Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill

Any definition of wellbeing should be as accessible and open to all people. Current legal definitions are not widely understood and any language must be in plain terms so as to avoid losing the wider populace on whom this will ultimately impact.

This is already fairly wide but in practical terms what is the real aim, if for the public sector to be able to say they are targeting "Sustainable Development" then this will I'm sure suffice, If the aim is for the wider population & economy to grow in a way that supports people to meet their needs then it requires leverage to ensure that action and not rhetoric is the outcome.

The issues of poverty and inequality have the most impacts on wider wellbeing and although efforts continue to alleviate this, they have yet to provide long term change. If we are to provide a real sustainable development then activity will need to focus on supporting communities and reducing the impacts of poverty. Whilst providing real development possibility in skills, employment, health and genuine wellbeing.

Lessons should be learned from the Community Empowerment Act and it's implementation to ensure that legal duty does not become lost or lip-service. The CE 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 it's provisions tend to be from area's of less deprivation giving them the practical and financial capacity to achieve their aims, in essence increasing inequality rather than reducing it.

All should be included

The issues of token engagement are unlikely to be addressed without robust action to ensure that National Outcomes underpin activity.

Yes

Duty should apply to all levels of Government and public bodies

The measurement against outcomes is obviously required but should not become an onerous burden on organisations. Budgets should be linked to measurement with an understanding that many of these impacts will be generational.

There is an intrinsic imbalance between public partnerships where budgets are held by one partner for distribution. The needs of survival for any partner will for obvious reason's impact on decision making and frequently leads to funds not being used in the most effective manner. This is further impacted by issues of "ownership" of funds where they are viewed as part of the organisation and not the wider public purse.

NA

There will be costs associated within budgets for all, the changes the act wants to bring about will require resourcing. There is a well known issues with poor productivity in Scotland and any investment will not see returns within the usual timescales used.

For charities the short term nature of funding being linked to 3 or 5 years maximum will not support these changes. This is not to say that changes cannot be measured within shorter timescales but there is a need to recognise that major changes will be 10-15 years in the making.

True independence will be vital to the success of such a body, funding for delivery may also be better placed within a commissioner with local partnerships being involved rather than scattered among the 32 local authorities.

Such a commissioner would likely support the longer term understanding of delivery and outcomes outside of the standard parliamentary cycles.

Support from the people of Scotland is needed to make sure that the act does not become more well intended but ultimately ineffective legislation.

It should be accessible to all with an understanding of the benefits it wishes to embed. This includes the language, decision making and delivery.