Audit Committee, 18 Mar 2003
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Official Report
134KB pdf
“Measuring up? A follow-up report on performance measurement in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”
Item 4 is on the Executive's response to the committee's report of 15 January on "Measuring up? A follow-up report on performance measurement in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency". I refer members to the Executive's response and seek any comments that they may have.
I have one comment on the lengthy reply. One of the key matters on which we commented was the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of performance indicators, given the nature of the indicators that SEPA has adopted. I am particularly pleased to see that SEPA is working on establishing emissions data so that there is a baseline that will enable us to examine changes in the future. That is a difficult task. I am glad that SEPA is trying to sort the matter out, as it is a key issue in the Government's overall objectives for SEPA.
I notice that the Executive has issued guidance. The process to improve the indicators is in a transitional phase but the aim is to provide
"a full suite of outcome-based performance indicators."
The process is on-going and will be monitored and checked against delivery.
I notice in its response to our specific recommendations that the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department supports the committee's intention and agrees with formal verification of information. The department states that it expects to complete
"an initial round of this process before publication of SEPA's 2002-03 annual report."
That should be checked against delivery. I note the development of SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-specific—targets and that better data programmes will be put in place to create baselines. The response states that progress is expected in "successive corporate plans". I suggest that, through the Official Report of the meeting, we bring that to the attention of our successor committee.
At the end of the department's response to the committee's first specific recommendation, the letter states:
"I do not see a case for regular check auditing of the performance of sponsored bodies by the Department."
I would like to see some clarification of intent as to how that should be carried out.
Yes. That comment will be in the Official Report.
I will help the committee with that issue. A number of non-departmental public bodies and similar bodies were concerned to have a proper relationship with the sponsor department. The view is generally taken that it is for the NDPBs to be responsible and to be held to account for reporting their performance accurately, well and helpfully. I gather that the point that is being made in the letter is that the department does not feel that it should be second-guessing the agency in that work.
I can give an assurance that, through the audit process, we will from time to time review the systems that are used to gather and report performance information. As the convener rightly said, in the future, through the published information and annual reports of bodies such as SEPA, it will be possible for the Parliament, including the Audit Committee, to monitor the performance that is delivered. We will take a continuing interest in providing assurance on the systems that gather and produce that information, but the bodies themselves must be held to account for their performance.
I thank the environment and rural affairs department for the response. Given that the issue is on-going, do members agree to pass it to our successor committee for monitoring and to ensure progress?
Members indicated agreement.