A lack of resources, a very short lifespan and high risk of
duplication has left MPs on the Treasury Committee sceptical
about the newly established Office for Value for Money (OVfM)
according to a new report.
In a report published by the Treasury Select Committee today, MPs
raise concerns that the OVfM Chair, CBE, is only contracted for
a year and that the unit only had 12 full-time members of staff
in December. It is therefore difficult to see how it will have a
meaningful impact on driving efficiencies in departments.
The Committee also highlight seven examples of organisations,
teams and processes which have already been established to ensure
value-for-money is considered in public spending decisions. Those
organisations are only a selection from the bodies working on
value for money across Whitehall, which shows there is a clear
risk of unnecessary duplication.
The report highlights that there is very little information on
which parts of government the OVfM will work with, how it will
scrutinise departments' investment proposals and who is
responsible for evaluating OfVM's effectiveness. The Committee,
therefore, calls on the Treasury to publish those details.
The Committee is also calling on the Government to publish an
estimate of how much it will spend on the OVfM including any use
of external consultants.
The Office for Value for Money was established by the Chancellor
in the 2024 Autumn Budget and given the remit to ‘provide
targeted interventions through the multi-year Spending Review'
and make ‘recommendations for system reform'. Both objectives are
intended to 'root out waste and inefficiency'.
The transcript of the Committee's session with officials at the
Office for Value for Money is here.
Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, Dame MP said:
“Our Committee has concluded the Office for Value for Money is an
understaffed, poorly defined organisation which has been set up
with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its
effectiveness. All of which leads me to feel this initiative may
be something of a red herring.
“The Treasury needs to share far more information about what this
small team will actually achieve for the taxpayer which cannot be
done elsewhere. It must also be transparent about how it will
operate and how it will assess its effectiveness.”
