will need the necessary resources, capacity building, and support to fulfil their obligations including training and guidance as well as communications to raise public awareness and understanding of the legal duty, its objectives, and implications.” Culture Counts

“A potential barrier to the successful implementation of the Bill is through a lack of related support which could lead to the inconsistent adoption of suitable ways of working, ultimately slowing progress. Evidence from Wales found an implementation gap following introduction of the Act, with high levels of support requested. We recommend implementation support be considered and appropriately resourced from the outset.” Public Health Scotland

“There is, however, significant discontent in the SURF network around the reporting of duties in the public sector. Regeneration officers in local government regularly report to SURF that they feel overburdened by policy reporting pressures, and cite that new priorities, responsibilities and reporting requirements are frequently added to their workload, but departmental resources and capacities remain constant, or are shrinking.” Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum

A few individual respondents raise a question around how a legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations would be enforced by Scottish Government. For example, would fines and penalties be applied to public authorities, where appropriate.

Theme 3: Scottish Government could undertake a review and streamlining of existing duties placed on public authorities

Some organisation respondents (mostly public sector, as well as third sector) call for greater clarity from Scottish Government on how the proposal to have a defined legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations would ‘align, fit with, or complement the existing requirements on public authorities.’

There is a request for further clarity on ‘how there would be alignment with emerging legislation or strengthening of existing legislation.’ For example, the proposed Human Rights Bill is referenced in consultation responses.

Points raised by these respondents include that:

• there is wide ranging reference to sustainable development in policy and legislation, and public authorities are subject to many general duties already – it is considered a ‘cluttered’ and ‘confused’ landscape
• any legal duties defined in the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill could be defined in a way that does not ‘add unnecessary nor additional reporting’ requirements on public bodies – related points touch on the current finance and capacity constraints faced by public authorities, and support is expressed for a proportionate approach, including for smaller public authorities
• any legal duties could be defined in a way that ‘strengthens, clarifies, and streamlines existing duties around sustainable development, wellbeing, and the National Outcomes’
• additional investment and support may be required by public authorities to: ensure compliance with enhanced legal requirements; achieve any such streamlining of duties and reporting; and ensure meaningful engagement with the National Outcomes
• Scottish Government could draw on learning from the Wales approach, including on the role, remit, and powers of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales
• ongoing communication and dialogue with public authorities is recommended on ‘solving challenges that exist in ensuring public bodies can uphold sustainable development and wellbeing principles’

Some organisation respondent quotes are presented below.

“There are a number of pieces of legislation in Scotland which refer to ‘sustainable development’ and transfer a duty to act within them. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires public bodies to act “in a way that it considers is most sustainable”. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, which amended the Climate Change Act sets out the duties conferred on public bodies relating to climate change – that public bodies must act “in a way that it considers is most sustainable”, and that emissions target setting must consider the “likely impact of the target on the achievement of sustainable development”. However, what these provisions lack to give them sufficient focus is a clear definition of what sustainable development means.” Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland

“Our response to this question might be distilled as ‘better duties, not more duties.’ This is not to suggest that a duty which supports the delivery of sustainable development through the National Outcomes is wrong or should not be pursued. Far from it. The Council is supportive of the National Performance Framework as ‘the’ framework for distilling national priorities and monitoring progress…. The problem is that there are many other vehicles too and this leads to a cluttered and confusing policy landscape with duties placed upon public bodies which frequently create tension between central assumptions and objectives and local judgements about the best means of achieving outcomes, as well as conflict in some instances.” Scottish Borders Council

“The new duties should, therefore, be accompanied by a review and streamlining of existing duties, frameworks and reporting requirements to make sure that they are aligned with wellbeing and sustainable development and eliminate any unnecessary duplication.” Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland

“There is a need to consider the effectiveness of a public body being subject to a plethora of general duties and whether that allows a public body to give any weight to the balancing of these duties against other specific duties and powers in decision-making.” Scottish Environment Protection Agency

“If it is designed and implemented in a way that streamlines and simplifies the obligations of public bodies then this could be hugely beneficial for reducing the administrative burden and simplifying the red tape that public authorities face. It could instead enable public authorities to more easily consider the needs of future generations in a more holistic way, rather than looking piecemeal at meeting various different obligations and benchmarks.” Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce

