Debated 2 April 2025 Westminster Hall. Hansard link.
Sarah Russell (Lab): “We believe that the review must be done with ambition and a willingness to challenge underlying customs and practices. In particular, it needs to learn from the successes and failures—largely failures, I would say—of previous Green Book reviews, in particular the 2020 review.”
“There is a consultancy industry around the Green Book, and that raises the cost of developing a successful business case. It also makes it very difficult for smaller local authorities to successfully put together a business case because the complexity of doing so is absolutely mind boggling. Frankly, the whole thing is just a bunch of piffle—we need to make this very simple and outcomes driven.”
Jeevun Sandher (Lab): “For too long, investment has been biased towards London and the south-east. Someone living in London gets £800 more infrastructure spending per year than the national average. That is because the cost-benefit analysis set out in the Green Book to evaluate projects has a hardwired London bias. First, the Green Book prices the benefits of projects in a way that benefits places with higher wages—namely, London. Secondly, it does not estimate the wider impact of investment on growth.”
Andrew Cooper (Lab): “The Green Book is part of a colourful spectrum of current Government guidance and standards documents, which alongside the Aqua Book, the Magenta Book, the Orange Book and 19 other publications and pieces of supplementary guidance forms the basis of how the Treasury appraises policies, programmes and projects. On top of that, several Departments have issued their own interpretation of the guidance as it applies to them, thankfully avoiding extending the colourful metaphors any further.
“That complexity—well over 1,000 pages of guidance—is at the root of the criticism of the small industry and almost mysticism around navigating the assessment process and of the poor outcomes to which it leads.”
“Local authorities tell me it is still common practice for response letters to open with sentences such as, “We note that the BCR for the proposed scheme is 1.8.” That belies the intent of the 2020 review. […] The review must end the arbitrary BCR thresholds across Government.”