Meg Hillier MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady, the former Chair of the Treasury Committee—she still serves on the Committee—highlights a pertinent point. The chair of the Office for Value for Money said that it is not just about cash costs and that sometimes it might want to look at programmes that will save costs in the long run. However, that was still ill-defined, and we need to hear more detail, because that is the holy grail, really. If we can spend to save, that benefits our taxpayers in the long run in cash and, in the case of flooding in particular, it prevents something that is catastrophic for many communities.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  It gives me great pleasure to make a statement on the first report of the Treasury Committee in this Parliament, and I again thank the House for giving me the honour of occupying this position. Our first report is on the new Office for Value for Money. There will not be a single Member who does not believe in value for money for our constituents, who pay for Government services through hard-earned taxes that they give grudgingly to be spent well. As the Chancellor herself has been very clear, the taxpayer is not an automatic cash machine and every penny of taxpayer money needs to be spent as well as possible. The notion of value for money is one we would all support. We also need transparency, and that is a large part of the role of Select Committees: to shine a light on Government actions. This is our first public report shining a light on the work of the Treasury. The Office for Value for Money is a short-lived, year-long body that is expected to have 20 staff, including secondees from the National Audit Office and the evaluation taskforce in the Cabinet Office. It is headed by a chair, who told us that it would conduct a small number of studies mainly on a cross-departmental basis to identify better value for money across Government. When we spoke to the chair in our hearing at the end of December, we found that although it was supposed to have 20 members of staff, it only had 12 and all were below director-general level, so not the most senior civil servants. That total of 12 and the ultimate total of 20 will include secondees. It had not ruled out in December using external consultants to bolster the skills it will need to deliver on its work. It had not yet decided at the end of December into which areas it would launch studies, and nor had it set the parameters for evaluating its effectiveness. The Committee was clear that having a body with a name we would all agree with the principle of is not enough; we want to see such a body deliver for our constituents. We highlighted in our report that there is a risk of duplication. There are already a large number of bodies across Government that deliver on value for money, scrutinise Government, and shine a light on how money is spent: the National Audit Office, which has nearly 1,000 staff in Newcastle and London; the evaluation taskforce in the Cabinet Office, which evaluates projects across Government to make sure they are properly delivering; the new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, which will be operational in the spring and brings together the previous Infrastructure and Projects Authority in a slightly different format. There are also units in Departments that work to deliver on value for money in a range of areas, in particular the new arrangements for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with its centre for digital transformation of public services. The Cabinet Office also has a readiness programme, based on regulations arising from the Procurement Act 2023, called “Transforming public procurement”. There is also the rainbow of books. If we walk into the Treasury and ask questions about the green book, the teal book and the magenta book—and there are others—we will learn that is an important infrastructure for how it issues guidance. The green book appraises policies, programmes and projects. The teal book provides guidance on project delivery in Government, including managing projects, programmes and portfolios—that has been in an internal trial since July 2024. The magenta book provides Treasury guidance on what to consider when designing evaluation. There are also a number of frameworks, including the Government efficiency framework and the public value framework. Datasets are also provided, including the priority outcomes and metrics first set out in the spending review of 2020. One of the most crucial elements in delivering value for money is that every Department has outcome delivery plans addressing the meat and drink of what is going on in Government. As Secretaries of State sit and plan what they might have to deliver in the spending review coming up in June, they will be poring over those outcome delivery plans as they do their departmental review; each Department will have its own review to look at where money is being spent and what projects are being delivered. Overarching this there is “Managing public money”, which covers the approach of all permanent secretaries, who are the accounting officers and are therefore responsible for answering for how taxpayers’ money is spent through the accounting processes of Government. Their accounting officer assessments have to fit in with that regime. We all want to see value for money, but this young body is one-year long and is not yet well established. The risk of duplication is high, and we need to ensure that it delivers something special and different, and crucially that nowhere in the Office for Value for Money will Ministers be playing a role. They will have a key role in delivering on the spending review, but in my experience of over a decade of scrutinising public spending, Ministers can make promises but they are not always well delivered, which can drive up public spending if we are not careful. It is vitally important that this body delivers as set out, so we have asked the Treasury to explain in more precise detail what it expects the Office for Value for Money to deliver, how it will evaluate its success, and what it wants to see in the long term from this body chaired by David Goldstone. We wish this body well, but the Committee is clear that at the moment there are a number of areas of concern about whether it will actually deliver what it is set out to do.