“The Scottish Government would need to provide quality research-based information on what the interests of future generations are so as decisions can take account of these interests. It seems that this Bill is working to an assumption that this is a set of agreed interests yet there is no information to show what these are, and which interests are related to which equality factors and protected characteristics. Without this, good decision-making cannot be evidenced. Local authorities use impact assessments to make decisions and are already bound by duties within climate change legislation – how is this different and how does this add value to what we are already doing?” Argyll and Bute Council

“Any supplementary guidance should reference the principles and the need for strong collaborative leadership and a whole-system commitment to implementing more sustainable policy and service delivery practices. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 would appear to be an example of good practice which could be adopted given that the Act states: “any reference to a public body doing something ‘in accordance with the sustainable development principle’ means that the body must act in a manner which seeks to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” South Lanarkshire Community Planning Partnership

Further, a few third sector and membership bodies suggest that there could be value in ‘relocating the legal duties related to the National Outcomes from the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 into the new Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill.’ It is suggested that this could:

• help translate the overarching goals of sustainable development and wellbeing into concrete outcomes for Scotland
• support a more ‘unified approach’ to delivering the National Outcomes
• support greater clarity over the contribution made by different actors towards the delivery of all of the National Outcomes, as a ‘complete wellbeing framework’, rather than particular National Outcomes in isolation

These points reflect that the NPF and National Outcomes are considered a useful tool or framework to assess performance – supported by regular review of National Outcomes to ensure the framework addresses emerging issues, is fit for purpose, and future-proofed. The Scottish Government is currently undertaking a review of the National Outcomes with a new NPF expected to be published in autumn 2024.

A further suggestion is for Scottish Government to adopt similar wording to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 – the need to ‘ensure policy coherence in pursuit of the National Outcomes, wellbeing and sustainable development’ is further emphasised.

A further suggestion is that existing duties which relate to sustainable development may need strengthened in other legislation, where sustainable development duties already exist – for example, the Climate Change Act 2009.

Theme 4: Consultation respondents who disagree with a legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations

A few respondents, mostly but not limited to individual respondents, are not fully supportive of a legal duty to ensure that public authorities uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations.

Several points are raised by these respondents, including that:

• it may be difficult to uphold sustainable development and the interests of future generations in the absence of legal or accepted definitions, if financial resources and support are not in place to support effective implementation, or if the legal duty is too prescriptive
• it is important to understand the reasons why current arrangements are not working, and unsustainable practices should be identified and prohibited – it is suggested that support to facilitate and embed behaviour and culture change within government and public authorities may be better than the introduction and enforcement of a new legal duty
• an additional legal duty is not required as these aspects are said to be covered in existing legislation and public authority duties - reference is made to the Public Sector Equality Duty, Fairer Scotland Duty, Climate Change Act, the Community Empowerment Act, and Consumer Duty
• a legal duty is not considered appropriate – a suggestion is that there could be an increased emphasis placed by government and public authorities on community-led working, collaboration, and pooled funding instead
• additional funding for the delivery of public services may be better
• balancing public sector budgets is considered critical

Question 9

Question 9 asked, ‘Whether there are specific areas of decision-making that should be included in, or excluded from, the Bill?’.

Areas of decision-making to include in the Bill

Around half of all consultation respondents (50%) provide a response to the question on what areas of decision-making should be included in the Bill.

Theme 1: All areas of decision-making should be included in the Bill

Many respondents (mostly organisation respondents across all sub-groups) suggest that all areas of decision-making should be included within scope of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill. These respondents suggest that this would be consistent with the main aim of the Bill to “ensure wellbeing and sustainable development are at the heart of all policy and delivery decision-making” as set out in the consultation paper.

Support is expressed for ‘all areas of public policy’ or ‘all areas of decision-making,’ or ‘all matters related to the public finances and budgets, including taxation/revenue and all public expenditure’ to be set out in the Bill.

