British lawmakers have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the newly established Office for Value for Money (OVfM), an initiative announced by Finance Minister Rachel Reeves to improve public spending efficiency.
Concerns have been raised regarding the office’s staffing, purpose, and potential overlap with existing public bodies.
Treasury Committee Critiques OVfM’s Structure
The Treasury Committee, which oversees public spending, criticized the OVfM for its lack of clarity and resources. The body, which has only 12 full-time staff seconded from other government departments, has been described as an “understaffed, poorly defined organization” by committee chair Meg Hillier.
Hillier, a Labour Party member like Reeves, called the initiative a “red herring,” suggesting it might fail to deliver meaningful savings.
Overlap with Existing Agencies Questioned
The committee pointed out that the OVfM’s role appears to duplicate efforts already undertaken by other organizations, such as the National Audit Office (NAO), which employs nearly 1,000 staff. Lawmakers also criticized the lack of transparency regarding the OVfM’s budget, its areas of focus, and the metrics it will use to measure success.
Treasury Defends OVfM’s Purpose
In response to the criticisms, a Treasury spokesperson emphasized the need for the OVfM, stating, “Taxpayer money has been squandered for too long. This Office will complement existing government bodies, drawing on expertise across disciplines to identify and eliminate waste, including overlapping departmental spending.”
OVfM Targets 2% Efficiency Savings
Announced in Reeves’ first budget on October 30, the OVfM aims to help government departments achieve a 2% efficiency savings target in the next year. This initiative is part of a broader plan to prepare for a multi-year spending review scheduled for June. Reeves is under mounting pressure to cut expenditure further, as rising borrowing costs and self-imposed fiscal rules limit her options.
Future of OVfM Remains Unclear
The lack of a detailed plan for how the OVfM will operate or measure success has left many lawmakers questioning its viability. Without clear goals, critics argue that the office may fail to provide the meaningful savings it was designed to deliver.
