Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-47)
MS SARA
EPPEL AND
MR FAROOQ
ULLAH
29 APRIL 2008
Q40 Joan Walley: Have you read any
recommendations that they should be included within your remit
in any way?
Ms Eppel: We have not. I think
we would need to have more resources to be able to do that effectively.
Q41 Mr Stuart: I would also like
to congratulate you on the work in the report. Reading your headline
on page 8, were you lent on?
Ms Eppel: No. We are never lent
on.
Q42 Mr Stuart: If that is a headline,
don't give up the day job as they say. For a Government which
is this far off meeting its targets, when it says this is a central
purpose of Government and at the moment a central challenge for
us all, yet they want global leadership. The watchdog that is
doing it says, "Government on the whole is generally performing
better this year than last year". We have got Government
emissions from offices up by 22% since 1999-2000 if you do not
include MoD and if you take out all of MoD actual efficiency per
square metreage has declined by 3.3%. What word would you more
properly use, disappointing, extremely disappointing or lamentable?
Why is that not in your headline? If you are here as the watchdog
supposed to provoke and hold the Government to account then surely
it is for the Government to be talking about what they are going
to be doing next year. Every year for the last number of years
this Committee has heard about what it is going to do next year,
what it has done since the data that was in that report you are
looking at since that point where we have done all these steps,
we keep hearing that and yet here we are, you are in a position
to give them a prod and you write that as your headline.
Ms Eppel: I think we would say
we have written that as our full report. There is plenty of evidence
to show that we have been quite tough on the Government. Maybe
our headline could have been stronger. We took the view that if
you want to change people's behaviour, just shouting at them only
gets you so far and we have done quite a lot of shouting. We honestly
felt it was worth giving them a bit of encouragement for the best
practice and for the fact that this year for the first time they
have produced a response to our report which accepted 43 recommendations
by us and for setting up a new Centre of Excellence, which we
had been asking for for some time and putting a performance objective
into Permanent Secretaries' objectives for this year. We thought
it was worth saying that Government does seem to have got a grip
on this a bit more this year. Although we accept and we have said
in this report in some considerable detail that there are significant
failings, there are signs that things are getting better and overall,
it is a bit better than last year.
Mr Ullah: The reason for that
one particular statement, that although Government as a whole
has been performing better in the last year, is the fact that—
Q43 Mr Stuart: It is a bit wet, is
it not? Are you pleased about that? I just think it is disappointing.
Mr Ullah: There is a very good
reason for it. It is purely down to the star ratings. More stars
were awarded this year than last year. We have used a comparable
star rating process this year and last year. Based on the scoring
mechanisms we use we came to the conclusion that Government is
indeed performing better than last year. It would be unfair for
us not to say that up front as well. That is the reason for that
one statement. I agree with Sara, there is a lot of work going
on on the ground, a lot of practitioner activity that should be
rewarded in this report but it may not reflect the numbers. 2007
was a watershed year where a lot of activity is beginning to happen.
It might not be reflected in the numbers yet but it will in the
future. This is not just a numbers exercise at the end of the
day; it is about encouraging behavioural change. The numbers are
almost incidental to that fact.
Q44 Mr Stuart: The lead department,
Defra, has had a 32% increase in energy use per square metreage
since 1999-2000—that is lamentable—compared to the
Department for Work and Pensions which is 5% worse, that is commendably
better than Defra, but Defra is the lead department in government.
The Secretary of State is supposed to be answerable in the Climate
Change Bill if we believe that judicial review has any real bite
and will mean anything. Defra energy efficiency: no progress or
poor progress, in fact backwards progress but we do not have a
colour for backwards progress! Then you write that as a headline!
I am just disappointed as a watchdog that you have not been stronger.
Only 12 out of 21 departments said they included clauses on "Quick
Wins". This a mandatory standard. They are not even doing
that which is mandatory let alone cultural change. Only ten out
of 21 departments have targets incorporated into their personal
performance agreements. When we were in China we found that the
provincial heads of government now have at least energy efficiency
built into their bonus and performance targets and here we are
lecturing them and we are way behind. It is not reflected sufficiently
at the front of your report, which is the only bit much of the
press is going to read.
Ms Eppel: What you have identified
are the issues we have put in print, which are that there are
problems in what Defra has done over the past year, I absolutely
accept that, that is why it is in print. You have picked out some
of the key points. Whether that means that the whole of Government
is going backwards is a different issue because there are several
departments—
Q45 Joan Walley: We look forward
to receiving the further written information that you promised
on this issue of the way in which the ratings were made.4 I think
that might well shed further light on the issue that Mr Stuart
has raised. Just before we finish this session, in respect of
the pot calling the kettle black, have you got any views on the
Parliamentary Estate because that is not included in your remit,
is it?
Ms Eppel: The Parliamentary Estate
is not covered at all and therefore we are not able either to
gather your data, assess it, put it through the same mill or produce
a report. We think that is a problem. We think it ought to be
included and it should be included within this report to compare
your own performance in this building.
Q46 Joan Walley: The reason it is
not is because Parliament is a law onto itself, is it?
Ms Eppel: I think it is historic.
Mr Ullah: Whoever is in is in
for life and they cannot get out. The Parliamentary Estate has
never been recorded and that has never progressed, which again
Government should take a view on.
Q47 Joan Walley: If the Parliamentary
Estate were to be reported do you think that, unlike the NHS,
where it has its own separate reporting mechanisms, it should
be within the orbit of your remit?
Ms Eppel: Absolutely.
Joan Walley: Thank you both very much
indeed for coming along and giving evidence this morning.
4 See Ev 37
| 
