Recommendation 24

In a previous Committee report Home Energy Efficiency Measures, our predecessors highlighted that Government “should be prepared to pull back on plans if it is clear they are unlikely to be successful and risk taxpayers’ money”.69 Given the risk to the Department’s reputation, we questioned why the Accounting Officer chose to proceed, rather than 60 C&AG’s Report, Figure 10 and paras 10, 13, 3.2 61 C&AG’s Report, para 3.4, Q30 62 Qq 30–32 63 Qq 30–32 64 Q83 and C&AG’s Report, paras 10, 13, 15 65 Qq 80–81 66 Q30 67 C&AG’s Report, para 13 68 C&AG’s Report, para 14 69 Committee of Public Accounts, Household energy efficiency measures, Eleventh Report of Session 2016–17, HC 125, July 2016 16 Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme ask for a Ministerial Direction.70 The Accounting Officer told us that she recognised the concerns of the Projects and Investment Committee, but believed the Scheme was still likely to achieve value for money even if it did not spend its full budget. This was informed by the Department’s analysis of 16 scenarios of different levels of scheme demand and implementation costs, which said that in only one scenario of much higher costs and much lower demand did the scheme fail to provide net benefits. Her assessment also referenced assurance received from the Government Digital Service that the parts of the IT solution developed to that point were secure and reliable, and correspondence from HM Treasury stating that it would consider extending the Scheme’s funding into the next financial year should delivery risks materialise.71