Further, if any areas of decision-making are excluded from the Bill, there is said to be a risk of undermining the Bill. These respondents raise various concerns, including that excluding different areas of decision-making from the Bill could:

• undermine the holistic definitions of sustainable development and wellbeing
• undermine the coherence and clarity of the legislation in pursuit of wellbeing and sustainable development and the National Outcomes
• impede effective implementation
• undermine the pursuit of these goals in a joined-up and holistic manner
• impede promotion of cross-sectoral integration by not including decision-making processes that cut across multiple policy areas or ensuring a holistic approach to addressing complex challenges.
• result in a Bill that is not flexible or capable of accommodating emerging issues, opportunities, and changing priorities related to wellbeing and sustainable development
• create increased financial costs, repetitional risks, environmental risks, and public health risks

Similar to previous consultation questions, there is a request from respondents for guidance, resources, and support to help public authorities put this into practice, as well as better reporting of progress and evaluation.

A few organisation respondents, such as Inclusion Scotland, Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council, and Oxfam Scotland, support the consultation response from Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland presented below.

“We consider that the purpose of the Bill is to define wellbeing and sustainable development, as expressed in the National Outcomes, as overarching goals of decision-making in Scotland and to create the necessary institutions and processes that allow decision makers to pursue these goals in a joined up and holistic manner. It is therefore important that the Bill covers all areas of decision-making. Moreover, excluding certain areas of decision-making would undermine the holistic definitions of both sustainable development and wellbeing as laid out in our response and the corresponding need to achieve better policy coherence across government in pursuit of wellbeing and sustainable development and the National Outcomes.” Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland

A few other quotes reflective of the points raised are presented below.

“If exemptions are granted within particular areas of decision-making, the purposes of the bill will be undermined. Wellbeing and Sustainable Development as terms, cannot be used ad hoc if they are to guide future policy making and the delivering of the National Outcomes. The bill must be integrated and upheld across all policy making areas.” Generations Working Together

“All areas of devolved policy- and decision-making should be included (and, by extension, none excluded). This would, therefore, include all the responsibilities of Scottish Ministers and all public bodies carrying out devolved functions in Scotland. This would be beneficial as it provides maximum clarity on the scope of duties. For the avoidance of doubt, the above response includes matters related to the public finances and budgets, including taxation/revenue and all public expenditure. This would ensure that the Bill introduced “a statutory requirement for all future Scottish Governments to align budgets to sustainable development objectives.” Stop Climate Chaos Scotland

“The Bill should apply as broadly as possible to decision-making in Scotland, covering the full range of public authorities and policy areas that are within the scope of devolved powers.” Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland

“Since the whole point of introducing a legal duty is to ensure that wellbeing and sustainable development are always taken into account, even in areas where the impact is indirect and easily overlooked, no area should be excluded. Nevertheless, on some matters other considerations will legitimately be entitled to have greater weight. It is not desirable, however, to try to identify these in advance nor to mark out whole sectors, policy areas or processes as “no go” areas for paying heed to wellbeing and sustainable development.” Individual respondent

“We do not think the Bill should be very specific in terms of including or excluding areas of decision-making. Relevant bodies should be able to judge what is most appropriate for their organisation and be able to retain some flexibility when implementing any new requirements relating to sustainable development. At the same time, we also encourage Scottish Government to foster collaboration and the sharing of best practice between public bodies through existing channels or the creation of specific channels.” Crown Estate Scotland

“All areas of decision-making should be included. In particular, wellbeing, sustainable development, addressing inequalities and the interests of future generations should be key considerations in all decisions on investment and disinvestment.” University of Glasgow

“The Bill should encompass all areas of devolved policy in Scotland across national and local Government.” Public Health Scotland

The Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales shared its experience of implementing similar legislation. In the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the areas of decision-making were kept general and supported by the passing of two other Acts related to the environment and land-use planning. They also suggest that health may be another important area to cover.

Theme 2: Specific areas of decision-making that could be included in the Bill

A few respondents (individual respondents and across organisation sub-groups) identify specific areas that could be included in the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill. There is specific reference across these consultation responses to areas where decisions could have ‘significant impacts on wellbeing and sustainable development,’ such as:

• planning and built environment
• health and social care
• community planning
• procurement
• climate change, environment, and biodiversity
• economic development
• public services provision - for example, drug and alcohol, youth services, employability
• inward investment plans
• major development proposals
• education
• culture
• housing
• transport
• social justice

A few organisation quotes are presented below.

