National Audit Office Press Releases
|Printable version||E-mail this to a friend|
The Warm Front Scheme
The Department of Energy and Climate Change’s Warm Front Scheme to tackle fuel poverty in England helped to improve the energy efficiency of over 635,000 households between June 2005 and March 2008. According to a report by the National Audit Office there were, however, 1.9 million vulnerable households in 2006, so this rate of progress will still leave many in fuel poverty in 2010.
Today’s report reveals that the installation of central heating systems and insulation in homes has helped vulnerable people who might otherwise suffer from the cold weather. Satisfaction is high, with 86 per cent of assisted households either highly satisfied or satisfied with the work done. The report concludes that delivery of the Scheme has been largely effective and to that extent offers value for money, but it has been impaired by problems in Scheme design.
The Government’s use of proxy measures, such as benefit entitlement, to determine who is eligible for Scheme grants is a pragmatic approach, but it has resulted in inefficient targeting of resources. Fifty-seven per cent of vulnerable households in fuel poverty do not claim the relevant benefits to qualify for the Scheme. And nearly 75 per cent of households who would qualify are not necessarily in fuel poverty, although in practice a large number may have fallen into or be near fuel poverty owing to recent energy price increases. In addition, between June 2005 and March 2008 the Scheme has given £34 million in grants to households whose properties were already comparatively energy efficient.
Most measures provided by the Scheme appear to be competitive with industry prices, but gas and oil boiler replacement costs are at the higher end of the range, partly because of Scheme specifications. The grant available has not increased since 2005 and more applicants (around 25 per cent in 2007-08) are having to contribute towards the cost of the work carried out. Some eligible applicants are therefore withdrawing from the Scheme, or not progressing their applications (around 20,400 households in total as of October 2008).
Tim Burr, head of the National Audit Office, said today:
"The Warm Front Scheme has helped to alleviate fuel poverty in a large number of households. But despite changes intended to improve the targeting of the Scheme, over half of vulnerable families in fuel poverty still do not qualify, while many households unlikely to be fuel poor are able to claim a grant. The Department of Energy and Climate Change needs to improve the way it assesses eligibility for the Scheme, so that the most vulnerable households are the first to receive the assistance they need."
Click here to view and download the full report.
Notes for Editors:
- The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act (2000) requires the Government to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, people do not live in fuel poverty. Following the Act, the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, issued in November 2001, detailed the targets to eradicate fuel poverty across England, as far as reasonably practicable, in vulnerable households by 2010 and in all households by 2016.
- Three factors contribute to fuel poverty: low household income; high fuel prices; and poor energy efficiency. Warm Front is a key programme of the Department of Energy and Climate Change to tackle fuel poverty by improving energy efficiency in privately owned properties in England. The Department relies upon a contractor, eaga, to administer the Scheme on its behalf and to manage the 139 contractors, including seven wholly owned subsidiaries, responsible for the installation of heating and insulation measures. This report follows up earlier NAO examinations of the Scheme in 1998 and 2003 and focuses on the extent to which the Scheme has helped those in fuel poverty, the costs of the work done, and the Department’s management of the contract.
- Press notices and reports are available from the date of publication on the NAO website, which is at www.nao.org.uk. Hard copies can be obtained from The Stationery Office on 0845 702 3474.
- The Comptroller and Auditor General, Tim Burr, is the head of the National Audit Office which employs some 850 staff. He and the NAO are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources.
Press Notice 06/09
All enquiries to Barry Lester
NAO Press Office: Tel: 020 7798 7937
Mobile: 077748 181 692
Latest News from
National Audit Office Press Releases
Managing and replacing the Aspire contract23/07/2014 13:20:00
HM Revenue & Customs has had limited success so far in reforming its Aspire contract with Capgemini, according to the National Audit Office. The spending watchdog warns in a report that there are serious risks to HMRC’s business if the programme to replace the contract fails to meet its objectives by June 2017 when the contract ends.
Reforming the UK border and immigration system22/07/2014 13:20:00
The two new Home Office directorates that have replaced the former UK Border Agency have had no significant performance falls during or after the split of the Agency. Improvements have been made in some areas, but not across the whole business.
Investigation into grants from the Big Lottery Fund and the Cabinet Office to the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation22/07/2014 11:10:00
The National Audit Office has published an investigation of two grants awarded by the Big Lottery Fund and one awarded by the Cabinet Office to three related organizations
The 2013-14 savings reported by the Efficiency and Reform Group17/07/2014 11:20:00
The Efficiency and Reform Group (ERG) has achieved significant savings for the taxpayer and is continuing to make improvements to the way it calculates savings. But, according to the National Audit Office, there remain a few important areas where further work should be done to improve the process of gathering and collating evidence