There are too many 'green' quangos and consolidation would make a lot of sense. 

There is for example, overlap in the work of Energy Savings Trust, Carbon Trust, Envirowise and Zero Carbon Hub resulting in duplicated effort and cost at taxpayers' expense. I therefore look forward to the new Government's plans to change this.

In this context, Energy Savings Trust, once slated as one of Britain's nine worst quangos, costs taxpayers' more than £40 million a year to run - money which its critics say, could be far better spent. Since 1993, I estimate EST has received over £400 million of taxpayers' money to provide consumers with information, advice and other services. However, numerous organizations and consultants in the public and private sector now provide these services so is EST still required?

The fact of the matter is only a minority of consumers have improved the energy efficiency of their homes or adopted low carbon lifestyles and it would be very easy for EST to make excuses and blame this situation on consumers themselves. However, after 17 years, I believe there are a number of very important questions that need to be answered by EST's management. For example: 

Has ESTs marketing / communication strategy worked? 

• Still, 71% consumers are confused as to where to go for advice and help related to improving energy efficiency. (source: Energy Savings Trust)
• Still, only 25% of people agree that climate change is both happening and primarily man made (source: Jonathon Porritt, EcoBuild)
• 59% people still don't know insulation saves them money (source: National Insulation Association)
• Most homeowners are alienated by EST's call to ban the sale or rent of homes with F/G EPC ratings. (source: Estate Agency News)
• Most landlords are still not aware of the Landlord Energy Saving Allowance. (source: various)
• Most consumers have been alienated by scaremongering adverts and marketing that has talked of restraint and sacrifice and used jargon to which they cannot relate: Travel less. Turn down the thermostat. Bath less. Eat less meat. Act on CO2. Save X tonnes of carbon. (source: various) 

After 17 years, I would therefore be very surprised if anyone thinks the money spent by EST on marketing has provided good value except EST's management.   

Does EST provide good service? 

EST run regional advice centres staffed by hard working people who unfortunately operate with one hand tied behind their back because they can only signpost consumers to suppliers of energy efficiency services, not refer and they make few follow up calls to see if consumers have acted on advice and if not, why not. 

Of around 1.5 million people who contacted EST's advice line last year, I understand only 150,000 were signposted to grants for measures with only 27% taking up the grants. That means over 90% of people who contacted EST with an intention to potentially act, probably now haven't and EST doesn't now why or of those who have acted, what steps they have taken to improve energy efficiency because no mechanism exists to record this. 

In this context, 4 million existing EPC owners should be prime targets to improve energy efficiency. However, still no mechanism exists to contact them and still buyers/tenants cannot compare EPC ratings of homes they are thinking of buying or renting.

As a result, most stakeholders including energy suppliers and insulation installers believe leads "disappear into a black hole" when consumers contact EST.

And still, the Green Homes service for which EST apparently received £100 million from Government in 2007 has not been established. Can anyone advise what has happened to it - and the money? 

This poor record on service reflects badly on the last Government and EST's management.  It damages the hard work of it's staff, damages the energy efficiency industry and damages the work of the green movement.  

Why has EST failed to establish many corporate partnerships?

Over 17 years, I estimate EST has established less than 500 partnerships with the UK's 2 million businesses despite it's management saying that "forging partnerships with the private sector is crucial to making a low carbon society a reality."   

In this context, DECC recently appointed EST to manage the PAYS pilots but EST failed to persuade any bank or building society to tender let alone participate in the pilots. Only one retailer is participating.

EST has also alienated estate agents, conveyancing solicitors and other organizations in the home selling, buying and renting supply chain by their calls to ban the sale or rent of homes with F/G EPC ratings. And now, I understand EST is considering mailing F/G rated homes without considering if they could partner with estate agents to help them improve response rates and reduce costs to taxpayers. How on earth does that make sense? 

Why is EST's doing work that overlaps with that of other quangos and councils?

EST also works with companies, UK housing / building professionals and councils to help them engage customers, employees and residents. 

Why?  Isn't this the responsibility of Carbon Trust, Zero Carbon Hub or Councils themselves? 

Why is EST not open and transparent?

EST is mainly funded by the taxpayer who has every right to know how it's money is being spent. However, EST does not publish accounts or details of it's spending and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Why is EST still recruiting staff?

