Promoting public involvement in Wales | Blog by Bethan Smith

Bethan Smith is Goal Convenor for Involvement, Office for the Future Generations Commissioner, Wales.

. . .

Through the 2015 Well-being of Future Generations Act, all devolved public bodies in Wales are legally required to put sustainable development first; that is, to consider the long-term impact of their decisions and “to 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.”

The act outlines five ways of working for public bodies to put sustainability first: long-term thinking, collaboration, integration, prevention and involvement.

For the last couple of years, FDSD has been supporting the Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales to think about our approach to the last of these, involvement, and find new ways to help public bodies involve people in the decisions that affect them.

In May 2018, FDSD supported a training session (delivered by Involve) on participation theory and practice for staff within the Commissioner’s office. As a busy office made up of staff seconded from many different organisations across different sectors with differing degrees of prior knowledge on the topic, the training session was particularly valuable in creating a mutual understanding of what ‘participation’ means and the different levels of participation that exist:

“To me the session was extremely useful in understanding the technicalities between the different definitions and levels of participation… We are trying to implement some of the definitions and tables used [by the trainer] in our own work on involvement.”

“[The training] was done in a very simple and clear manner so I could understand everything without [much] prior knowledge on the topic.”

Following the training, staff certainly seem more confident in spotting opportunities for participation and in exploring the right approach to take. We all have ambitious plans to ‘walk the talk’ on involvement in our future work.

Among these is our plan for another training session in early 2019. Again supported by FDSD, this one will target Welsh public service staff in organisations beyond the Commissioner’s office. We hope to use the training as a platform for identifying involvement champions within the public sector and building momentum and capacity around public involvement.

This work on public involvement will feed into the Commissioner’s ‘The Art of the Possible’ programme which is identifying best practice in sustainable development across diverse organisations and using that to craft guidance for public bodies. This guidance ranges from simple changes that public bodies can implement through to work that is leading the way. There are ten suggestions for supporting better public involvement, ranging from using plan English and Welsh in public documents to including involvement in planning, monitoring, reporting and staff appraisal.

This resource will continue to be developed over the coming weeks and months. Drawing on the wealth of experience and knowledge from across the public, private and third sector in Wales and further afield, ‘The Art of the Possible’ has the potential to really demonstrate and promote good and innovative practice around shared decision making and involvement. We are excited to have FDSD and other partners involved in the process.

. . .

Image: Artwork from The ‘Art of the Possible’, one of the Commissioner’s main programmes of work. More details at:

“You won’t get it right all of the time, but give it a go.”—Sara Parkin in conversation with Peter Davies

Sara Parkin is Principal Associate of The Sustainability Literacy Project, and Founder-Director of Forum for the Future. Her 2010 book The Positive Deviant: Sustainability Leadership in a Perverse World has become a course book in many countries. Its sequel What Does Good Look Like? (due out 2019) will argue there is one destiny but many paths to sustainability.  She serves on the Board of the Carnegie Trust for universities in Scotland, advises the National Union of Students and Chairs the Board of the Richard Sandbrook Trust. In the past she held high-profile leadership roles in the UK Green Party and brokered and led the European Green Coordination, now the European Green Party.

Peter Davies was Wales’ first Sustainable Futures Commissioner, 2011 to 2016, and played a lead role in the development of the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act, particularly through leading the national conversation on the Wales we Want.  His current project portfolio focuses on working in support of communities, citizens and consumers. It includes chairing the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, Welsh Water’s Customer Challenge Group, the Size of Wales charity, Pembrokeshire Community Energy and being Community Custodian for River Simple. He is a trustee of the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development.

. . .

PD:  Sara, thinking back ten years ago what was the original motivation of your paper then, to which this is a sequel?

SP:  I was invited to write a paper about the UK electoral system for FDSD.  I thought I’m damned if I’m going to write about proportional representation yet again. Then I came upon an amazing piece by the Young Foundation arguing under a series of headings that political parties were “for the public good” and vital for democracy.  That set me off.  I used all the headings to demonstrate the opposite!  I wrote a not entirely tongue in cheek, rather over the top rant about how essential it is to pay attention to our electoral system and our democratic system as a whole.  I even proposed we elect our representatives more as if we were employing them to represent us. What is their track record?  What evidence do they bring to show they are the right person to represent us?

PD: So the political parties get in the way of achieving better outcomes through the democratic process?

