Office for Value for Money
Debate between John Glen and Meg Hillier
Dame Meg Hillier
It is important that we know what the Treasury is expecting from this body. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who was at our session, will agree that the chair was straightforward with the Committee about the limitations of a body of this nature, which is time-limited and whose few staff are not very senior. I am not in any way denigrating the staff, who no doubt are working hard, but we need to be clear about what we are getting from the headline of the Office for Value for Money, an organisation that is small and lean, and about what it adds to the work of other bodies. I listed only a few such bodies, not all of those that are in place across Whitehall.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for her skilful and professional chairing of the Select Committee. I think all Committee members were straining to find the substantive additionality of this body; I am not sure that we totally convinced ourselves of what that was. I very much welcome the fact that the Office for Value for Money is a time-limited unit within the Treasury. I also welcome the fact that the Office for Value for Money intends studies in specific high-risk areas of cross-departmental spending.
The role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not easy, and I am sure that the incumbent would say that it has been made far worse by all his predecessors. Does the hon. Lady agree that one area that bears scrutiny is the future of the UK Health Security Agency at Porton Down? In September 2015, the then Chancellor suggested that it should move to Harlow. In 2020, additional investment was needed at Porton in a national crisis, and there remains enduring uncertainty over where that investment should lie. That is a classic example of what this body should be capable of doing, which is evaluating where future investment should be in the national interest.
I am sure that the hon. Lady would echo my concern that the lack of specificity around those specific areas of focus creates ambiguity. Would she welcome more clarity on what that focus would be over the last six weeks?
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow member of the Treasury Committee and a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for his question. We could have a whole debate about Porton Down and the animal health centre in Weybridge, where there was under-investment by his Government and challenges on his side, but we are not here to make party political points.
There are areas of under-investment, but the lack of specificity and the duplication issues are key concerns, as is reflected in our cross-party Treasury Committee report. There is a danger that unless this new body narrows its focus soon, it will not be able to deliver in time to aid the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his work of ensuring that Departments deliver on the spending review and come up with the proposals that provide the best value for money for the taxpayer. We need that clarity. The Government should welcome this report, because it gives them an opportunity to seek greater clarity from this body to aid the challenging spending review process.