What Could Northwest Groups Do with a Future Generations Act? Borrowing Welsh Accountability Tools Without the Statute

In Bolton, a charity runs a warm hub out of a former mill canteen. In Bootle, a community land trust is trying to buy a bus depot. In Burnley, a co-op shopfront doubles as a credit union and a food pantry. Each of these groups is making decisions now that will shape their place for twenty years. None of them is legally required to think about the long term. That is the gap.

The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 gives Welsh public bodies a legal duty to think beyond the electoral cycle. It sets seven well-being goals, five ways of working, and fifty national indicators. It creates a Future Generations Commissioner with powers to review and recommend. It is not perfect. But it is a serious attempt to build long-term accountability into public decision-making.

Northwest England has no equivalent statute. The question is not whether we should copy the Act wholesale. The question is which of its tools can be borrowed voluntarily, by community organisations and voluntary sector infrastructure bodies, without waiting for Westminster or a combined authority to legislate.

What the Welsh Act actually requires

The Act places a sustainable development duty on listed public bodies, including local authorities, health boards, and national parks. They must set well-being objectives, publish annual reports, and work towards seven goals: a prosperous Wales, a resilient Wales, a more equal Wales, a healthier Wales, a Wales of cohesive communities, a Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language, and a globally responsible Wales. They must apply five ways of working: long-term, integration, involvement, collaboration, and prevention. The Future Generations Commissioner monitors progress, can conduct reviews, and makes recommendations that public bodies must follow. The Auditor General for Wales also examines how public bodies apply the sustainable development principle.

Those are statutory duties. Community organisations in England cannot be compelled to adopt them. But the underlying logic — that decisions should be tested against long-term consequences, that prevention is cheaper than cure, that collaboration beats competition — is not inherently legal. It is a discipline. And disciplines can be adopted voluntarily.

What Northwest groups can borrow without legislation

Three tools stand out as practical, low-cost, and adaptable.

1. Well-being objectives as a governance habit

A charity in Oldham does not need a statute to write down what it is trying to achieve beyond next year’s grant. It can set three or four long-term objectives, map them against the seven Welsh goals if useful, and review them annually. The key is to make them specific to place. Not “improve well-being” but “ensure that by 2035, every young person leaving care in this borough has a secure tenancy or a place in further education.” That is a well-being objective in the Welsh sense. It is also just good strategic planning.

The Welsh model requires public bodies to publish their objectives and report progress. A Northwest community organisation can do the same on its website. The act of publishing creates accountability even without a regulator.

2. The five ways of working as a decision filter

Before a board approves a new project, it can ask five questions drawn directly from the Act:

• Long-term: What will this look like in ten years? Are we trading long-term resilience for short-term relief?
• Integration: Does this cut across our other objectives, or work against them?
• Involvement: Have we asked the people affected, not just the people who fund us?
• Collaboration: Who else could help? Are we duplicating what another group already does?
• Prevention: Are we fixing a problem or stopping it getting worse?

These questions cost nothing. They take ten minutes at a board meeting. They do not require a commissioner or a statutory duty. They require only the willingness to slow down enough to ask them.

3. A voluntary future generations report

Welsh public bodies must publish annual well-being reports. A Northwest charity or infrastructure body could publish a short annual “future generations report” alongside its annual accounts. It need not be long. Two pages: what we said we would do, what we did, what we learned, what we will do differently. The Charity Commission expects charities to report on public benefit. A future generations report would sit alongside that, not replace it. It would focus on long-term impact and prevention, areas where standard charity reporting is often thin.

What cannot be borrowed

The Commissioner’s powers are statutory. The duty to follow recommendations is legal. The Auditor General’s examinations are backed by law. None of that transfers voluntarily. A Northwest group can appoint an internal “future generations guardian” or ask a trustee to take on that role, but that person will have no enforcement power. They can ask awkward questions. They cannot compel answers.

Funders could fill part of that gap. A grant condition requiring applicants to demonstrate long-term thinking would replicate some of the Act’s pressure without legislation. Some funders already ask about sustainability and legacy. Few ask systematically about prevention or intergenerational impact. That is a gap worth naming.

Lessons from South Wales and the Ruhr Valley

South Wales has used the Act to reshape how public bodies engage with communities. In places like Swansea and Merthyr Tydfil, public services boards have used well-being assessments to bring voluntary groups into conversations that were previously closed. The Act did not create those relationships. It gave them a framework and a deadline. The lesson for Northwest England is that a framework can be borrowed even when the deadline is not.

The Ruhr Valley offers a different lesson. After deindustrialisation, the region rebuilt through long-term cultural and environmental investment — the Emscher Park project, the conversion of coal mines into museums and parks. That work took decades. It was not driven by a single act of parliament. It was driven by a shared understanding that the alternative was decline. Northwest towns like Rochdale, Wigan, and St Helens face similar choices. A future generations approach would not solve the funding crisis. But it would make the long-term consequences of short-term decisions harder to ignore.

Risks and unintended consequences

Voluntary adoption is not risk-free. A small charity that spends time on future generations reporting may have less time for frontline work. A framework borrowed from Wales may not fit the governance realities of an English charity with a different legal structure and funder expectations. There is also a risk of performative adoption — writing long-term objectives that no one uses to make decisions.

The Welsh Act itself has been criticised for not going far enough, for creating reporting burdens without shifting power. Those criticisms should travel with the tools. Borrowing the language without the substance would be worse than doing nothing.

What to do next

If you run a community organisation in the Northwest and want to test this, start small. Pick one decision coming up in the next three months. Run it through the five ways of working. Write down what changes. If nothing changes, the framework is not working. If something changes, you have evidence to take to your board, your funder, or your local authority.

The Welsh Act took years to negotiate and passes through a Senedd that has competence over well-being. Northwest England has no such body. But the tools are not owned by Wales. They are a way of thinking. And thinking is free.

FAQ

Do I need to be a public body to use the five ways of working?

No. They are a decision-making framework, not a legal requirement. Any organisation can adopt them voluntarily.

Can I call my report a “future generations report” if I am not in Wales?

Yes. But be clear that it is voluntary and not a statutory report. Do not imply you are covered by the Welsh Act.

Where can I find the Welsh goals and indicators?

The Future Generations Commissioner’s website publishes the seven goals, five ways of working, and fifty national indicators. The legislation itself is on legislation.gov.uk.

What is the difference between the Commissioner and the Auditor General?

The Commissioner promotes sustainable development, reviews public bodies, and makes recommendations. The Auditor General examines how public bodies apply the sustainable development principle. Both have statutory roles in Wales. Neither has jurisdiction in England.

Could a Northwest combined authority adopt something similar?

In principle, yes. A combined authority could adopt well-being objectives and reporting voluntarily. But without a statutory duty, the accountability would be political rather than legal. That is still worth something.

Sources: Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, legislation.gov.uk; Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, futuregenerations.wales; Charity Commission guidance on annual reporting, gov.uk; NCVO guidance on governance and strategy, ncvo.org.uk.