Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Lord Eatwell Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Eatwell]

20: Clause 4, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) In fulfilling its duty imposed by subsection (1), the Office must assess and report on the risks to the public finances.”

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, before moving on to Amendment 20, I shall make a couple of general remarks about how we have done so far. All sides want, I think, to make the Bill a success. That is not really a matter of political dispute. The Committee has already unearthed some serious failings in drafting. For example, on fiscal policy, the OBR is supposed not to regard a critique of economic policy as within its remit, but on the issue of judging the sustainability of fiscal policy the context of general economic policy is within its remit. What is it to do? Is it one way or the other?

Then there is the question of Clause 5(3)—the clause with the inverse meaning, as I think of it now. Everybody thought that it was designed to prevent something from being done, but then we discovered to our amazement that it is all about what has to be taken into account. This sort of obscurantist drafting gives the law a bad name. There were also the statements in the charter, notably the reference to “intergenerational fairness”, over which we have the grave suspicion that the person who drafted the phrase had not the faintest idea what it meant.

Yet none of these is a political issue. None of them really merits the instruction, “Resist”. All of them are items to debate and to correct. This is a fine example of why technical Bills such as this should go to pre-legislative scrutiny. Be that as it may, my message to the Minister and to the anxious officials behind him is: “Loosen up”. Let us use this Grand Committee for the constructive purpose that it was intended to have and try to do what we all want, which is to ensure that this Bill works, works well and works for the long term.

With respect to Amendment 20, the OBR has made a major step forward in recognising the uncertainty around the probabilistic nature of economic forecasting —and quite right, too. However, this has clearly not yet penetrated the thinking of government Ministers. In the Chancellor’s Statement last Monday, he boldly declared that the OBR had ruled out the possibility of a double-dip recession, when in fact it had done nothing of the kind. The OBR suggested that there was a 50:50 chance that the growth rate would be 2.1 per cent next year but that, at the same time, there was a significant chance of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent that growth would be zero—that is, that there would be a double dip.

However, while the assessment and presentation of the uncertainty of forecasts have been greatly improved, no progress has yet been made on the other risks embodied in the Government’s overall fiscal position. For example, it is now clear that for the last decade—and I recognise that this was under the previous Government—tax revenues have been overly dependent on taxation of financial services. The severe problems in financial services contributed disproportionately to the fall in government revenues and to the growth of the deficit. This, which is a sort of all-eggs-in-one-basket problem, is a standard feature of corporate risk analysis and could, with value, be introduced into the analysis of public policy as well. Similarly, everyone is now aware that the UK economy has become seriously unbalanced, which is just the sort of issue that would be highlighted by regular and careful risk analysis. If the OBR were to extend its analysis of uncertainty to include a risk-sensitive analysis of the public finances, it would provide a complementary and extremely valuable service to policy-makers and align public policy-making with the best practice in private policy-making and private risk assessment.

Chapter 4.10.1 of the charter relates risks only to,

“risks surrounding the economic outlook”,

but associates the economic outlook only with the forecast, not with the state of the economy as it is. This amendment focuses attention on a wider concept of risk—the risk inherent in the underlying parameters of the fiscal and economic stance—and, by doing so, extends risk analysis into the areas of best practice that are now found in the private sector. I beg to move.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, I am happy to start by saying that I agree that we should, as far as possible, stick to the technical. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for confirming that he would like to make this a technical analysis of the Bill.

I agree that it is critical for the OBR to assess the risk to the public finances and that that should be clearly set out. The amendment proposes that this provision should be in the Bill, whereas we propose that it should be in the charter, first focusing on the economic risks and secondly focusing on the fiscal risks. As the noble Lord said, there are references to risks in chapters 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 of the draft charter: the first relates to the economic forecast and the second relates to the forecasting of the public finances. I believe that together those two references to risk give the OBR a clear and wide-ranging remit. I will think about the specific drafting in the light of the points that the noble Lord has made, but I believe that the charter is the right place for this. Clearly, the drafting on the sorts of risks that the OBR looks at should not in any way constrain it from looking at the relevant risks, so I will have a look to make sure that, on reflection, we have got all the risks covered.