SP: Yes, I concluded by calling for a revolution to change the system!

PD: Looking back over the ten years, did you come to a slightly different perspective on that conclusion?

SP:   Well, when I reviewed the earlier paper I found I still agreed with most of it!  So no point in trying to say it differently.

PD: It does make very good sense the point you were making around this mediation role; we should be looking at these people in terms of their capacity to represent us.

SP:  When I started to think about it all again, it was 2016, which was quite a year. Things coming out about electronic interventions in the democratic system, so I started writing the paper paralleling, in a minor way, the work of Carole Cadwalladr, the investigative journalist.  So much emerged so fast I ended up reorganising the paper to focus on those people who currently have money and power, who are worryingly interlinked.  For a long time, watching people like Charles Koch and other big anti-sustainable people – particularly the big libertarian ideologues – you can see their strategies leading in to the 2016 US Presidential elections.  Koch admitted he is playing a very long game – ironically, he’s referenced Lenin as somebody he admires in terms of strategy! This made me realise we are living in a continuum which started after the Second World War with the Mont Pélérin Society, set up by Friedrich Hayek, father of neoconservative economics.    Once neo-Keynesianism won the post-war battle of economic ideas, the neo-cons got busy setting up think tanks all over the place (e.g. Institute of Economic Affairs in UK) and colonising university departments.   Hayek spoke of his disciples as “freedom fighters”.   The strategy was to normalise free-market economic liberalism in public and academic discourse, essential for getting ideas into power.  Which is something I’m quite interested in – but for sustainability.    Koch, and similarly ideologically motivated billionaires, learnt that institutions have to be changed to get the ideas to stick.  2016, for them, was a massive step forward in the US, with the UK referendum result a bonus.

PD: So the process of getting ideas into power, I guess that’s at the heart of the concept of the political system. But what we’re seeing is this combination of power and a philosophy and a technology which has changed the context of how ideas achieve that power.  Achieve that status of being normalized. And that’s been such a change in the ten year period since you wrote your original article.

SP:  Just to pick up on the notion of getting ideas into power being the purpose of the political system. I think that’s been corrupted. Elections are about getting people into power, not necessarily the ideas. As you’ve probably noticed we’ve got a pretty idea-free environment in our political parties right now. And all the commentary is about how long Theresa May is going to be in power, if the Tories vote this way on Brexit are they going to lose power for three generations, and so on.

PD: Yes, what we have in politics is more of a soap opera than a genuine debate about the society we want to be.  I guess I come at this from an angle where in a very small way, in a small country, Wales has tried to look at the role of a legislative framework that addresses the short-termism that you tend to see in the political system by putting into place a legislative requirement that is about the long term through the Well-being of Future Generations Act.  It’s very early days in its application, but I guess, where your original paper might have been about revolution, this was a process of trying to get the sustainable development commitment – which was part of the devolution settlement, a part of the Government of Wales Act 20 years ago – into a stronger frame for how the political system was to work, and how the involvement of people, of citizens, was at the heart of shaping the Wales We Want.  We’re coming at it as a small country with some small steps, but it is definitely seen to be in this context of trying to address the issues of short-termism in the political systems by building in requirements to focus on the long-term.  How do we address this in a bigger sense in terms of the short-termism that drives the political system and drives everyday life increasingly through the soap opera of 24 hour news?

SP: Wales was able to do what it did because it had a national conversation.  I am Scottish, and, while I’m not a fan of nationalism, at least we have shown we can hold a national conversation as we did for the constitutional convention.  I’ve even suggested the Scottish Conservatives’ best hope is to have an absolutely brilliant plan for devolving real power – not independence – and look at how the different devolved units would collaborate on the larger issues where it’s more sensible to act as a group.  Now from an England perspective, or a UK perspective, we’ve never had such a conversation.    So, I think if we want to plan for the long term, we need to talk about devolution and what is the appropriate level to make what decision.

PD: In your current article ten years on, you’ve also focused in on what you say are seemingly mundane activities about telling good stories, bolstering our elected representatives, promoting democracy, for sustainability policies and taking back control of our data as being core to what we now need to do to address the challenges that we’ve seen in the last ten years, with democracies being undermined.

