Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-89)
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MR
DAVID RABEY
AND MS
JILL RUTTER
30 NOVEMBER 2005
Q80 Mr Ellwood: Could we turn to the
National Audit Office review? First, may I ask your reaction to
the review? Will there be any formal or indeed informal response
by yourselves?
Mr Morley: We very much welcome
the review by the National Audit Office. It is useful to have
this kind of analysis in relation to the performance of Government,
where we have had some successes and where there are still some
weaknesses. In any kind of approach towards sustainable procurement,
you do need some form of auditing. You do need some kind of assessment
about how well you are doing. In fact, your own committee, Chairman,
has a very important role in this and that is why I very much
welcome the interest that you have in this. We do need to benchmark
our own progress towards these targets. The NAO report is very
helpful in this. I am not sure we will do a formal response to
the NAO report; it is more for guidance.
Ms Rutter: As for what we are
actually doing about this, obviously this is an input into departments
producing their sustainable procurement strategies, taking into
account the way departments are approaching that. We are very
good consumers of the NAO report because it has gone to every
member of the Sustainable Procurement Task Force with the statement
that these are the questions that people in the know are asking
about the Government and these are the issues that the task force
needs to address in its work. We see it as very much driving the
agenda. There are some areas where we have already taken account
of some of the comments. I know you have picked up the point made
earlier about the greening of government report and the rather
duff nature of some of the questions that we asked in the SDiG
report like, "Do you have a commitment to do something?"
and not, "Are you actually doing any of that?" This
year, hopefully the questionnaire has picked up some of those
points and will yield up more meaningful answers than the "yes"
and "no", which did not tell anyone about how much you
are doing it. We have already put into action some of those things.
We very much see the response to this coming through both the
task force action plan and then the way in which ministers and
Government respond to the action plan.
Mr Rabey: The NAO and Defra recently
held a workshop for 20 government departments on sustainable procurement
policy. The departments were invited to reflect on the fact that
the sustainable procurement agenda is here and visible and that
they will be held accountable.
Q81 Mr Ellwood: That is very helpful.
Could I suggest that it might be helpful to have a formal response?
You mentioned the SDiG questionnaire. Comparing that with some
information that was gleaned from the National Audit Office review
on the number of departments that were claiming that they were
undertaking environmental risk assessments, according to your
study four were not; in fact, 11 were not. If we look at what
was actually being done about the data itself, it seems also that
there is a discrepancy there and one department said they were
not doing anything, whereas in fact 14 departments had no real
commitment to do anything more than collect the data. These seem
to be huge discrepancies between the information that you are
collecting and what the NAO is suggesting. Would you like to comment
on that?
Ms Rutter: This is the 2004 report.
We have just been through the process of collecting the data for
the 2005 report. As I said to the committee earlier, those results
are being analysed by PriceWaterhouse, the consultants we used
last time to do that. Then those are going to be commented on
as to what this means in terms of performance by the Sustainable
Development Commission. Hopefully, we have taken on board some
of these points about the discrepancies and some of the meaningless
questions that we asked—perhaps not meaningless but not
very useful ones. The other thing that is going on in parallel
is that we are reviewing the framework on the Government estate
to ask how useful it is and whether it actually driving up government
performance. I think this goes to some of the points made earlier.
How do we actually make this something? We have set up, in order
to do that, a sub-committee chaired by the Minister, who is overseeing
the process at ministerial level. I think I can mention that.
We also have, and this is a deliberate and new innovation to oversee
the framework review, the rather unfortunately named SOB (Sustainable
Operations Board) chaired by the Second Permanent Secretary in
the Ministry of Defence, that has all of what you might regard
as the big footprint departments on it: the Department of Health,
DFAS, the Home Office and so on. They are overseeing the framework
and asking how we make this into something that does not just
set lots of little micro targets that may be focusing in some
cases on things such as cars, mentioned by one of you earlier,
focusing maybe on the wrong things, but genuinely stretches and
drives government performance in the future. That review is going
on at the moment. We hope that, as we roll forward the framework,
it will become a much more powerful tool to drive up government
performance across the Government estate.
