Select Committee on Environmental Audit Third Report


Leadership


9. There can be little doubt that, from the memoranda we have received, and from commentaries and articles on the subject of sustainable procurement published in the specialist SD and public service press over the last few months, the principal outcome sought and hoped for from the Action Plan has to be clear and enthusiastic leadership for the sustainable procurement agenda within Government.[14] The SDC in its memorandum to us talks of lack of leadership as one of the main barriers to successful implementation of sustainable procurement policies and procedures.[15] The EA likewise in its memorandum says that sustainable procurement needs "leadership from the top", something it is currently lacking.[16] This echoes what our predecessor Committee said in its April 2005 Report. Moreover this point is further reinforced by the NAO Review from September 2005 which clearly states that "stronger leadership may be required" and that, for procurement teams, there is no "sufficient indication ... of senior commitment to this agenda".[17] The Review also adds that procurement teams in nine government departments felt that there was insufficient leadership.[18]

10. As things currently stand, OGC is tasked by the Treasury to lead on procurement for Government. When sustainability in procurement enters the picture, however, things become more confused. As our predecessor Committee noted in its April 2005 Report: "OGC made it very clear… that it sees its position as advisory to DEFRA" on sustainable procurement while "DEFRA ..was not at all clear as to whom it considered to be the lead department on this issue".[19] Indeed, OGC will not lead on anything unless it is told to do so by the Treasury from whom it rightly takes its orders. To compound matters, at the moment no-one anyway appears to be leading on this agenda: presumably, this unnecessary hiatus is connected with the unfortunate view that there is no point initiating any action until the Task Force reports.

11. To the casual observer this situation appears to be far from satisfactory: to the more enlightened observer this is clearly a recipe for disaster—at best inaction leading to regress. The Action Plan must deal with this confusion of leadership over sustainable procurement decisively. There is a fear that when the Task Force reports, no-one will assume leadership in or ownership of this agenda. Sir Neville Simms, who chairs the Task Force, said in a recent interview, that there has to be "sufficient political capital invested in ...[sustainable procurement]...from outside the Task Force".[20] The implementation of the Action Plan will require considerable will and determination at both political and high official levels to be successful. A manifest leader is needed to ensure that this happens.

12. So who should lead? Where should ownership of sustainable procurement across government lie? The temptation is to saddle DEFRA with leadership in this area: that is, after all, where the sustainable procurement agenda currently seems to sit. DEFRA has a Minister who has given to the agenda what little momentum it possessed until the setting up of the Task Force. DEFRA is fully cognisant of the importance and complexity of the whole SD agenda which should underpin government procurement. However, EAC has in the past commented upon how ineffectual DEFRA often appears to be when it tries to push an agenda across government:[21] for whatever reason, DEFRA seems to lack weight in Cabinet-level discussions and deliberations and SD often seems to become imprisoned within its own walls. Nor has the work of its own Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) been a cause for wild celebration and applause despite the dedication of its staff: its message appears not to have travelled far or well. However green DEFRA may turn, its complexion rarely appears to be contagious within government. Moreover, in the past DEFRA's role in driving this agenda forward was linked to its role in SDiG. Now that the SDC has taken over 'ownership' of SDiG, it could be argued that DEFRA has no formal remit in this area any longer.

13. It is obviously important for any decisions over leadership to take into account the practical realities of the current situation, no matter how much those realities might need to improve. A middle-level procurer in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) or in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is much more likely to contact OGC, to read its guidance or look up its web-site than he is to speak to someone at DEFRA or trawl its web-site for details, especially if he is—as most procurers are (being a reflection of the public at large) - not already committed to and trained in the principles of sustainability. This habit—this grain of process—is one which, where possible, it is more useful to work with than against. Now OGC is an agency of the Treasury, and EAC has in the past had occasion to criticise HMT (as it has OGC) for failing to be as dedicated to SD and all that it entails as it ought to be. Indeed our Committee has engaged in discussions with HMT annually, during our Pre-Budget and Budget inquiries, over the fiscal and financial presumptions in the Treasury's deliberations that sometimes appear to over-rule SD presumptions. We know that the current Financial Secretary well understands our position, and that of other bodies attempting to press government to green its operations and policies; and the Treasury is no stranger to issues of environmental sustainability even if it is not always their ally.