SP:  What I am suggesting are not necessarily going to be all that’s needed. But I think we have to come to an end of demanding other people do things.  That’s part of my 50 year reflection as a campaigner.  If we carry on doing what we’ve always done in the past, and it hasn’t worked, we need to think of different ways of doing things, or we’ll get the same outcomes.  My suggestions are all things each of us can do.  Things we can encourage others to do too, ask them to join in, to help normalize some key things and make them a habit.  That means you’re not dependent on waiting for one of these wretched political parties or one of these wretched politicians to actually take the lead on it. We can just get on and do it! Imagine campaigning around a good story of what sustainability looks like by saying, see, this is normal! It should be normal that we have a political process that helps us do it, rather than stand in the way of it.  It should be normal that we should counter this ethic-free, grotesque growth of the digital world and the lead players in it.  And if data is the new fossil fuel for the economy and we don’t want it that way, we can intervene.

PD: And I think one of the factors that you’ve also highlighted is the feeling of powerlessness in a world where we can’t control our eco-systems, and our human institutions. And you’ve referred to national conversations.  I had a role in leading the conversation about the Wales We Want, and that feeling of powerlessness, and the inability to make a difference, came through so strongly which is why involving communities, and putting people at the centre of policies is crucial – though easy to say, harder to do.  I think one of the things we’re finding is that in a digital world, place becomes even more important.  Would you see that as part of where the next focus should be?  We have examples in England, like Frome, where you have a more localized system of governance, which has abandoned the political parties.

SP:  What I haven’t done in my piece is to give too many examples or prescriptions, because the point I make is that there is not just one route to a sustainable future. There is one destination and being pretty clear about the broad lines which will shape that means that people, from wherever they are, and with whatever competence or capabilities they have, they can start to move towards it.  There are many ways in.  When people have the confidence that this is what the good might look like, then they could look at what their opportunities are to contribute in that journey towards it.

PD:  Part of our role, I’m sure, is to influence that to happen, and to work with others in order to achieve that.  I’m very interested in the point you made about campaigning and the need to look at different ways of reaching the destination.  I am conscious that we have the experience where we have a very active environmental sector that has taken an active adversarial campaigning role on land management that has alienated a significant element of the farming community who generally want to do the right thing but feel threatened by the approach that has been taken by environmental campaigners.  I’m just wondering whether that sort of aggressive campaigning – which is absolutely right in that it gets the message across about the urgency of nature recovery – but wondering whether it is actually delivering the effect we want it to have.

SP:  Then what you’re talking about is the sort of campaigning which tells other people what they should do.  I think farmers feel pretty much under the cosh as they’re being told what to do, what not to do, not necessarily by people who know what they’re talking about, and so I can understand that.  There is no reason why that can’t be turned into a way of working with farmers so that they work out what farming might look like in the future and how might they get from here to there. And how everybody can help. So it’s a different approach from how environmental, and indeed democracy, campaigners have behaved over the last several decades.  We’ve angrily demanded, we’ve ranted – and I count myself in and amongst this – but what we haven’t done is to say, ok, we’re all in it together.  And how can we work together to get what we want, and how can we be part of deciding that.

PD: Given that we’re having this conversation in the middle of Brexit, which has become such a turn-off to a major part of the population, maybe it is an opportunity to get back to basics of describing what we want the world to look like.  Could we play a more effective role in through a more community led approach that is focused on bringing people together?

SP: Absolutely right, and that’s what I’m wrestling with at the moment to actually write what would good look like in a way that helps people to contribute, whatever they’re doing, wherever they are, to move in that direction. It’s not easy, as I’m trying to write for everybody, not only for the wonks. So I think one of the key things that FDSD could do is to lead this conversation about where we are going with Brexit and what would be better for sustainable development in the long run, and why and how, and what would be better for democracy, and why and how. And if there are any caveats in there, what has to change to make it ok to stay in or stay out.  As far as democracy and sustainable development are concerned, to do an analysis from our perspective would be good – nobody’s done that.

PD: That’s very interesting and of course one of the other points you make in terms of the democratic dimension is the ineffectiveness and the inappropriateness of referenda as a means of achieving change.