“The ability of planners to deliver the National Outcomes could be enhanced by ensuring greater coherence and coordination between the planning system and the National Outcomes. This could be accomplished by embedding the Place Principle within the NPF and the proposed Bill, and by shifting the focus of measuring planning performance towards wider place outcomes and impacts.” The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland

“High level strategic decision-making such as the setting of annual budgets an approval of key policies should be included, as well as any proposal for the closure or cessation of existing public services. Additionally, any inward investment plans, major development proposals, and economic development capital programmes, such as City and Region Deals should be subject to the requirements of the Bill.” Aberdeenshire Council

“The bill should consider local decision-making and how it relates to communities. It should consider local contexts and priorities to ensure that decision-making processes are tailored to the needs and circumstances of different communities, recognising there are regional differences in well-being indicators, environmental conditions, and socio-economic factors which will help to promote inclusive and equitable development.” Culture Counts

“All decision-making taken by public bodies should be through a lens of equality, wellbeing, and sustainable development. Attention should also be paid to the role of public sector in influencing area-wide developments, regional investments, and regional economic boards.” South Lanarkshire Council

“Planning – consideration of planning legislation needs to be made and evidence to decide if this needs to be included or excluded from the Bill.” Argyll and Bute Council

A wider point raised, includes a suggestion that the Bill could include ‘contracts with the private sector’ or could seek to engage the ‘private sector in promoting wellbeing and sustainable development such as in corporate social responsibility, sustainability reporting, green procurement, and incentives for businesses to adopt sustainable practices. ’

Conversely, a point raised is that the onus could be on public bodies through their procurement policy and grant making activities, as reflected in the quote below.

“…to ensure any funding progresses the National Outcomes and sustainable development, rather than placing the onus on the charity/private sector undertaking projects funded through the public purse.” National Trust for Scotland

Areas of decision-making to exclude from the Bill

One-fifth (20%) of consultation respondents provide a response to the question on what areas of decision-making should be excluded from the Bill.

Theme 1: A repeat of points raised earlier

A few individual and organisation respondents reiterate previous points, for example:

• a few organisation respondents disagree that any areas of decision-making should be excluded as this could undermine the Bill, threaten the coherence and clarity of the policy, and impede effective implementation
• a few individual respondents do not support the introduction of new legislation, and simply say that all areas of decision-making should be excluded from the Bill
• there are existing mechanisms through the Sustainable Procurement Duty which legislates for a balance between environmental, social, and commercial considerations in public contracts

An organisation quote is presented below.

“In this procurement context there are aspects of decision-making that should be excluded. There are existing mechanisms through the sustainable procurement duty which legislates for a balance between environmental, social and commercial considerations in public contracts. The weightings apportioned to each is determined by the market and the outcomes required from the procurement exercise. Determination of appropriate weightings are made using tools and guidance published alongside the sustainable procurement duty, including life cycle impact mapping, sustainability test and prioritisation tool.” Scotland Excel

Theme 2: Specific areas of decision-making that could be excluded from the Bill

A few respondents suggest specific areas of decision-making that could be excluded from the Bill. Various points are mentioned in these consultation responses, typically by single respondents, including:

• matters that are reserved to the UK Government
• anything to do with religion
• budgetary and funding decisions
• third parties receiving funding
• emergency situations and measures, where strict controls, time and limits and monitoring may prove difficult
• regulators and potentially other public bodies set up with a function that involves a relatively narrow policy area
• medical interventions - there is considered to be a difference between a wellbeing need and a mental health issue
• decisions relating to individual lifestyle choices and personal freedoms that do not have significant public policy implications

A few organisation quotes are presented below.

“Day-to-day operational decision-making… including decisions made by minor committees and forums, should be excluded from the Bill specifically. Though all decision-making forums should be encouraged to consider the long term and in-direct implications of any proposals. If the Bill is made applicable to all levels of decision-making there is a danger that this could delay the process and lead to a paralysis of decision-making rather than improved or more considerate decision-making.” Aberdeenshire Council

“For those public bodies which administer funding to their sectors, we would recommend that third parties receiving funding be excluded. While the public body’s decisions can be subject to the duty, funding decisions are reliant on the applications which are submitted and reflect the needs of the sector. This funding is usually short term in duration and from organisations and individuals which are often small and with limited resources. While many do work across policy areas, it would be difficult to ask them to deliver directly against sustainable development and the National Outcomes, and for those funding decisions to be subject to the duties outlined.” Creative Scotland

