Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 3
3
The Scheme’s design was overly complex and did not sufficiently address the needs of consumers...
Recommendation
The Scheme’s design was overly complex and did not sufficiently address the needs of consumers and installers. The Department acknowledges that consumers and installers faced a poor customer experience when using the Scheme. There were delays to applications being processed, and by August 2021, 52% of voucher applications were eventually rejected or withdrawn, while 46% of installer applications failed. These high attrition rates were substantially the result of the Scheme’s complex design, with applications having to meet complicated requirements to be approved. Homeowners also struggled to find registered installers as many installers were unwilling to gain the necessary certification for a scheme lasting only six months. The Department should have consulted more deeply to understand the challenges that consumers and industry would face, and how it might address barriers to participation. The final administration costs are expected to be just over £50 million, 16% of the total Scheme spend, amounting to more than £1,000 per home upgraded. The Department states that these high costs were due to the need to account for the failings of the Scheme administrator, even though this figure includes a reduction of the contractor’s fee for their poor performance. A scheme of less complexity would have had administration costs more proportionate to the number of successful voucher applications. Recommendation: The Department should set out what steps it is taking to: • secure meaningful engagement with potential consumers in the design of new programmes and minimise the risk that the scheme design proves to be unworkable; • ensure that the costs of administration are proportionate to the delivery of outcomes and the amount of public money at stake.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
4. PAC conclusion: Skills shortages in the civil service could compromise departments’ ability to achieve efficiency savings.