SP:  I agree with Freedom House on this, that referenda are a sort of end run round the obstacles that get in the way of people in power doing what they want to do. They are the lowest common denominator.  I like the whole idea of opinion polling, finding out what people want, and indicative voting, but I like preferenda, something which the Irish Greens worked out, which are the idea that you put all the options down and then start voting until you shave off all the extremes and arrive at the best possible consensus.  So I don’t like referendums.  And as a decision-making process over EU membership it was disgraceful.  It was Yes/No on something which nobody on either the Yes or the No side really understood, or indeed campaigned for, in a way that represented what the real outcome would be.  The electorate was duped.  I would have much preferred that our politicians in Parliament had stood up to the plate and did what they should do which is freely decide to do what is best for this country.  I’m not that hot on another referendum, but if that is the only option, well, so be it, as long as the choices, processes and the debates are worthy of the magnitude of the decision to be made.

PD: And for a small foundation, the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development, this is our core interest – how the democratic process can lead to sustainable development. What would be your advice to us regarding the work we can take forward?

SP: We all have to get very radical and very active very quickly.  Any of us who pretends that this can be a long-term project is kidding not just themselves; they are letting down other people and indeed nature. I think it’s absolutely key that we get a sense of urgency into it, but not in a way that generates despair or fear – with the powerlessness that goes with hopelessness. The idea is to give confidence to people to start doing and campaigning for things, to free people up.  I use the term ‘sufficiently’ and ‘good enough’ enormously when I teach leadership for sustainable development.  We’re heading in the wrong direction, anything we do that shifts that, over to the right direction is a plus.  Give it a go.  You won’t get it right all of the time, but give it a go.

PD: Sara, thanks very much for this. There’s obviously a lot more in your paper which expands further on this than we’ve been able to cover now.  And you’ve given a good sense of direction for the Foundation in terms of the role we can play in moving us forward to both a more democratic and a more sustainable world.


The think piece is available for download on our publication page.

Lord John Bird calls for Future Generations Act for the UK

Delivering the inaugural Well-being of Future Generations Commissioner for Wales‘ Annual Lecture, The Big Issue founder and crossbench peer, John Bird, called for the approach to long-term thinking pioneered in Wales to be rolled out across the rest of the UK. As a prominent anti-poverty campaigner and keen supporter of the work of the first Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, Lord Bird spoke about the importance of tackling today’s crises, as well as working to prevent tomorrow’s: “Looking ahead, I’ll be calling on parliamentarians from all parties to join forces in planning how, at a UK-wide level, we can learn from Sophie’s work and ensure that the golden thread of preventative thinking is woven into all levels of policy-making… What (the Wales office) is doing is gold dust: it’s equivalent, but even more astute, than the founding of the welfare state. I want our friends in England, Ireland, Scotland and across the world to benefit from the same revolutionary thinking. We need a Future Generations Act for the UK.”

FDSD wholeheartedly supports John Bird’s call to arms. Government decision making is often short term, failing to account for the impact on future generations. In policy areas such as climate change, social care, infrastructure and pensions, long-term considerations are often overlooked as short-term political dynamics take priority. The potential for a UK-wide Commissioner for Future Generations is a key theme of our work. An event last year brought together speakers with intimate knowledge of the work of Commissioners and Ombudsman around the world, to explore the opportunities and challenges to building on the pioneering work of the Welsh Government at UK level and in the other nations of the UK. The video of the workshop is available on our event page.

With democracy becoming an endangered species, is sustainability in peril? | A reflection by Sara Parkin, November 2018

In 2008, Sara Parkin wrote a provocation for the FDSD: “Are Political Parties getting in the way of the sort of collaborative democracy we need to tackle sustainability? If so, what can we do about it?” Ten years later, she revisits her thinking, “in the light”, she says “of the corruption of our current democratic systems”.

Download full paper in pdf.

The Future We Want: Shaping Environmental Politics | Networking event, London 26 Oct 2018

The Future We Want: Shaping Environmental Politics, London 26 Oct 2018

CC.0 :: Thomas Lambert /

We are delighted to invite you to a joint networking event with the PSA Specialist Group Environmental Politics, GreenHouse, Policy Connect and FDSD on 26 October 2018 in London. Designed as a space for policymakers, academics and environmental NGOs to discuss environmental policy-making in a shifting political landscape, the programme will feature a keynote speech from Amelia Womack, Deputy Leader of the Green Party; and a set of roundtable discussions — one of which to be facilitated by the FDSD.

Led by FDSD trustee Andrea Westall, the focus of our session will be the role of social and environmental justice in the transition to a sustainable society, and how to ensure widespread public and stakeholder participation to improve design, take-up and acceptance of change.

The event will be held from 10:00-16:30 at Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HB. More details can be accessed on the PSA website.

