An act of hope: Reflecting on the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act

In 2025, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act celebrated its tenth birthday. This remarkable legislation – the first of its kind in the world – makes wellbeing a central consideration for public bodies in Wales. But being first has its disadvantages and it’s commonly accepted that the Act isn’t yet living up to the weighty expectations that it carries.

At Carnegie UK we work to put wellbeing at the heart of decision-making. So what happens if a piece of legislation that aims to do that hasn’t actually improved wellbeing (yet)? It’s a hard question but we know there’s merit in not panicking, and instead sitting in the discomfort and asking why things aren’t working as we hoped, so that we can consider possible routes forward.

In January, we had a chance to do that when we joined a conversation in Cardiff, hosted by the Institute of Welsh Affairs (IWA), reflecting on 10 years of the Act. Our latest publication lays out some of the barriers to change and lessons to be learned in Wales and elsewhere, and the IWA’s recent report makes a set of recommendations for the Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and the next Welsh Government, but I’ve also been pondering why this still feels like a hopeful moment, despite the challenges.

Firstly, people in Wales and beyond, including those in the public sector and civil society, have a deep sense that the Act is the right thing. In its principles and its commitment to the long term, the Act remains an active signal of hope.

The context also provides deep roots for the Act, and this gives me hope that it can continue to grow. It has embedded wellbeing into Wales’ legal and strategic culture, and as one of a select few Acts to receive post-legislative scrutiny – the findings of which have just been published – it is clearly important to Welsh decision-makers. It lives alongside constrained budgets and complex systems, which can force a misalignment between principle and execution, but this doesn’t mean that the Act itself is faulty.

I am also hopeful because the Act is, at its heart, about the people who use it. People go into governments of all levels because they want to make things better. At the same time, they need to work within existing (often clunky) structures, and it’s here that the big pitfalls hide. If you’re already working above capacity, how can you find time to think creatively about alternative ways of working and complex solutions? So, we need to create space to do things differently, for people in all tiers and sectors.

This isn’t about a set of guidelines to service – it’s about making room for people to talk to others outside their department or sector and to propose better ways of doing things. People need space to engage openly and curiously with why something didn’t work and, where appropriate, iterate to improve. For hope to be sustained and to drive good outcomes, people – inside and outside the walls of government – need agency, trust, and one another.

I’ve sometimes heard the Act described as “a good excuse to do the right thing.” But if we need an ‘excuse’ to do the right thing, the system is still working against us. Yet this too gives me hope, because the system we have is man-made: it is not inevitable. Remoulding it so that the ‘right’ thing becomes the default, instead of a business case to be argued, may be knotty work but it can be done. We don’t always need more money or more laws. Sometimes, we first need to curiously reassess what’s already there and, crucially, ask how we – as policymakers, practitioners, and public – can use it better.