The OBR has, of course, a duty to act consistently with the charter, so it should not be necessary to include this provision in the Bill. However, we must get it right in the charter, which is where I think we should leave it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Eatwell]

Gosh, that was quite a loosening up. I think that the noble Lord has taken the point. In my reading, the charter seems to confine risk analysis to the probabilistic analysis of forecasts—to the fan charts and so on. I want to stimulate the OBR to think about the risks inherent in the economic posture, if we may call it that, of the country at any one time. On the two illustrations that I gave, I think that if forecasters, particularly official forecasters, had been sensitive over the last decade to the excessive share of taxation coming from the financial services and had realised the risk of having all one’s eggs in one basket or had been sensitive to the problems associated with the overall balance of the economy, which I know the Government wish to address, we might have had some danger signals hoisted earlier than they were. However, in the context of the Minister’s assurance that he will look at this issue and perhaps amend the charter accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston suggested to me that I should follow the introduction of this group of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, by speaking now to Amendment 39. As noble Lords will be aware, this is simply an alternative means of achieving the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks.

One of the most important aspects of any piece of serious economic analysis is that it should be capable of being replicated. If the OBR’s forecasts are to achieve the status that we on this side and, I presume, the Government hope for them, they must be capable of being replicated. This can be done only if full information is available at the time of publication.

The issue of replication is typically associated with the natural sciences, where replication of experiments is a fundamental requirement of any empirical scientific statement. However, the Minister may be unaware that it is now standard practice for any article published in a leading applied economics journal to provide the electronic address at which the data and other relevant information required to replicate the results in the article are available. In these days of large datasets and complex econometric models, data accessibility is critical to effective peer review—even effective assessment of whether any analysis or forecast should be taken seriously.

Amendment 39, in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Myners, will ensure that effective appraisal of OBR forecasts and other economic analyses are possible. As is made clear in the preface to the OBR report that we discussed last week, compiling the fiscal forecast requires detailed information from many government departments. That is why our amendment refers not only to data and methods but to costings, which the OBR are required by the charter to confirm. In other words, all the raw materials on the basis of which judgments have been made and forecasts have been constructed should be available for objective assessments of those forecasts to be made. This will not involve any significant extra burden on the staff of the OBR, since the data and costings must already have been assembled in electronic form for the OBR to do its work.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised an interesting point about the model that might be used by the OBR. We have been told that the Treasury will retain its own forecasting unit. We would like to know whether the forecasting model to be used by this unit is to be the same as the model used by the OBR, in which case any differences in forecasts would simply be matters of judgment. That would surely be a ridiculous duplication. It would be much better to develop alternative perspectives, since they can often throw fresh light on difficult problems.

In supporting the general line that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has taken, I simply add that we want to be in a position where serious researchers can replicate the approach and findings of the OBR in order to be able to evaluate them effectively.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware from my remarks last time in Committee that I would not have set up an OBR. I regard it as a waste of public money, to be perfectly honest, but I entirely accept that we are going to have an OBR, since the Government have a majority in the other place and in practice seem to have a majority in your Lordships’ House. Therefore, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Eatwell that, if we are going to have such a body, we might as well make it a better one, rather than a worse one. Therefore, we have a duty to scrutinise the proposed legislation and come up with a variety of suggestions, in the hope of persuading the Minister that we could make a better fist of it than the Government have done so far. There I echo the remarks of my noble friend.

On this group of amendments, I repeat something that I said last week. The OBR’s November economic and fiscal outlook report produced a series of forecasts that are not based on any recognisable or explicitly stated economic theory. This is forecasting without theory, which is slightly different from forecasting without a model, although the two are connected.

I have found it difficult to discover from the economic and fiscal outlook report what assumptions the OBR has made—and, presumably, will continue to make—about the way in which the economy works. The central issue as far as serious economics is concerned is whether it is assuming that the economy is a self-adjusting mechanism that will come to a full employment equilibrium—the kind of assumption that what I regard as obsolete economics used to make—or whether it is taking for granted, first, that the economy will not come to an equilibrium at all or, secondly, that there are multi-equilibriums and it does not know where the economy is going to go. Whatever the case, many believe that, wherever it settles, it is most unlikely to settle at anywhere recognisable as a place of full employment.

On a related matter about the facts and how seriously we should take the OBR forecasts as they are now, we have available, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out, the immensely helpful survey published by the Treasury of all the independent forecasts, to which I shall refer further on Report. I have analysed the independent forecasts statistically and it is interesting to note that, given the averages, standard deviations and the other statistical criteria, the forecasts of the OBR and the independent forecasters for 2010 and 2011 are much in step. However, it is extraordinarily interesting to note that the OBR forecast for 2012—that GDP will grow at 2.6 per cent per annum and will continue to grow at that kind of rate—is remarkably optimistic compared with the forecasts of the independent forecasters; it is statistically significantly different. The OBR has not discussed this matter, nor have outside commentators, but your Lordships—we shall return to this issue on Report—have to ask how the OBR has come up with this optimistic view.