The event is free of charge. Please register your attendance via Eventbrite. For enquiries, please contact


Protecting the Interests of Future Generations — Drawing Lessons from Practice | Paper by Victor Anderson, CUSP

A new paper by the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity, authored by FDSD associate Victor Anderson, considers possible reforms to UK constitutional and political arrangements intended to help overcome the problem of a lack of representation of future generations.

Drawing lessons from existing initiatives in Finland, Hungary, Wales and elsewhere, recommendations include the establishment of a House of Lords Committee for Future Generations, the reform of the National Infrastructure Commission, and the appointment of a UK Commissioner for Future Generations.

The full paper can be accessed on the CUSP website.


Why we need a Committee for Future Generations in the House of Lords | Blog by Graham Smith

The Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development has proposed that the House of Lords establish a Committee for Future Generations to review legislation. It is hoped that such a body would reduce the short-termism that can creep into legislative and executive decision-making. In his blog for The Constitution Unit at University College London, Chair of FDSD Graham Smith explains why this Committee is needed and how it could work in practice.

The full post can be accessed on

Image: Copyright House of Lords 2015 / Photography by Roger Harris.

Bringing Future Generations into Today’s Politics | A workshop summary by Andrea Westall

On 19th April 2018, FDSD jointly held an event with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries to ask “Will the Future Blame Us?” and how do we bring future generations into today’s politics.

The audience, a mix of actuaries, academics, policy-makers and civil society, heard from three speakers – Dr Joerg Tremmel, Editor-in-Chief of the Intergenerational Justice Review, Clare Moriarty, Permanent Secretary, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Louise Pryor, member of the IFoA’s Council and Chair of the Resource and Environment Board.

Joerg reminded us that “our political institutions … were designed in and for the Holocene”; in other words, for a time when humans’ impact on the planet was negligible. The ‘Anthropocene’ is the name given to today’s geological time period, one in which people’s activities and lifestyles change the geology and climate. In this Age, he argued: “the need for more statesmen is imperative”. As Winston Churchill’s said: “the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the politician thinks about the next election while the statesman thinks about the next generation”.

Drawing on the work of Defra, Clare Moriarty talked about the long-term thinking and planning that government in fact does, for example, the Thames Barrier or the 25 Year Environment Plan with its commitment to “leave the environment in a better state than we found it: to improve the environment in a generation, for future generations.

She also pointed out that science changes. Forty years ago, we talked about ensuring people-free habitats; then a focus on nature despite people (for example, species loss). This approach was superceded by one stressing nature for people (in other words, ecosystem services). Today, discussion is all about people and nature, with a focus on ‘resilience’. These different framings might prioritise strategies and policies that affect future generations very differently.

Clare also noted a difference between the European approach – ‘hazard-based’ or adopting the precautionary principle; compared with that of the UK – more risk-based, balancing the needs of the environment with that of the economy.

Louise Pryor talked about the actuaries’ role in advising on risk and long-term implications. She said that she rarely talks about ‘expected’ (or average) outcomes, but rather ‘possible’ outcomes and their likelihood.

Louise thought that it was important to think about the probability of failure, and to consider what you are willing to accept and how to achieve that, for example, through insurance or capital holdings in banks. She also highlighted the work that the IFoA had already done on intergenerational justice, three bulletins on pensions; health and social care; and on climate change.

The audience discussed incentives which support short-term thinking, whether by government or individuals, as well as areas where government did indeed enable the long term, for example, through the Climate Change Act or auto-enrolment in pensions. Suggested ways forward included: consideration of whether or not artificial intelligence (AI) might be used to embed long-termism; ensuring all spending decisions include a long-term test; more forward-looking rather than retrospective policy auditing; regular policy reviews to respond to changing scientific evidence; promoting integrated reporting for business; and a role for the House of Lords champion the long-term.

A final challenge was to create narratives that enable people to feel connection with past and future generations.

The rich discussion arising from the different audience perspectives, showed how important it is to bring different people together and adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to tackling present and future challenges.


The presentations of the individual speakers can be downloaded in pdf (381KB).

Image © Linda Geßner /

FDSD calls for a Committee for Future Generations in the House of Lords

© House of Lords / Flickr


For the first time in 25 years, the House of Lords Liaison Committee is reviewing the structure and function of committees in the second chamber. FDSD is making the most of the opportunity to propose a new Committee for Future Generations to bring long-term thinking more systematically into the workings of Parliament.