Mr Morley: Recently I had a meeting
with EE(SD), which has ministers on it from every government department.
I did draw their attention to the report of the NAO and the issue
of data collection and data capture, which has not developed as
well as it ought to have done in every government department.
In fact, we did it ourselves with such things as the Government's
policy on carbon offset for all government travel. We need the
data on travel in government departments, the number of kilometres
travelled, so that we can do a carbon equation and therefore do
a cost for the department to put into the pot for the carbon offset.
Q82 Mr Ellwood: To stretch that point,
if there is such a discrepancy between what you are saying through
the results of your own questionnaire and what the NAO is saying,
it is very difficult for us, even though you have spoken with
a lot of passion today about initiatives that are going on, when
we see that departments are either doing very little at all beyond
data collection or they are confused about the definitions themselves
that you put forward to them. If we are to have faith in the sustainable
project that you are pioneering, the departments must first understand
what is expected of them and make a huge improvement in how the
data is collected, and then what is done with that data once it
has been analysed.
Mr Morley: I do not disagree with
that at all. I think it is true and I am very proud of aspects
of what we have achieved in terms of sustainable procurements.
I am totally committed to driving this issue forward. I would
be the first to accept that we have not got this system up and
running in the way that I would want to see it across the whole
of the Government estate. That is the challenge for me; it is
a challenge for us in Defra and working with my colleagues in
other departments. I think we can respond to that challenge. In
relation to the formal response, you do have your own report on
the greening of government in 2004. We will, of course, be making
a formal response to that because we do respond in a different
way to select committees than we would to the NAO, for example.
You will get a detailed response in relation to the points you
have raised on this report.
Chairman: I am sure most people would
say the data is out of date. That is, unfortunately, a fact of
life.
Q83 Joan Walley: In respect of the challenge
you have just spoken about, we, you, no-one can rise to that challenge
without trained people to make it happen. I would be interested
to know how many people there are right the way across the various
departments you are dealing with on this in terms of people you
are training. Are you satisfied that the training is in place?
Do you know about how much training is being done? Do you have
targets there, even if they are not official targets? Does that
mean enough action quickly enough? Is that making the whole policy
deliverable?
Mr Morley: It has certainly upped
the agenda of every department. We have engaged the OGC. You have
mentioned the joint Defra/OGC conference, which is all about sustainable
procurement. That is an awareness-raising issue in itself. There
is certainly an issue of capacity-building in relation to our
approach. We have to ensure that there is adequate training and
experience for staff in all government departments. We look to
the OGC to provide support for that and to the Sustainable Development
Commission.
Q84 Joan Walley: How would you know that
enough was being done in a concerted way? Are you just leaving
it to the OGC and hoping that they are doing it?
Mr Morley: The OGC does a lot
of work on this area. Clearly, we do need to take an overview
on this.
Mr Rabey: We have been working
with NHS PASA (Purchasing and Supply Agency for the NHS) in terms
of sustainable procurement training for the NHS. We have met our
Part F target for training and we have already trained staff within
Defra. That training is ongoing. The process is ongoing. Part
of the training involves helping people on how to do sustainable
things within that procurement process as opposed to issuing some
guidance. Picking up the previous point about the figures on energy
efficiency, taking the lessons from timber and food over the past
few years, departmental failure to show commitment to sustainable
procurement will become increasingly visible. Government departments
will suffer that reputational issue if they are not seen to be
doing something. A lot of effort is going into training, into
education skills, both with the University of Bath and the National
School for Government. We have to carry on rolling this process
out over the next few years to ensure we meet the 2009 target.
It just has to touch a lot of people on the ground who do procurement.