There was a time when the Conservative Party believed in the free market—those days seem long gone—and would have taken it for granted that, as the independent forecasters overwhelmingly are in the business of making money from accurate forecasting, they have a tremendous incentive to forecast accurately. Therefore, if one had a choice, one’s normal inclination would be to say, “If you believe in the free market, you will choose the free market forecasts as opposed to the OBR’s forecasts”. We shall return later to the significant issue of the optimistic OBR forecast for 2012 against the rather more pessimistic forecasts of the independent forecasters.

There may be two good explanations for the difference: first, many of the independent forecasters do not look that far ahead and we may have a biased sample of what we get from the Treasury; and, secondly, the OBR may have more information—for example, it may be better advised on government policy—than the independent forecasters. I am not saying that necessarily the OBR is mistaken; I am saying that the difference is, from any analytical and statistical point of view, noteworthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

I agree with the noble Lord that the amount of information that is published has increased, to general benefit. I spent a few happy hours over the weekend playing with the Excel spreadsheets on the OBR website and plugging them in to a model that I use to think about the economy. I found some interesting inconsistencies and will write to Mr Chote about them.

The point that has come up several times in our discussions concerns the balance between the Bill and the charter. The charter can be changed readily, as it is not primary legislation. We must give careful consideration to whether, for example, transparency as defined in the charter gives a sufficiently strong underpinning to the need to reveal information, or whether statements such as those in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, or in those proposed by me and my noble friends, should be in the Bill. This has come up several times. It is an issue that we should take away and consider carefully before Report. Where should we strike the balance between an explanatory charter that gives guidance to the OBR and the statutory requirements? I do not have a firm opinion. However, on this issue I lean toward the idea that it should be in the Bill rather than in content that could later be amended. Of course, it would have to be put before Parliament—we know the charter procedure—but it can be changed. If we really care about this, perhaps we should put it in a form that cannot later be changed. This is a matter for future consideration.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister, who has clarified a number of points. I will come back to an obvious and fundamental one. I am still not in the least clear why we will have both an OBR forecast and an official one from the Treasury that will be useful for Ministers. I simply do not understand this.

[Lord Sassoon]

Perhaps I may clarify that. There will be one official forecast, which the OBR will produce. The Treasury will retain a modelling and forecasting capability, but it is absolutely not the intention, and will not be the case, that there will be another official forecast from the Treasury. Ministers simply require the Treasury to retain that capability, so that if, in circumstances that we do not at all anticipate, the Chancellor or the Treasury want to take a different view from that of the OBR, they will retain the capability of doing so. There is absolutely no intention that there should be anything other than one published forecast, which will be put out by the OBR.

[Lord Eatwell]

I do not quite follow that. If the Treasury is going to disagree, or at least have the capability of disagreeing, with a forecast put forward by the OBR, how can it do that other than on the basis of a forecast of its own? I note that the word “published” was slipped into the Minister’s final sentence. Surely if the Treasury is going to have the capability of assessing and disagreeing with the OBR model, it must have some forecast of its own.

[Lord Myners]

Perhaps I, too, may make a comment. I took the Minister’s reply to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about situations where there is a difference between HMT’s forecast and the OBR’s forecast as confirming that the Treasury will be clear about the fact that its own forecast was different and that its policy decisions were informed by its own forecast rather than by that of the OBR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, from our side, the point is not that that capability should not be there, as it clearly should be. However, confusion was introduced into the discussion by references to a Treasury model and forecasts, which puzzled us all, as opposed to having a capacity to critique and develop the modelling of the OBR.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I should like to think further about what has been said on this issue.

Perhaps I may raise a further point in relation to the model. Over the past 80 or 90 years, we have had a huge difference of view as to whether one should adopt a Keynesian or a monetarist approach to these problems. My impression is that the OBR now has an essentially Keynesian approach and that the monetary aspect does not appear in the discussion at all, other than to say, “Well, of course, the Bank of England is targeting inflation”, and let it go at that. However, as I have previously pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, and others, until we got into quantitative easing the Bank was concerned purely about the price of money—the rate of a single rate of interest—rather than the quantity of money.