More than 30 peers already back our proposal, reflecting a growing recognition in the House of Lords of the need to establish new mechanisms that can reach across party divides and enable better thinking, planning and acting for the long term.

Triple function

The proposal outlines three potential functions of the committee:

  1. Examining current and draft legislation with a long-term perspective, to consider the impact on future generations and suggest amendments to protect their interests.
  2. Carrying out reviews like a select committee inquiry to explore specific issues with an eye to the long term and the interests of future generations.
  3. Publishing an annual report on long-term trends, which includes recommendations on how Parliament and Government should respond.

Fit for purpose

The House of Lords is well placed to bring the long view to Parliament. Relatively insulated from electoral cycles, it has more capacity than the House of Commons to think about the long-term impacts of new bills. The second chamber has a reasonably strong track record in taking the long view and has always provided a partial counter-balance to the short-termism inherent in democratic politics.

We believe that a Committee for Future Generations can strengthen the House of Lords’ position as a key player in intergenerational dialogue and debate. It is not a ‘silver bullet’; but, with strong commitment and support, could go a long way to embedding long-term thinking in the legislature.


You can download our full proposal for a Committee for Future Generations in pdf (520KB).

Update 2 May 2018

The FDSD proposal has now been accepted by the Liaison Committee, our evidence submission is published on the Government’s website.

All parties for tomorrow: A new APPG for Future Generations

Image (CC.0) Willian Justen de Vasconcellos /


A new All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Future Generations, launched in January 2018, aims to raise the profile of future generations amongst UK parliamentarians and others. Chaired by Daniel Zeichner, MP, the new group will “​raise awareness of long-term issues, explore ways to internalise longer-term considerations into decision-making processes, and create​ ​space​ ​for​ ​cross-party dialogue​ ​on​ ​​combating​ ​short-termism​ ​​in​ ​policymaking.”

The group’s secretariat, which is based at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at Cambridge University, is planning a series of activities over the next 12 months to further its aims. These include speaker​ ​events​ ​and​ ​discussion​ ​roundtables, briefings on catastrophic risks, and networking events for parliamentarians,​ ​academics,​ ​industry​ ​stakeholders​ ​and​ ​other​ ​APPGs. It has already informally supported FDSD’s proposal for a House of Lords Committee for Future Generations.

Research roots

The APPG emerged, in large part, from CSER’s 2017 research paper on Rights and Representation of Future Generations in United Kingdom Policy-making. The paper, which was edited by Natalie Jones and co-authored by ​Mark​ ​O’Brien​ ​and​ ​Thomas​ ​Ryan, widens the traditional analysis of long-term issues beyond environmental and social challenges. It includes the need to consider ‘existential and catastrophic risks’ such as potential pandemics or those arising from technological advances such as artificial intelligence or geo-engineering.

The paper’s authors also set out implications for political systems in the United Kingdom. They point out that there is a tendency in England to focus on short-term environmental hazards such as flooding or coastal erosion rather than broader stewardship and resource management (as is the case in Wales). They also note that, given the rate at which economies are growing and technologies advancing, unless we change our political and policy-making capacity to consider the long term “we are more likely to anticipate an obstacle too late and suffer the consequences than past generations”.

The authors present a case for respecting the rights of future generations—not simply because we are obliged not to restrict possible futures, but also because it is important to ensure that any new legal rights arising from anticipated “technological, risk-based or moral developments” are created and can be fulfilled.

A good place to start

Creating an APPG for future generations was the first of seven recommendations made by the CSER researchers, which they presented as a good starting point to explore the potential of further changes.

Other recommendations included:

  • obliging all legislation to include an assessment of long-term risks,
  • creating an expert advisory panel to assist policymakers,
  • increasing public engagement, and
  • incorporating intergenerational rights in any proposed Bill of Rights.

Another longer-term goal is the creation of a formal Select Committee on Future Generations spanning both the House of Lords and House of Commons. This would be similar to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This idea is, in many ways, an extension of our proposal for a House of Lords Committee for Future Generations. While our proposal fits into a wider discussion about the development of the second chamber itself, a Joint Committee provides another way to embed and ensure greater long-term thinking within our political system.

We look forward to working with the APPG over the coming months and years.

To find out more about the APPG, including how to get involved, contact the group directly at: