Public Audit Committee, 25 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Official Report 189KB pdf

---

Section 23 Report: Responses

---

“Improving energy efficiency”

The next item on the agenda is a section 23 report. We have responses from the accountable officers to the Auditor General for Scotland's report, "Improving energy efficiency". Are there any comments?

Are you seeking comments from members of the committee?

Does the Auditor General want to say anything before I invite comments from members?

No.

I do not know whether it is just me, but I find the reply from dear Sir John astonishingly complacent. One of the most amazing phrases under the heading "Barriers to improvement" on the second page is:

"We believe the most significant barrier to improving energy performance in public bodies is achieving senior level buy-in".

In other words, all his directors will have nothing to do with it. That is my interpretation of it. Is it not astonishing that the Government is saying that improving energy performance is a top priority, but Sir John Elvidge cannot get his directors to do anything about it? Am I misinterpreting what he says in the response?

The comment is quite astonishing. Given the commitment that ministers have made to tackling this issue, they could reasonably expect all senior officials to respond to the policy directives.

The very last paragraph of the response says that 20 per cent of public bodies did not even reply to Audit Scotland's survey. How on earth are we going to get energy efficiency in the public sector if 20 per cent of public bodies do not reply when the issue is raised with them? That is astonishing, given that we are trying to improve energy efficiency. We are all being told to improve our energy efficiency. I have just had cavity wall insulation put into my house because I was so inspired by the Government to go and do something, and yet we find that the public sector is doing bugger all—if that is not an unparliamentary expression. Surely we ought to do something about that? Mr Salmond is down in London saying that he cannot find any efficiency savings in the budget. Surely he should get these people who are sitting on their behinds mobilised. If he was able to achieve "senior level buy-in"—to use that wonderful phrase from the response—he might be able to get some efficiency savings.

There is a sense of frustration, as we have just heard. The Government was asked:

"What actions will you take to assess the quality and effectiveness of energy efficiency plans as they are developed across the public sector?"

In its response, it made reference to an internal group and an external group, but the external group has not yet met. There is frustration because, although action is needed, instead of being told what action will be taken, we have simply had references to various groups.

Okay. We can reflect on what we want to do. We could refer the correspondence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which is conducting an energy inquiry; we could note it; or we could engage in further correspondence. We could even invite the accountable officer or officers to give evidence. I am in the hands of the committee.

It would be valuable to refer on the work that has been done to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

However, I agree that there are aspects of the reply that are complacent. I would have thought that, at the very least, we should suggest to John Elvidge that he obtain a response from the 20 per cent of organisations that failed to respond and that he make those responses available to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

The statement that

"We shall use the mechanisms aimed at ensuring senior level buy in, which I have described above, to raise awareness of the importance of the issues among the 20% or so of public bodies … which did not provide a response"

is mandarinspeak for not doing very much at all. It is quite a serious issue that one fifth of the public bodies ignored a request from Audit Scotland to provide information on such an important area. That situation should not be allowed to continue.

Is that generally agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Does Willie Coffey have anything further to suggest?

The second part of the "Barriers to improvement" section of the permanent secretary's reply mentions the barrier of not being able to access resources to deliver energy efficiency. Not getting the £500 million cut that we face next year would be a great help in that regard, and would greatly encourage participation.

You might remember that we asked the Scottish Parliament to have a wee think about the issue, too, and I am greatly comforted by the fact that

"the Parliament has a combined heat and power plant with the capability to generate 80 kW of electricity and all water required for flushing the toilets is provided by on site boreholes"—

whatever that means.

We will not go there, nor will we get into a discussion about how the present Administration will use the increasing budgets that it will receive year on year. We will leave all that for others to consider.

It should be easy to find the necessary resources from the extra £2.6 billion that will be provided over the next two years.

We agree with Nicol Stephen's suggestion.

I return to the fact that 20 per cent of public bodies did not respond to Audit Scotland's request for information. That is an issue that the committee could consider at some point in the future, even if some of us might not still be on it. It is important that some public bodies do not think that they have to respond to genuine and serious requests. The role of public bodies is to represent the public and to provide public services. Given that the energy situation is high up on the agenda of the public and of Governments, the fact that the bodies in question just did not bother to respond is an example of a lack not only of co-operation but of understanding.

It raises issues for senior officials in the civil service with regard to how they manage. George Foulkes has already raised the issue of the failures in that regard. In our letter, we will exhort more effective management.

Will we pass the responses to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, along with our remarks that we are concerned about Sir John Elvidge's comments?

Yes.