Civil servants warned ministers that they did not have enough time to properly assess some of the energy support packages that will together cost the taxpayer about £69 billion, an official report has found.
The programmes were rushed through after ministers had held off announcing extra support because they were waiting for the Conservative leadership election to play out.
It meant that civil servants only had three weeks to put a full plan in place after Liz Truss in September announced the Energy Price Guarantee. The scheme capped bills for households at 34p per unit of electricity and 10.3p for gas.
They also only had a short time to assess an equivalent scheme for businesses.
A report from the National Audit Office (NAO) reveals that the accounting officer for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had raised objections to both schemes.
The accountant was given so-called “ministerial direction” – where politicians push ahead with a scheme despite the concerns of officials.
The accounting officer said that the pace at which the business support had been developed brought “inevitable risks”. They also said that small rates of fraud in the household scheme would have “significant financial impacts”, the NAO said.
In May last year, then chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a £400 payment to each household in the country.
However, as the months dragged on, it became clear that this would not be enough to protect thousands of vulnerable families.
Boris Johnson, who said in early July that he would resign, refused to announce extra support. It was an issue for his successor, he said.
But that successor – Liz Truss – did not get into office until early September.
With bills expected to spike at £3,549 for the average household from October, she needed to get something in place quickly.
This left civil servants with just weeks to put her ideas into practice.
The National Audit Office said that the Government had to “make compromises” to ensure that support reached the places it was needed on time.
As a result, the taxpayer ended up supporting households that could have managed fine on their own, the NAO said.
So far, £16.3 billion has been paid out as part of the three biggest schemes.
The Energy Bill Support Scheme (EBSS) – the plan to give every household £400 which Rishi Sunak announced in May while still Chancellor – had cost £7.7 billion by the end of December.
The Energy Price Guarantee – Liz Truss’s household support – had cost £7 billion.
Meanwhile, the Energy Bill Relief Scheme, which helps businesses, had cost £1.6 billion.
BEIS acknowledged to the auditors that it had created “value for money risks”, in a bid to roll out the support as rapidly as possible.
The report also showed that the fraud and risk assessment on Mr Sunak’s Energy Bill Support Scheme was not ready until weeks after the scheme had gone live.
This is despite officials having almost five months to prepare for the launch.
The same assessment of the Energy Price Guarantee again only finalised after the scheme was launched.
However, in this case, officials only knew about the policy three weeks before it was set to launch.
NAO boss Gareth Davies said: “Similar to the Government’s assistance during Covid, the energy bills support schemes were introduced universally, and at speed, to reduce the impact of soaring energy costs for people and businesses.
“This approach led to compromises – introducing these interventions at speed meant that BEIS has less time to consider fraud and error risks; and their universal nature meant that a significant number of households received financial support they did not need’.
“As the Government seeks to target future assistance, it must be mindful of the risk of introducing complexity which could aid fraudsters. The National Audit Office will continue to monitor these schemes to understand their impact, particularly the costs and benefits of universal versus targeted support.”
Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “Today’s NAO report shows that BEIS moved quickly to shield most people and business from soaring energy prices, by introducing universal support schemes.
“However, it must take steps to better protect taxpayers, now and in the future.
“To introduce support, at pace, it accepted a greater risk of error and giving to those who do not need it.
“As it refines its offer, BEIS will need to juggle protecting citizens and businesses from unacceptable hardship, while managing the risk of fraud and error.
“It must grasp the chance to learn lessons by planning for the long term and developing options for the next crisis.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here