“Regulators and potentially other public bodies set up with a function that involves a relatively narrow policy area should be excluded from the new measures. This would be purely from the perspective of the impact caused by broadening those respective remits.” Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator

“Specific decision-making or statutory functions of the Care Inspectorate that may come into conflict with the Bill’s proposals might relate to registration or enforcement. Actions taken or decisions made with regard to care services in these areas could be interpreted as not aligned with the National Outcomes and therefore that we have not “had regard to” the National Outcomes. We would argue that these statutory functions should be considered within the context of the Bill.” Care Inspectorate

Question 10

Around 69% of all consultation respondents answered Question 10 which asked, ‘What issues, if any, may result from strengthening the requirement to have regard to National Outcomes?’.

Theme 1: Public authorities would require additional support and resources

Some consultation respondents (in particular public and third sector organisations) feel that resource, support, training, and advice for public authorities would be required if the requirement ‘to have regard’ to the National Outcomes is strengthened.

A summary of the main points raised include that:

• guidance and training is required to support public authorities with implementation, including guidance on how to resolve any trade-offs and to maximise synergies
• guidance and support to facilitate greater collaborative working is required – across Scottish Government internal directorates and to facilitate more collaborative work by public bodies
• defining ways of working to establish a coherent approach to pursuing the duties and outcomes set out in the Bill and guidance on implementation in different contexts would be helpful
• a strong ‘support ecosystem’ is needed to aid public authorities with implementation, measurement, and reporting – and which ‘goes beyond simply imposing duties’
• the proposed Commissioner for Future Generations could have a role to play – advice, capacity building, scrutiny, sharing experiences, and learning

The following (selected) organisation quotes are reflective of points raised on the need for additional guidance, resources, and support.

“While these changes are crucial, they will not be achieved if duties are not accompanied with the relevant support, training and guidance for public bodies, and a streamlined environment of duties and reporting requirements.” Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland

“Strengthening the duty is likely to require education, training and support for public authorities and Ministers at a national, regional and local level and this must be resourced and prioritised if the duty is to have the desired effect.” National Trust for Scotland

“The legislation through clearer definitions of terms should assist in implementation. Clarity around what is needed in having regard to the National Outcomes should be helpful to public bodies in delivering on their duties.” Scottish Fair Trade Forum

“It is important to accompany strengthened duties with a comprehensive support ecosystem to aid public authorities in implementation, emphasising the ‘how.’ The other parts of the proposed Bill are an important part of this support ecosystem, including clear definitions, ways of working and a Future Generations Commissioner that can hold public authorities accountable, provide support and build capacity”…Duty-bearers could be supported by new bodies, or existing bodies such as the Sustainable Scotland Network, which might be well placed to take on these additional roles. The latter would be particularly useful in the context of creating more synergies across policy domains and lowering the burden on public bodies if the reporting can also be integrated with existing systems and reports.” EAUC

“Any proposal to strengthen the requirement to have regard to the National Outcomes should be mindful of the findings of The Crerar Commission with respect to duplicated and over burdensome scrutiny, inspection, and regulation of public bodies…It should be made clear that the economy should not threaten ecological integrity or social equity in Scotland nor at a global level. For economic sustainability to be achieved, decisions must be made in the most equitable, fiscally sound way ensuring the environment and social wellbeing of all people and nature are considered in the long-term.” Aberdeen City Council

Theme 2: It could result in increased administrative burden on public authorities, create resource implications, and unintended consequences

While some respondents (including all organisation sub-groups) acknowledge the rationale and benefits that could arise from strengthening the requirement to have regard to the National Outcomes, it is also recognised that this may result in increased pressures on public sector bodies.

A concern related to increased administrative work associated with additional or increased reporting requirements is commonly mentioned across these consultation responses. This is particularly pertinent in the context of public authority comments relating to existing workforce capacity and resourcing constraints.

A common point raised by these respondents is that strengthening the requirement to have regard to the National Outcomes could exacerbate existing issues and challenges experienced by the public sector and make it difficult to deliver on without adequate resourcing.

A wider unintended consequence is identified by the third sector – that is, there is a potential risk that additional duties in the form of extra bureaucracy could be passed on by public authorities to suppliers and contractors.

The following (selected) organisation quotes are reflective of points raised by consultation respondents.