I am not the least bit clear about the proposal as it now comes here and to what extent the OBR is taking monetary factors into account. Let me illustrate this by giving an example from many years ago. I am delighted to see that the basic approach to economic forecasting on page 28 is to decide on how much excess capacity there is and then to see to what extent aggregate demand gradually increases and absorbs that excess capacity. That was precisely the policy that we adopted in 1970 under the Heath Government. We said then, in the clearest terms, exactly what is being said now on page 28. Unfortunately, this was misinterpreted as a dash for growth and we were absolutely pilloried by those who said that the money supply had been going up very fast. In fact there was a big difference between the money supply, the money supply figures and what was happening to aggregate demand. The point that I am seeking to make is that this does not take into account the effect of quantitative easing, for example, or, if it does, I am not clear where that would appear in these forecasts, although no doubt the Minister can enlighten us.

Given that we are told that the Bank of England is going to make yet a third, quite different, forecast in addition to the, I am almost inclined to say, surreptitious one in the Treasury—I accept fully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—I am worried that the fiscal and monetary side is not sufficiently integrated in the forecasts.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Eatwell]

23: Clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (a)

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, at Second Reading it was acknowledged on all sides of the House that requiring the OBR to write what was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as its own school report was not the best way of achieving an objective appraisal of the office’s performance. However well intentioned or even self-critical an organisation might be, it is inevitable that self-assessment embodies a number of allowances, or perhaps things taken for granted that have become embedded in the organisation and are not made explicit, with the result that the sources of any underperformance are not articulated as clearly as they might otherwise be. That is why the provision in the Bill for self-assessment is ultimately unconstructive and even damaging to the reputation of the OBR. Far better to have an external assessment—I will propose a form of external assessment later—that confronts all aspects of the forecasting, such as methods, data, sources, judgments and presentation. The greater credibility and novel insights of such an independent appraisal would enhance both the performance and the reputation of the OBR. The self-assessment procedure is unsatisfactory and it would be a great help if this provision were removed from the Bill by our acceptance of Amendment 23. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has already referred to the fact that I did not support the OBR carrying out an assessment of its own forecasts, as set out in Clause 4. I stick by that view, for the reasons that the noble Lord has given. However, I cannot support his amendment because, without another amendment, it would take out of the Bill a requirement for any assessment of the accuracy of OBR forecasts. I do not understand why the noble Lord has not grouped this amendment with later ones that would set up a peer review committee to perform this function. It would be a retrograde step simply to take out of the Bill a requirement for an analysis of the accuracy of the OBR’s fiscal and economic forecasts. I would rather have an unsatisfactory review than none at all.

[Lord Eatwell]

I was hoping to provide space for those who feel as strongly as I do, as apparently does the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to suggest alternative arrangements. Indeed, I have put forward my own proposals, which we will discuss later, but a variety of methods could be suggested.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I, too, am a bit puzzled as to why we are discussing only half the linked story, but my noble friend has it right when she talks about the defective nature of this amendment in taking out the requirement for an assessment of the accuracy of fiscal and economic forecasts. No doubt we shall come to the question of whether there is any other way of doing it later, when I might not be quite so keen on what she has to say. However, I certainly agree with her that it would be inappropriate to remove the requirement for an assessment of the accuracy of the forecasts. It is an important requirement that there should be such an assessment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

While I agree with the Minister that doing an assessment yourself makes for a learning experience, having someone else do it makes for an even more pointed learning experience. I apologise to the Minister for the fact that he has been forced to speak half-heartedly about this amendment because he has not had the opportunity to discuss Amendments 40 and 43, which cover the issue and which I see as linked. I do not know how the grouping got made up in this way, but there we are. The noble Lord is suggesting that I did it. I can assure the Committee that that does not fall within my skill set.

[Baroness Noakes]

It should.

[Lord Eatwell]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is, as we say, a learning experience.

[Lord Higgins]

It is very simple. You ring up the Whips Office and say, “I don’t like the way in which it has been divided up”.

[Lord Eatwell]

I am grateful for the supervision. However, if we look forward, we will be discussing a set of amendments about which I feel very strongly in the context of reinforcing the powers of the OBR. If those amendments are accepted, that would require this amendment also to be accepted. While withdrawing the amendment at this time, I will be intrigued to see how the noble Lord, who will clearly appreciate the wisdom of my future amendments, manages to square accepting them with rejecting this one. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, the Opposition are getting overexcited this afternoon. The small phrase in the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor that there has been an audit of the AME savings is being considerably overinterpreted. As my noble friend suggested, it would be helpful if Mr Robert Chote were asked to say how he conducts this aspect of his work. I am sure that if there are then further questions that noble Lords wish to raise, they will be able to. It would be helpful if my noble friend references any material that is already publicly available. However, it is not reasonable to go beyond that this afternoon.