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray into the territory of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—this is exactly the territory that his Committee examines. We all know that agency staff cost more, whether that is for schools or for hospitals, and there is an issue with the pipeline of staff. I will stop there, because it is really not a matter for the Treasury Committee, or indeed for the Office for Value for Money: as the office is short-lived, it would not have the opportunity to look at something like that, as we heard from its chair. However, I am sure that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee will be listening and will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much, although I should stress that it is not my evaluation but the Committee’s. We were unanimous in our concerns and unanimous in our desire to see taxpayers’ money spent well. We asked questions of the Office for Value for Money’s chair. Our report reflects the areas that he might consider looking at, especially areas in which there is great risk and areas of cross-departmental working. There has been a move over the years to get more cross-departmental or joint departmental bids into the spending review, but that has not really got traction, because we have a terribly siloed culture in Whitehall. That is a big challenge, and the current Government—of my own party, of course—have the missions, which aim to bring things together. The chair said that he would be looking at some of that, but that is quite a lot to do in the timeframe available: the bids and cross-party working areas have to be identified, those Departments have to co-operate and the office needs the resource to look at where the issues are. With only 20 staff in total—there were only 12 when we had our hearing with the chair, but there are probably more now—that is a stiff ask. It would be helpful for Treasury Ministers to sit down with the Office for Value for Money and push it to come back with the exact areas that it proposes to look at and that will be most useful to the Government to deliver value for money.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights an important point that I have mentioned already. Our constituents give the Government their hard-earned money in the belief and hope that they will spend it wisely. It is important that the Treasury is clear about what it expects to get out of the Office for Value for Money and, as a result of that work, thereby proves to the House, voters and taxpayers that it is getting better value than it would have done had the Office for Value for Money not existed.

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to growth in this country and to encouraging investment in the UK. Listening to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), we would think the country was going to hell in a handcart. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is no time for panic, that it is perfectly possible to manage any pressures on the Budget through astute management of public spending, and that we are a very long way from the approach taken during the years of austerity under the Conservative party?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that fiscal rules and certainty are vital for the markets and the good stewardship of the public finances, so will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain what process he will be going through as he conducts the spending review, and what notice he will give to Departments about extra cuts that they may have to make in order to meet the fiscal rules? In addition, when the Chancellor comes in front of the House for the OBR forecast in March, will she be making a fiscal statement at that point?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my right hon. Friend has a good head for numbers. Will she be doing some evaluation of the cost and benefits of investing in kinship care, so that we can reduce not just the cost to the child, but the cost to the taxpayer of expensive child social care?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have lived the dream of the academy programme from the very beginning under London Challenge, and I have seen Hackney children go to university—they did not when I was first elected. But the last Government brought in a wrecking ball. They made a smorgasbord of free schools, and offered an open chequebook to pay over the odds for inadequate sites that children were condemned to for years, with no accountability in the system as each bit fractured away. The reason why standards have notionally gone up is that some schools went 11 years without an inspection after they were rated were outstanding, but they were far from outstanding when they were next inspected. The right hon. Lady needs to take responsibility and accountability for what her Government did, and applaud the Secretary of State for what she is trying to do to put it right.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Every week, I visit constituents living in the most appalling, overcrowded social housing, some with triple bunk beds in the bedroom and the parents on a sofa bed in the living room. The nearest available property to buy would be £500,000, and that is out of reach for these hard-working families. I really welcome our Government’s commitment to 1.5 million new homes. Will the Prime Minister agree that we need clear targets for the number of social housing units, so that families in Hackney can live in dignity?