“It may increase administrative workload to formally assess wellbeing impacts, but this should lead to better long-term policy making. Clear guidance would be needed on demonstrating regard for the Outcomes.” Crown Estate Scotland

“One of the potential challenges of making the Bill effective is the additional strain it might put on the stretched capacity of the public bodies subject to the strengthened duties proposed in the Bill.” Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland

“The National Performance Framework is Scotland’s way to localise the SDGs. If appropriately adapted through a co-production process, this framework provides a basis to ensure protection of future generations, wellbeing, and sustainability.

The duty needs to go beyond strengthening the requirement to ‘have regard to’ the National Outcomes and require public bodies to comply with legislation and deliver action to achieve the outcomes.

Progress can be measured by appropriate indicators. The current range of economic, social, and environmental indicators are intended to give a measure of national wellbeing. At present, there is a tension between some outcome indicators, with the economic growth indicator a point of debate.

A strengthened requirement to have regard to the National Outcomes must be proportionate and reasonable and not place an excessive reporting burden onto bodies that diverts resource from meaningful activity to achieve the outcomes.” University of Glasgow

“In principle these seem sensible proposals which should be supported, but there is little clarity as to what actual benefits they will deliver and there is a risk that local authorities and government agencies will simply pass on additional duties in the form of extra bureaucracy to clients, suppliers and contractors, including the third sector, who are increasingly delivering essential public services.” Scottish Community Alliance

“While passing this legislation would be a major milestone, the biggest challenge in realising national success lies with scrutiny and accountability. If the public sector is not held to account for its actions in working towards sustainable development and wellbeing it is possible that nothing much will really change. The adoption of Integrated Impact Assessments and associated guidance would help to declutter the number of impact assessments required would help to formalise the decision-making as a transparent process, also helping to drive a new culture across the public sector.” Public Health Scotland

Event summary - Strengthening duties for National Outcomes and sustainable development

The existing duty related to National Outcomes is not strong enough and there could be better reporting

Event attendees feel that the definition of the existing duty related to National Outcomes (in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015) is not strong enough for public authorities to deliver the ambition of the National Outcomes. The wording ‘have regard to’ the National Outcomes is considered too subjective for effective implementation.

Suggestions include that this wording could be amended to use ‘more positive and tangible’ language – a few event attendees suggest that the wording ‘have regard to’ could be replaced by stronger phasing such as ‘take all reasonable steps,’ (as adopted in Wales), ‘preserve and protect,’ (as adopted in other countries), ‘must consider,’ or ‘have account of’.

Event attendees identify the potential benefits from having stronger wording in the duty or having a more explicit requirement to work towards the National Outcomes and sustainable development. Points include that this could:

• provide greater clarity, consistency, and accountability in delivery of public services across Scotland
• reduce to the extent to which current wording is open to interpretation

There may be challenges and complexities in strengthening duties for National Outcomes and sustainable development

Event attendees identify various issues that could be considered by Scottish Government should duties for National Outcomes and sustainable development be strengthened.

Points raised include that:

• care should be taken to avoid any unintended consequences on the third sector and non-departmental public bodies
• a legal duty should not be overly ‘prescriptive’ – rather, support is expressed for a more ‘flexible’ framework to help future-proof the Bill
• the varying type, size, resources, capability, and capacity of public bodies need to be considered, as well as specialised functions of public authorities
• balance needs to be struck between competing priorities and to minimise any trade-offs (for example, economy and environment, the needs of current and future generations)

Scottish Government could undertake a review and streamlining of existing duties placed on public authorities

Event attendees suggest that Scottish Government could undertake a review and streamlining of existing duties placed on public authorities.

Event notes highlight wide ranging reference to sustainable development in existing and emerging policy and legislation, including the Human Rights Bill and Natural Environment Bill, among others. It is considered critical that the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development Bill:

• aligns with existing and emerging legislation
• does not duplicate existing duties
• does not create an extra layer of complexity to reporting requirements

Public authorities require additional support and resources

Event attendees suggest that supplementary guidance for public authorities is required to support effective implementation of new duties. A concern raised includes that new duties could place an increased administrative burden on public authorities at a time when both resources and capacity are extremely tight.

Training and other forms of support are required, and it is suggested that there could be a role for the Commissioner for Future Generations to embed the necessary behaviour and culture change required across public authorities.