[Lord Eatwell]

While agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think that there is an important point here. If there is a process of scrutiny that is designed to give us a degree of confidence in the Government's costings and in the forecasts made by the OBR, it would be helpful to know, when the OBR scrutinises the costings by the various departments of their savings, whether it agrees with them 100 per cent. If it does, that would be very disturbing and unfortunate: it would be like an old Soviet election. We would expect a degree of disagreement—perhaps not much, but a bit—which would give us confidence in the scrutiny process. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us whether in the scrutiny process the agreement was 100 per cent or rather less.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to bring this back into perspective. Of course the OBR scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, acknowledged just now, will be based on challenging the assumptions underpinning the AME costings. How it then formed the judgments that it did is for the office, not me, to interpret. However, I am happy to point noble Lords towards what has been published and see whether there is anything else that the OBR thinks would be helpful to say on the matter after the discussion this afternoon. Clearly, the OBR will not sign off on its scrutiny of AME savings if it does not think that the methodology and the numbers are reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, when I prepared my speaking note for a discussion of this series of amendments to Clause 5(3), I wrote the following: “The intention behind Clause 5(3) is clear and sensible”. I now realise how enormously wrong I was in that observation, because, following our discussion last week, to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just referred, it is apparent that Clause 5(3) is neither clear nor sensible. These amendments give us at least an opportunity to talk around the issues and provide some material for the Government to help them to bring forward—as I hope and am confident they will—their own amendment to Clause 5(3).

Amendment 31 was prepared when I thought I knew what the clause meant: that the OBR should focus on developing a successful forecasting methodology and applying it to the evaluation of government programmes alone, keeping out of the arena of political controversy. The noble Lord quoted me on that just now and I stand by my belief that it should be the case. Even on these grounds, the clause is not well drafted. As I pointed out at Second Reading, it might be possible to conceive of opposition policies that do not impinge on government policies. My example was of an employment programme for which funding had been secured from the European Union so that there was no impact on the Government’s fiscal stance. Such a programme would not be an alternative but an addition to anything that the Government themselves were doing. Therefore, there is a degree of ambiguity as the clause stands.

My Amendment 31 seeks to eliminate this ambiguity by stating explicitly that in so far as OBR reports include an assessment of the impact of policies, reference should be made to government policies alone. I believe that my redraft of Clause 5(3) unwittingly achieves with far greater clarity what we now know the Government were hoping to do with their subsection, which is rather messy—indeed, hopeless—at the moment. It embodies the positive statement that government policies should be taken into account, which is what we were told it was supposed to do last time, and ensures by the use of “only” that policies emanating from elsewhere will not be part of the appraisal or forecasting activities. I think that I have actually cracked the Government’s problem for them.

It will be evident from what I have said that I disagree with the goals of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which would take this out altogether, or tabled by my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Peston. I say that the OBR should focus on the Government alone and that it would be unfortunate if it were turned into a sort of policy referee. It might be possible if economic forecasting was a precise science, but it is not and there will always be a certain amount of judgment involved. It is not like a measuring rod with which you can say whether something is accurate. That is not what economic forecasting is about. At an appropriate time, I will move Amendment 31. I believe that the Government will bring forward something like this to solve the problems that we have identified in this part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, that is a very sensible reaction on the part of the Minister.

[Lord Eatwell]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I agree entirely with the Minister that there is a clear degree of consensus on what we are all trying to achieve. However, there is a degree of consensus that Clause 5(3), as currently drafted, does not achieve it. When we have concluded Committee, I intend to write to the Minister about this matter and a number of others where I think that we have total consensus on what we want to achieve and even perhaps to suggest meetings prior to Report to sort it out. That way, everybody can be clear about and comfortable with what we shall in due course pass into law. Having said that, I really do not see how Clause 5(3) can survive as currently drafted but, given that we are now really clear about what we want to do, we can sort something out.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, the whole purpose of a Committee stage is to get to the bottom of certain difficult aspects of a Bill. I am sure that it is right that the Minister should look at the matter very carefully between now and Report, in particular with the parliamentary draftsmen. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others can look at it as well. It might be helpful to keep in touch on whether we all agree on the amendment to table or whether we should put down alternatives. At all events, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Eatwell]

36: Clause 6, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (b)

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, Amendment 36 refers to Clause 6(1)(b) and seeks to remove the attempt to qualify Clause 5(2). I begin by confessing that, on close inspection, my amendment is imperfectly drafted. I did not wish to eliminate any guidance that the charter might provide with respect to the beleaguered Clause 5(3) because guidance is certainly needed there. However, if Amendment 31—or something like it—appears on Report, the qualification of Clause 5(3) will be unnecessary. The core purpose of the amendment is to remove the ability of the Government to use the charter to qualify Clause 5(2).