14. Clearly, it makes sense that since OGC leads on procurement so it must lead on sustainable procurement. It must do so by making clear that they areor should beone and the same: all procurement should be as sustainable as possible, and procurement decisions should all be founded upon an understanding of the principles of SD. As sustainable procurement requires Cabinet level leadership, to be promoted effectively the Chief Secretary at the Treasury should be tasked to lead on this subject. At the moment, OGC has as its priorities the need to assist the public sector's £21.5bn annual efficiency gains by 2007/08, to help make a £3bn saving by 2007/08 in central Government procurement, and to play a key part in the improvement in the success rate of mission critical projects.[22] HMT must address the current financial, costs and savings, preoccupation of OGC's targets and PSAs. A new target or priority needs to be set - a new PSA ought to be considered if appropriate - which reflects OGC's new drive for sustainability in procurement. Such a target or PSA needs to be sufficiently specific to act as a powerful enough driver within OGC for change. OGC must also consider the need to report to Parliament on its drive for greater sustainability within procurement, initially on an annual basis. This would—we hope—help focus minds at the highest levels within OGC and HMT. HMT must also address the blinkered culture that prevails within OGC (and no doubt to a good degree within its own walls). This culture of course also prevails within other departments: the NAO Review reveals that 14 departments reported that reducing costs was considered more important than the drive towards sustainability.[23] EAC has pointed out before that SD is too often an optional extra for departments, even where the work of a department is central to the functioning of government and has significant environmental implications—as is the case with HMT and OGC. In evidence to us OGC seemed keen to reduce SD to an array of options, of which environmental sustainability was only one, and that far down the list.[24] This too has to change: sustainability has to be at the core of purchasing and, within the context of climate change, carbon emissions targets and the threats to biodiversity world-wide, environmental considerations should be treated as seriously as pure financial considerations.

15. We are not alone in thinking that OGC ought to take the lead on this agenda, regardless of how uncertain its current grasp of how important and central to its work SD appears to be. The EA in its evidence to us suggested that as "OGC takes the lead on public procurement across government, OGC should therefore lead on sustainable procurement. If [it] does not then sustainable procurement could be seen as a fringe issue" (as indeed it is currently). Jonathon Porritt from the SDC commented in the November/December issue of Green Futures that "we need a much clearer role for the Office of Government Commerce in driving this agenda across government. I'd like to see director-level responsibility allocated there, and the OGC report its performance on sustainability to the PAC". In the same article he likewise identified OGC as having been "distinctly half-hearted on sustainability". However, with the right targets and procedures, and with good committed leadership at a high enough level alive to the need to issue accurate and regular reports against its targets, OGC would be best equipped and best placed to push forward the sustainable procurement agenda. We nonetheless expect that this will be a difficult task. The SD leaders in six government departments reported to the NAO that they felt "unable to exert sufficient influence to enforce the implementation of existing environmental purchasing policies." [25] As the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) said in its evidence to us, "sustainable procurement ... requires a sea-change in attitude from those tasked with delivery".[26] To ask OGC to lead on sustainable procurement under the direction of the Chief Secretary requires this sea-change.

16. In order to assist in this work, therefore, every department of Government will need a sustainable procurement champion of sufficient seniority to ensure that the Treasury and OGC will be successful in the long term in spreading the word across government. The NAO Review pointed out from the data collected for SDiG 2004 that there are some significant differences across government in the way that this agenda is dealt with and prioritised, and some serious gaps and omissions. All departments need equally to grasp the need to make their procurement as green as possible, and to that end clearly each department's SD or 'green' Minister must play his or her part. It should be the responsibility of the 'green' Minister in particular to ensure that at a high level within his or her own department those officials tasked with budgetary and procurement oversight are appropriately trained and advised, and that the recommendations set out within the SPTF's Action Plan are indeed acted upon and not just read with interest and then ignored.


14   see Green Futures, Number 55 (Nov/Dec 2005), pp16-23 Back

15   Ev47, para 11 Back

16   Ev26, 2.1.1 Back

17   NAO review, p30, paras 4.11 to 4.14  Back

18   NAO Review, p30, para 4.11 Back

19   HC266, para 11 Back

20   Public Service Director, January 2006, pp34-6 Back

21   For example, EAC's 13th Report of Session 2003-04, HC 624-I, para 84 Back

22   see the OGC web-site: www.ogc.gov.uk Back

23   NAO Review, p30, para 4.6 Back

24   Qq30&37 Back

25   NAO Review, p30, para 4.14 Back

26   Ev39 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 8 March 2006