Despite the need to cut back public spending, EST has advertised over 20 vacancies for staff since the election with titles such as Business Analyst, Assistant Data Services Manager, Data Management Assistant, Desktop Support, CRM & Digital Team Assistant and Assistant Information and Data Manager. 

I estimate these new jobs will cost the taxpayer over £400,000 per year and the mind boggles as to what these staff will do all day. Wouldn't the money be better spent on employing staff to encourage consumers to improve energy efficiency instead of on administration? 

Is Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, working?

EEPH is managed / facilitated by EST and it's aim is to provide an effective mechanism for cross-sector cooperation and joint delivery of energy efficiency initiatives between the public, private and voluntary sectors.

It has around 600 organisations as members. Most of these are from the public and voluntary sector. Less than 200 of the UK's 2 million businesses have joined, despite membership being free. Trade Associations representing banks, building societies, retailers and other consumer facing organisations are conspicuous by their absence despite their help being needed to deliver energy efficiency initiatives and the forthcoming Green Deal.

EEPH operates like a private members club, only a select number of organisations being invited to it's events and to join it's workshops.  It's recommendations to Government and the consultations it facilitates are heavily influenced by EST, environmental groups and other public sector stakeholders instead of the private sector. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

And what does EEPH do with taxpayers money? Well, I understand around 80% of it's budget is spent on consultants. (I have no way of checking if this % is correct because like EST, EEPH does not publish accounts or details of it's spending).

In this context, EEPH has a Chair, two Deputy Chairs and a Director but only three staff. I know of no other organisation with such a top heavy management structure. Can any reader advise me of any others? 

A new part time Chair was appointed earlier this year with I understand, a salary equivalent to over £120,000 per year. How can this be justified?  Wouldn't the money have been better spent on recruiting staff to improve co-operation amongst members and on increasing membership? 

What is EST's future? 

Despite spending £ hundreds of millions on marketing and hiring hundreds of staff, I suggest EST has not achieved it's task, despite having 17 years to do so. 

EST controls a wide range of activities which would be better provided by local councils and the private sector. There is overlap in it's activities with other green quangos and because it has failed to establish many partnerships with the private sector, the diversity and competition needed to drive innovation and growth in 'green' services has not happened.

The new Government will issue the Green Energy bill later this year, the main elements being implementation of a "Green Deal" to deliver energy efficiency to homes and business by enabling a 'pay as you save' approach and it will be down to councils, private and voluntary sectors to generate demand. 

Councils must be put firmly back in the driving seat when it comes to making decisions about delivery of energy efficient housing and they along with the energy efficiency industry, retailers, banks, estate agents and other consumer facing organizations supported by the 'green' movement, must drive forward delivery, not the quangos. 

I therefore call on Government to scrutinise the green quangos perceived flaws and failings and make necessary changes as soon as is practical. I suggest changes to be considered should include:

• Merging EST and EEPH with other quangos such as Carbon Trust, Envirowise and Zero Carbon Hub. In this context, ZCH is part funded by CLG and has done excellent work on moving forward the agenda on zero carbon homes and I have no criticism of it's management.  

However, it solely focuses on new homes and in february this year, it acknowledged there is need for an integrated consumer marketing strategy covering existing and new homes on a national basis. It does not therefore make sense for it to remain separate. 

• Creation of a national sales and marketing strategy that focuses on delivery of the Green Deal, using language that the public can embrace and understand. That puts customer service first, not bureaucracy. That engages all sectors of industry. That encourages the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together. That is led by individuals focused on innovating, inspiring and persuading consumers and businesses to improve energy efficiency, not on building empires.
• Making quangos subject to the FOI Act. The public don't want to see ever more of their money go to ineffective marketing. The public should be able to see where their money goes and what it delivers. 
   
• Stopping EST and other quangos calling for legislation. Campaigning for changes in legislation is not the brief of quangos and should not be done at taxpayers' expense. 

The final questions therefore are: 

1. Will EST and EEPH's senior management be willing to accept part of the blame for failing to convince consumers and businesses to improve energy efficiency?
2. Will they object to any reform that Government requires? or
3. Will they co-operate with Government to ensure the most effective green services and initiatives are delivered and cost savings are delivered.

Only time will tell.