Hi Larks and John, Thanks for sharing this with me ahead of posting.
Five notes for readers.
1.
First, this Bill isn’t an EA Bill. This is recognised a bit in the post, but I really want to underline it. Its led by Lord John Bird and his office, and supported by Today for Tomorrow. It mostly builds on the Welsh Commissioner for Future Generations. None or them are ‘EA’. There are about 3-4 supporters that could plausibly be labelled EA, out of ~100 institutional supporters.
2.
Second, on the merits of the Bill—to add a little to Sam’s excellent overview. Some useful further readings:
I think the most important parts of the bill are about longtermist representation, rather than big welfare-affecting policies. For example, the parliamentary committee on future generations, an independent commissioner, the responsibility on ministers, the NAO/OBR oversight, the longer Risk Register timeframe, the “set some longterm goals”/impact assessments—everything seems designed to just nudge politicians to think more about future generations.
The idea, I presume, is that all that procedural nudging (without being specific about substance, which should be left to current elected politicians) will prompt more long-term thinking and move away from our incredible shorttermism (eg see some of the stuff Cummings has written about how incredibly shortterm our political culture is).
4.
Fourth, the authors note “Some supporters seem to think most of the chance for this or a similar bill being passed rests on a future Labour government, but this may not happen for many years”
I presume this is just based on me (as I said in comments on the draft). However, that’s not my view. I think both parties could (and should) support it—its being led in the Commons by a Conservative. I don’t think it shold be coded as Labour, and if I tweeted stuff that may have given that impression, I regret that. I do think there’s a slightly higher chance of it being passed by a Labour govt, but mainly because of the Welsh link—most Welsh MPs are Labour.
5.
Fifth and finally, I find it helpful to return to the Bill’s overview, as laid out by Lord John Bird in the explanatory notes. I think there’s a lot in here for our community to like. Let’s debate this large selection of options, identify the strongest options, and work together to implement them.
“1. The first part of this Bill establishes a set of national wellbeing goals, formulated by the Secretary of State and confirmed via a public consultation. It places a duty on public bodies and government departments to set objectives in line with these goals, whilst demonstrating certain ‘ways of working’; these are a consideration for the long-term, prevention, planning for risk, collaboration, integration and involvement. Decisions are to be accompanied by future generations impact assessments to ensure longer-term unintended consequences on national wellbeing are mitigated.
2. The second part of this Bill focuses on improving planning and spending within Government. The Bill establishes a futures and forecasting report which assesses the risks and trends, for at least the forthcoming 25 years, and lays out detailed plans on mitigating these risks; the Bill makes provision that when doing so, the views of various relevant groups must be accounted for, including the UK and UN Climate Change Committees and the views of 11-25 year olds on wellbeing. This is to improve the United Kingdom’s preparedness for existential risk. Currently, the Cabinet Office’s National Risk Register only accounts for two years into the future. The Bill also requires departments to categorise their spending into preventative tiers to encourage public bodies to think about investing more money in the short-term to make savings in the long-term, encouraging a pivot towards prevention rather than immediate relief.
3. To improve transparency and accountability within Government, the Bill allocates powers to the head of the National Audit Office to conduct examinations on public bodies in order to assess whether a body has acted in accordance with its wellbeing duties. The Bill extends the Office for Budget Responsibility’s responsibilities to examine the extent to which progress is being made towards the national indicators and subsequent milestones. This, combined with the futures and forecasting report, is used to produce advice to the Treasury to ensure long-term fiscal risks are mitigated. A Joint Select Committee on Future Generations is also established by the Bill to ensure any relevant incoming legislation can be reviewed and amendments suggested. The Bill makes provision for there to be a minister in each Government department in charge of safeguarding future generations’ interests. Their role is to promote the wellbeing goals when formulating policy and, through observing how the Bill is applied within departments, they can also feed back into how the national indicators should be adapted (after consulting with the Joint Committee and the Commission). A Future Generations Commission is to be established, consisting of an expert from each country of the United Kingdom and a young person from each devolved country to improve understanding of the future generations principle amongst public bodies and the public.”
Thank you Haydn! These are very constructive comments.
To respond briefly:
3. I am not primarily focused on what the Bill’s intentions are, but on the overall likely outcomes from its presentation and enactment. In our view there is a substantial chance that the Bill as currently drafted would overall damage welfare if passed in its current form. We agree the chance of that happening is almost zero, but there may be future Bills. I have a weaker view on the effect of the Bill as a campaigning tool but I still have substantial concerns given the presence of a number of potentially harmful but potentially popular provisions in it.
4. I too prefer for a non-partisan approach. However we think there is negligible chance of this Government supporting it – I understand the Government has indicated it does not support the Bill – and only a small chance of a future Conservative government supporting it. I think the Bill would need to be drastically revised to give it a good chance of support by a Conservative government.
5. As we said, I agree that something in the direction of the ‘three lines of defence’ approach to risks could be very helpful, and that it would be very helpful to work on future sector-specific approaches in other sectors and better forecasting and risk identification in general.
Just briefly on (4) - Govts of all parties oppose all PMBs as a matter of course, especially ones from the Lords. Very few actually become law (see eg here). This pattern is less due to the specifics of any particular Bill, and more about govt control of the parliamentary timetable, and govts’ ability to claim credit for legislation. One’s options if one comes top of the PMB ballot is to 1) try and get the Govt to support it or 2) use it as a campaigning device (or I guess 3 try both).
