There are many things to celebrate in terms of how the innovation of the well-being of future generations Act and the work of the future generations commissioner help to steer the vision and implementation of policy, but we also know that there are many challenges. As a member of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, which has been scrutinising the work of the commissioner, I agree that there are a number of important questions that we do need to look at and resolve if we truly want to see the Act reaching its full potential, and the very real need for long-term thinking in drawing up policy that is appropriate and has, at last, become more prominent recently in light of the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, and as we grapple with the climate emergency.

In her evidence to the committee, the commissioner set out a number of practical problems that are a barrier to the effectiveness of the Act and the work of her office in ensuring a focus on the long-term impact of policy, and the power of co-operation to anticipate possible problems. One of the most significant issues, and one of the most concerning issues perhaps, is that implementation gap between policy and the practical steps that are taken. It was a cause of real concern that the commissioner could describe in such clear terms the tendency of Government to create legislation, policy and to publish guidance without much understanding of how all of that would be delivered, or how sufficient resources could be practically provided. 

It appears from her evidence to us that there isn't an adequate understanding by some public bodies and much of the civil service itself of what the Act requires of them, and that there is therefore an over-reliance on her office as a result of that lack of expertise within public bodies, which swallows up capacity and resources. It's good to hear therefore from the Permanent Secretary in his response to the committee's recommendation that there is a redoubling of efforts to put this right, and to hasten the change needed to help refocus public bodies, and to train the civil service when it comes to an understanding of the Act.

I very much hope that this will take the advisory pressure off the commissioner's shoulders, and release her to focus on delivering her own remit in ensuring the implementation of the Act, including her powerful and valuable section 20 inquiries. The implementation gap must become a focus, I think, in ensuring that the well-being of future generations Act is truly worthy of the high and deserved praise that it's been given internationally.

The scrutiny report, as we've heard, has also given us an opportunity to take stock of the resources provided to deliver the objectives of the Act, and it's clear that the budget available to the commissioner's office is unbalanced as compared to what's available to other commissioners, and is inadequate for the work involved—work, as we've heard, that is increasing. The work of the commissioner, of course, is very different, and we wouldn't want to see resources being compared in a simplistic manner. But it is encouraging that there is agreement to assess the responsibilities and budget of all commissioners, as was suggested by the committee. 

This is an opportunity, a real opportunity, for us to reflect on one of our unique laws, and to empower the Act. We can show other nations how they can safeguard communities, the environment, and to make sustainable development a cornerstone of our governance arrangements. Hopefully, there is a desire to do this to give the Act teeth, and to give the commissioner strength to allow her to develop to her full potential. Thank you.