Q85 Joan Walley: I would be interested
to know how much that has been done with Treasury. Certainly my
own experience has been that where, for example, PFI proposals
have gone forward which have involved procurement, their interest
in this green sustainable agenda has not necessarily been matched
by the people in the Treasury who will determine whether or not
the package is allowed under Treasury rules?
Mr Morley: We do need to green-up
PFI contracts. The Treasury is not necessarily against this; it
is partly about making sure that, in relation to criteria of the
PFI, sustainability is built into that. In relation to capacity-building,
the National School of Government has held a session on sustainable
development, which includes procurement, for ministers, including
Treasury ministers; right across the board.
Q86 Mr Chaytor: The impression our committee
has, and this is the second time we have looked at the subject,
is of a massive task force, action plans, strategic plans in departments,
sustainable procurement plans, toolkits. It is seven years since
Kyoto. During this time, the Government Chief Scientist simply
goes to Number 10 and lobbies directly for a levy on electricity
bills to finance the expansion of nuclear power. Does that not
highlight the problem we have? Is it not down to this division
of responsibility between Defra and the OGC and the distinction
between procurement and sustainable procurement? Seven years have
been lost and other actors, particularly in the energy scene,
are developing their agenda in a much sharper and more focused
way.
Mr Morley: I start by cautioning
you about not believing everything you read in newspapers as to
what the Chief Scientist has or has not allegedly done on these
things. There is an enormous amount of activity going on. You
are trying to change a culture here, I would say, and you do not
change a culture overnight. You have to do a great deal of work
and have strategies, training and capacity-building. We have a
whole range of targets on the Government Estate, which have been
in for some time in relation to purchasing recycled paper, renewable
energy, all for efficiency. These efforts are relatively successful,
but we want more than that. The idea of using government procurement
as a sustainable tool is a comparatively recent concept. Of course,
it is rather a new concept whereby you are trying to put in place
an overall strategy as to how you use that enormous purchasing
power than can really influence contracts, business, and even
whole industries. It has not been done before, nor is it simple.
You have to do the background preparatory work. Like many things,
it is frustratingly slow but you cannot short-circuit it; it has
to be put in place if you want to make this policy work.
Q87 Mr Chaytor: What are the three things
that you would most like to see appear in the Sustainable Procurement
Action Plan?
Mr Morley: One, I would like to
address the whole chain of supply; two, I would want to see very
good standards applied in relation to things like building, energy,
water supply, local procurement and equality; and, three, I would
want to see a strategy that people understand across the Government
estate, and in fact beyond the Government estate and into other
public sector areas and into our agency areas as well. Those are
the top three I would like to see.
Q88 Mr Chaytor: But not CPA (Comprehensive
Performance Assessment) indicators for local authorities?
Mr Morley: You do need to incorporate
those within indicators as well.
Q89 Mr Chaytor: I am sure you have looked
at the Early Day Motion 1065 in my name that deals with standby
power. Given that the OGC earlier made it absolutely clear that
whole life costs can be included in value-for-money definitions
and given that the waste of energy through electrical appliances
on standby power is such an obvious saving to be made, why have
not we done more to specify the purchase of low standby electrical
appliances throughout the public sector?
Mr Morley: We do specify purchases
of low energy appliances but the issue you raise goes much wider
than that. The whole issue of standby power consumption is really
so poorly developed that it is very difficult to know what appliances
you can buy in relation to their power consumption and their standby
power consumption. What we need on this issue is labelling and
eco labels in relation to standby power and better design in relation
to electrical equipment. We are trying to address that through
the EU because, of course, it is an EU issue in relation to that.
In order to be effective about this, and this is an important
issue because huge quantities of power are consumed on standby,
we also address it by strategies within departments. I can only
speak for my own in that we do have policies to ensure that people
power down computers in the evening so they are not left on all
night within the department. We need that information and better
labelling. That is not just important for the Government's purchasing
policy; it is important for consumers as well.
Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed.
| 