I’m not so sure that the ideas in this Bill couldn’t get picked up by Conservatives—its introduced in the Commons by a Conservative MP, the well-being goals seem like the levelling up goals, extending the Risk Register is just sensible, NAO & OBR were both introduced by Conservative governments, etc. You’ll know the Conservatives better than me though—I liked your suggestions in the second half about ideas that might be more amenable.
Thank you Haydn. I agree about the base rate for PMBs. They can get attention from the Government –in particular as I think you know this one was designed by us to be acceptable to the Government, and the Secretary of State said that it was ‘cracking’ and that he was keen to ‘steal all of the ideas in it’. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3047
So I recognize that general campaigning is also a valid use of PMBs in general.
As you know I’m very keen to work collaboratively on possible approaches to getting more longtermist perspectives in government.
Hi Larks and John, Thanks for sharing this with me ahead of posting.
Five notes for readers.
1.
First, this Bill isn’t an EA Bill. This is recognised a bit in the post, but I really want to underline it. Its led by Lord John Bird and his office, and supported by Today for Tomorrow. It mostly builds on the Welsh Commissioner for Future Generations. None or them are ‘EA’. There are about 3-4 supporters that could plausibly be labelled EA, out of ~100 institutional supporters.
2.
Second, on the merits of the Bill—to add a little to Sam’s excellent overview. Some useful further readings:
The independent House of Lords library produced 2 useful briefings:
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/wellbeing-of-future-generations-bill-hl/
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2019-0076/
Great CSER overview of several forms of institutional representation: https://www.cser.ac.uk/resources/representation-future-generations/
The text of the 2015 Welsh Act: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/about-us/future-generations-act/
An assessment of how the 2015 Act has gone in Wales over the last 7 years, from one of its architects: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/resources_posts/futuregen-lessons-from-a-small-country/
A more independent assessment: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-02230-3
Overview of many longtermist institutions: https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Tyler-M-John-and-William-MacAskill_Longtermist-institutional-reform.pdf
3.
Third, I think the Bill is mainly about ‘broad longtermism’ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/ben-todd-on-varieties-of-longtermism/
I think the most important parts of the bill are about longtermist representation, rather than big welfare-affecting policies. For example, the parliamentary committee on future generations, an independent commissioner, the responsibility on ministers, the NAO/OBR oversight, the longer Risk Register timeframe, the “set some longterm goals”/impact assessments—everything seems designed to just nudge politicians to think more about future generations.
The idea, I presume, is that all that procedural nudging (without being specific about substance, which should be left to current elected politicians) will prompt more long-term thinking and move away from our incredible shorttermism (eg see some of the stuff Cummings has written about how incredibly shortterm our political culture is).
4.
Fourth, the authors note “Some supporters seem to think most of the chance for this or a similar bill being passed rests on a future Labour government, but this may not happen for many years”
I presume this is just based on me (as I said in comments on the draft). However, that’s not my view. I think both parties could (and should) support it—its being led in the Commons by a Conservative. I don’t think it shold be coded as Labour, and if I tweeted stuff that may have given that impression, I regret that. I do think there’s a slightly higher chance of it being passed by a Labour govt, but mainly because of the Welsh link—most Welsh MPs are Labour.
5.
Fifth and finally, I find it helpful to return to the Bill’s overview, as laid out by Lord John Bird in the explanatory notes. I think there’s a lot in here for our community to like. Let’s debate this large selection of options, identify the strongest options, and work together to implement them.
Thank you Haydn! These are very constructive comments.
To respond briefly:
3. I am not primarily focused on what the Bill’s intentions are, but on the overall likely outcomes from its presentation and enactment. In our view there is a substantial chance that the Bill as currently drafted would overall damage welfare if passed in its current form. We agree the chance of that happening is almost zero, but there may be future Bills. I have a weaker view on the effect of the Bill as a campaigning tool but I still have substantial concerns given the presence of a number of potentially harmful but potentially popular provisions in it.
4. I too prefer for a non-partisan approach. However we think there is negligible chance of this Government supporting it – I understand the Government has indicated it does not support the Bill – and only a small chance of a future Conservative government supporting it. I think the Bill would need to be drastically revised to give it a good chance of support by a Conservative government.
5. As we said, I agree that something in the direction of the ‘three lines of defence’ approach to risks could be very helpful, and that it would be very helpful to work on future sector-specific approaches in other sectors and better forecasting and risk identification in general.
Just briefly on (4) - Govts of all parties oppose all PMBs as a matter of course, especially ones from the Lords. Very few actually become law (see eg here). This pattern is less due to the specifics of any particular Bill, and more about govt control of the parliamentary timetable, and govts’ ability to claim credit for legislation. One’s options if one comes top of the PMB ballot is to 1) try and get the Govt to support it or 2) use it as a campaigning device (or I guess 3 try both).
I’m not so sure that the ideas in this Bill couldn’t get picked up by Conservatives—its introduced in the Commons by a Conservative MP, the well-being goals seem like the levelling up goals, extending the Risk Register is just sensible, NAO & OBR were both introduced by Conservative governments, etc. You’ll know the Conservatives better than me though—I liked your suggestions in the second half about ideas that might be more amenable.
Thank you Haydn. I agree about the base rate for PMBs. They can get attention from the Government –in particular as I think you know this one was designed by us to be acceptable to the Government, and the Secretary of State said that it was ‘cracking’ and that he was keen to ‘steal all of the ideas in it’. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3047
So I recognize that general campaigning is also a valid use of PMBs in general.
As you know I’m very keen to work collaboratively on possible approaches to getting more longtermist perspectives in government.