---

ANNEX D Response to Government Consultation Paper - Sustainability Counts

1. The Round Table welcomes the proposal for headline indicators and the consultation document. The following comments are made in the context of our report Getting the Best Out of Indicators and the Government's response to it. The Round Table has also published a report Monitoring and Reporting on Sustainable Development, which makes a number of recommendations relevant to how indicators should be presented and used, based on a seminar we held last September.

General

2. One of the primary purposes of setting indicators is to facilitate tracking progress towards sustainable development and, amongst other things, raising awareness through reporting in the media. The Round Table recognises the difficulty which many people have in grasping the concept of 'sustainable development'. We have discussed with Ministers whether any alternative phrase should be developed, but concluded that it is best to stick with this one and to seek to make it intelligible to the public. These indicators represent perhaps the best opportunity to do so. It is therefore important that Ministers and others, first in presenting the indicators themselves and then in the regular reporting of their values, should refer to them as what they are, that is, a set of indicators of sustainable development. The phrase 'sustainable development' will gain meaning in people's minds by its association with these indicators, each of which is (or ought to be) clear and relevant to their lives and values.

3. We think it essential that the concept of indicators is not simplified to such an extent that they lose credibility, bearing in mind that at least some of their audience is well informed on such issues. It would be unfortunate if they became known as 'quality of life' indicators: we regard quality of life as being part of sustainable development and not synonymous with it.

4. For the same reason, it is important that the indicators should be seen not just as a list of issues in isolation but in relation to the development of other significant issues. Whilst the individual indicators are useful we consider it essential that, in reporting them to the public (especially in the broadcast media), they are set in the context of sustainable development. We believe there may be also scope for bringing out the ways in which the various indicators interact, and that this would help to make the set more intelligible and informative. Each headline indicator needs to be set briefly in its context, bringing out the links with the others in the headline set and with other issues and indicators.

5. We would also be happy for the Government to continue work on composite indicators such as the Human Development Index or the Index of Social and Economic Welfare. But we would see any such development as an addition to these indicators, not a substitute for them.

6. It is important that indicators of sustainable development should be available at the level of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the English regions, for use by the new devolved and regional institutions. These should be equivalent to or consistent with these national headline indicators, and with the fuller set of indicators which the Government is preparing. The possibility of local level and sectoral indicators should also be explored. But we recognise that the headline indicators may not always be appropriate; specific indicators may be needed to meet local or sectoral conditions.

7. In its report on indicators, the Round Table recommended the use, wherever possible, of targets and of 'alert-zones' and/or 'red-zones' to show where action is needed. These should be developed in respect of as many as possible of the headline indicators.

Specific indicators

8. The Round Table recognises the difficulty in choosing an appropriate indicator for each topic. We have not considered the proposed choices in detail, but we have the following concerns.

Economic growth and employment

Poverty. We are disappointed that no index of poverty has been included in these headline indicators. This goes to the heart of sustainable development in a way that some of its surrogates, such as poor housing or even unemployment, do not.

Social investment. This is a mixture of many things, not all of which appear to be compatible with sustainable development. It might, for instance, be better to exclude expenditure on new road building, focusing instead on maintenance of existing roads.

Employment. The level of employment (or unemployment) is important not only as a surrogate of poverty but also as a measure of social exclusion and contribution to society. It therefore has a claim on inclusion in the set, but if necessary we would be prepared to see it omitted in order to make room for an indicator of crime (see below).

Social progress

Housing quality. The proportion of homes unfit to live in is not the best measure of housing quality. The percentage is low and still falling, and is measured only every five years. Rather than seek to devise a better indicator, we suggest that this should be dropped from the set in order to allow poverty to be included without increasing the total number of indicators.

Crime. Crime, and the perception of crime-related risk, is an important component of quality of life, especially at the local level. This merits inclusion in the headline set.

Protection of the environment

Land use. We are not convinced that the proportion of new homes built on previously developed land is the best indicator of land use. The real goal is to reduce the take of new (greenfield) land for any building, so an indicator of that would be more appropriate.

Natural resources

Waste and waste disposal. This is a problematical area. Again, the real goal is to reduce the consumption of fresh resource, and an attempt should be made to devise an indicator of that. It is important that resource use should be covered in the headline set from the outset, even though further effort may be needed to devise the most appropriate indicator in due course.