Latest news with #OfficeforValueforMoney
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves's secret plan to save her job
While all eyes were trained on the despatch box as Rachel Reeves delivered her spending review, a newly created government department quietly published what could be the Chancellor's lifeline. Claiming to have found more than £27bn behind the sofa, this document looks suspiciously like a get-out-of-jail-free card for the chancellor. The soporifically titled 'Departmental Efficiency Delivery Plans' is the surprise result of the Office for Value for Money, which Reeves invented for her debut Budget and has until now been little more than a select committee punching bag. Mired in controversy over its chief's salary, equivalent to £250k per year, and concerns it will waste taxpayer money rather than save it, Reeves's brainchild has now created fiscal headroom out of thin air. By the end of this spending review period in 2028-29, the Government will supposedly have saved £27.7bn, slightly larger than a black hole. The annual saving for that year is predicted to be £13.8bn, more than doubling Reeves's fiscal headroom, which has been rapidly dwindling as borrowing costs surge and growth forecasts are downgraded. Only published on Wednesday, these figures couldn't have been factored into either of the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts produced for this Labour government. So, where does this free money, sourced neither from the taxpayer nor lenders, come from? There are certainly commendable ideas within it, such as renegotiating contracts with external providers, using fewer temporary agency staff and, thankfully, calling time on a raft of consultants. Dig a little deeper, however, and these 'efficiency gains' start to look more and more ludicrous, and surely unquantifiable. Apparently, we can calculate the millions of pounds to be saved from the Department for Education 'getting maximum value from every pound of public money'. We know that 'using digital technology more effectively' will add to Treasury coffers, and 'improving efficiency' is apparently enough to put a pound figure on. We have factored in savings from hiring fewer temporary workers in the NHS, which will be achieved by 'reducing sickness absence'. There is no detail how this might happen, but Office for Value for Money chairman David Goldstone, the man behind such great efficiency hits as HS2, has implicitly signed off forecasts based on people being sick less next year. Nobody tell the soldiers, but part of the Ministry of Defence's £105m 'energy efficiency' savings will come from installing low-flow toilets. HMRC's plan to save £1.3bn is largely comprised of using computers a bit more, while nearly every department is convinced they can quantify the benefits of AI. At least these come with some semblance of possibility; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is going to save £14m by 'merging websites' and restructuring its marketing team. It remains to be seen whether Rachel Reeves will indeed hold the document aloft in the autumn to declare her 'iron-clad' fiscal rules have been met, although it would be strange to leave billions of pounds of no-strings money on the table. But, like much of the Chancellor's economic policy to date, I doubt it will stand up to much scrutiny. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour's new housing is liable to fill up with asylum seekers
The Government has announced that it will spend £2 billion to build up to 18,000 social and affordable homes – but who will get them? It's part of their plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. Many responses to this were sceptical however. It has been suggested that these homes will be used to house asylum seekers. That is because the Government's Office for Value for Money has concluded that the expensive migrant hotels, which Labour promised to shut down, will need to stay open for several years to come. However, they write in their report, the 1.5 million new homes will help to reduce that. On the face of it, that might seem sensible. After the election, the Chancellor claimed that £4.6 billion of overspending on migrant hotels was part of a supposed £22 billion black hole. It costs £145 per night to keep an asylum seeker in a hotel, which is partly to blame for spending per asylum seeker soaring from £17,000 in 2020 to £41,000 now. In contrast, putting them into dispersal accommodation, like houses and flats, costs £14 a night. However, there were 8,000 more asylum seekers living in hotels at the end of last year than there were at the time of the General Election last July. That has been driven by more asylum seekers appealing their rejected claims, with the initial grant rate for asylum dropping from 75 per cent in 2022 to 47 per cent last year. There has also been an increase in small boat crossings, with more than 5,000 crossing the Channel already this year, a 24 per cent higher rate at this point in the year than last year. So long as the flow of asylum seekers continues, the migrant hotels will have to stay open. Labour's plan to smash the gangs doesn't seem to be working, leaving the Government scrambling for new ideas, like 'return hubs' in the Balkans. The Italians have already tried this and failed, and, with human rights laws, it seems unlikely it would work for the UK either. Those who do successfully get asylum often find themselves homeless, with 20,000 in this position by last November. At that point, councils are often required to house them in some of their limited stock of social housing or temporary accommodation. That means that demand for these new social houses could be overwhelmed just by the number of asylum seekers already here, let alone the mounting numbers coming. In that case, many Nimbys might be justified in opposing new developments, if they will end up primarily benefiting asylum seekers rather than the British people who find themselves unable to get on the property ladder. There are already calls for the Government to bring in migrant workers to build these homes which, combined with the number of those on skilled worker visas increasingly claiming asylum, creates the absurd possibility of immigrants claiming asylum and ending up living in the very homes they got a visa to build in the first place. The asylum system is broken. The Government might want to listen to bolder voices in their own party, like Jonathan Brash MP, who has called for them to disapply the ECHR and deport foreign criminals. Only when they can secure our borders and stop the flow of new asylum seekers will it make sense to build more homes. In the meantime, British people will find themselves paying their taxes to build social housing they may never occupy. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's new housing is liable to fill up with asylum seekers
