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 are—or
should be—one
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
|