The Government has announced that it will spend £2 billion to build up to 18,000 social and affordable homes – but who will get them? It's part of their plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. Many responses to this were sceptical however. It has been suggested that these homes will be used to house asylum seekers. That is because the Government's Office for Value for Money has concluded that the expensive migrant hotels, which Labour promised to shut down, will need to stay open for several years to come. However, they write in their report, the 1.5 million new homes will help to reduce that. On the face of it, that might seem sensible. After the election, the Chancellor claimed that £4.6 billion of overspending on migrant hotels was part of a supposed £22 billion black hole. It costs £145 per night to keep an asylum seeker in a hotel, which is partly to blame for spending per asylum seeker soaring from £17,000 in 2020 to £41,000 now. In contrast, putting them into dispersal accommodation, like houses and flats, costs £14 a night. However, there were 8,000 more asylum seekers living in hotels at the end of last year than there were at the time of the General Election last July. That has been driven by more asylum seekers appealing their rejected claims, with the initial grant rate for asylum dropping from 75 per cent in 2022 to 47 per cent last year. There has also been an increase in small boat crossings, with more than 5,000 crossing the Channel already this year, a 24 per cent higher rate at this point in the year than last year. So long as the flow of asylum seekers continues, the migrant hotels will have to stay open. Labour's plan to smash the gangs doesn't seem to be working, leaving the Government scrambling for new ideas, like 'return hubs' in the Balkans. The Italians have already tried this and failed, and, with human rights laws, it seems unlikely it would work for the UK either. Those who do successfully get asylum often find themselves homeless, with 20,000 in this position by last November. At that point, councils are often required to house them in some of their limited stock of social housing or temporary accommodation. That means that demand for these new social houses could be overwhelmed just by the number of asylum seekers already here, let alone the mounting numbers coming. In that case, many Nimbys might be justified in opposing new developments, if they will end up primarily benefiting asylum seekers rather than the British people who find themselves unable to get on the property ladder. There are already calls for the Government to bring in migrant workers to build these homes which, combined with the number of those on skilled worker visas increasingly claiming asylum, creates the absurd possibility of immigrants claiming asylum and ending up living in the very homes they got a visa to build in the first place. The asylum system is broken. The Government might want to listen to bolder voices in their own party, like Jonathan Brash MP, who has called for them to disapply the ECHR and deport foreign criminals. Only when they can secure our borders and stop the flow of new asylum seekers will it make sense to build more homes. In the meantime, British people will find themselves paying their taxes to build social housing they may never occupy.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Reeves to press ahead with Value for Money office despite ‘risking taxpayer cash'
Rachel Reeves is set to push ahead with controversial plans to create an Office for Value for Money (OVfM) despite warnings from MPs that it risks wasting taxpayer money. The Chancellor is forging ahead with the new taxpayer-backed body in the hope it will help the Government root out £4bn in cost savings a year. The Treasury said in a report on Tuesday that the OVfM will begin by prioritising how to stem the spiralling costs of housing asylum seekers, while also scrutinising spending on so-called 'mega-projects'. It comes after the Treasury Committee criticised the plans in January over fear the unit will not have a 'meaningful impact'. Labour's Dame Meg Hillier, warned at the time that OVfM 'has been set up with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its effectiveness', describing it as an 'understaffed, poorly-defined organisation'. In response to the committee's criticism, the Treasury said even small improvements in the budgets for mega projects had the potential to create 'significant savings' for the public purse. It said the OVfM also has the potential to cut the billions of pounds spent on temporary accommodation for asylum seekers. The Home Office paid out £2.3bn on hotels and short-term accommodation for asylum seekers last year, while local authorities paid out a further £1.6bn, the report said. The new cost-cutting unit will have a staff of around 15 officials between offices in London and Darlington and be led by David Goldstone, the former chief operating officer of the Ministry of Defence. Mr Goldstone's appointment has already been mired in controversy after it emerged he will be paid £950 a day for chairing the body. On a full-time basis, his pay would be equivalent to a salary of £247,000 a year. In his new position, Mr Goldstone will also continue to hold his seats as a non-executive director on the boards of the Submarine Delivery Agency and HS2. However, conflicts of interest rules mean he will be required to recuse himself from discussions with the boards of either organisation. Mr Goldstone is set to work at the OVfM on a part-time basis for an initial 12-month period, providing private advice to the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In response to the Treasury's report on Tuesday, Dame Hillier said: 'As always with these initiatives, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but we will closely hold the Treasury to the letter and spirit of the transparency commitments made today.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