Noble Lords may think that the terms “objectively”, “transparently” and “impartially” are perfectly well defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and that no further guidance or qualification is required and, if they examined the draft charter, they would find that they were absolutely right to think that. Taking just one of the words which one would think would be easy to understand, I invite noble Lords to consider the charter definition of “objectively”. Paragraph 4.7 of the charter states that this means that,

“the OBR should not analyse or comment on the particular merits of Government policy”.

The problem is that the philosophical issue has been pushed on to another word because we now need a definition of the word “merits”, as I will illustrate.

In Clause 5(3), which we have toiled over for some time, the OBR is required—as we all agree—to consider government policies that are relevant to its forecasting duties. Let us suppose that the OBR demonstrates that a particular government policy results in an increase in unemployment—and one must give credit to the Government and to the OBR for now publishing unemployment forecasts—then, as it is universally accepted that unemployment is a bad thing, such an assessment will inevitably reflect on the merits of the policy. If it increases unemployment, that is a bad aspect of the policy and is a comment on its merits; it cannot be anything else. Therefore the definition of “objectively” has been qualified in such a manner that it no longer has the generally accepted meaning of the word.

If we accept the guidance of the charter, the OBR could not comment on what is happening to unemployment because employment and unemployment are universally accepted as merits and demerits. Trying to define these words is simply an exercise in exclusion and limitation. The words have clear, commonsense meanings. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, told me earlier, the word “impartiality” in government circles has already been defined by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. A definition of the word exists in government life and it does not require another one. If the Treasury definition were contrary to that of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that would be very disturbing.

The question is: why do we need this? The fundamental danger in Clause 6(1)(b) is the possibility of further guidance distorting the normal meaning of words that are fully understood in common parlance. It is far better to rely on common sense in understanding these words. The lack of qualification gives them strength; any qualification would seriously weaken their value. I beg to move.

[Lord Turnbull]

I support the amendment, at least in so far as it relates to Clause 5(2), for much the same reasons as those set out by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. These words are meant to be drawn either from the seven tenets of public life set by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or from the synonyms for them in the Civil Service Code. If there is any amendment to be made it is that Clause 5(2) should bring the words used into line with the accepted vocabulary that is used in these other documents. You would then dispense with Clause 6(1)(b) as it relates to subsection (2).

At Second Reading, the most telling criticisms that were made on an occasion where this initiative was largely welcomed, was the sense that independence was being granted with one hand by the Treasury and that another clause subtly began to claw it back, and that this somehow undermined the sense of true independence. We can dispense with this and, if any changes are desired, the wording of Clause 5(2) can be brought into line with the vocabulary that is used in these other statements of the values of public life.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I find this interesting because what the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Turnbull, have said exemplifies why we need some back-up explanation of these terms in the charter. That must be the right place for it because the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, started by saying that we could rely on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the three terms but then went on to refer to the usage given to the terms by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That in itself points out that, even on his construction of how these words should be used, there are at least two sources. I have neither the OED nor the committee’s statement in front of me, but I would be surprised if they were precisely the same. Then the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to the Civil Service Code.

In arguing for the amendment, the noble Lords have precisely explained the difficulty that we are in: however you do it, you go back to different sources for the meaning of these important terms. It is therefore important in the charter to try to tease this out. I agree that this could be done in a number of ways; it could refer to the OED, the Civil Service or a number of other things. However, this discussion has reinforced my view that somewhere we need to provide some guidance.

I shall give the Committee another example, very much in this space, about the kind of difficulty that we can otherwise get into, and this relates back to one of our previous discussions. The US Congressional Budget Office has an impartiality remit, but it defines “impartiality” to mean that it has to include analysis of policy proposals made by all political parties. I think that we all agreed earlier that that is precisely what we do not want the OBR to do, and that suggests to me that it is a reason why we need to give a bit of guidance in the charter for what the three critical terms mean. Indeed, Robert Chote himself, following questions on impartiality, told the Treasury Select Committee:

“I think you want to make sure that the remit of the OBR is agreed ex ante, rather than the subject of a contentious debate ex post on whether it is doing what people want it to do … if it is left to the OBR on its own to draw the line, there will always be people just below the line who will be disgruntled … which will reflect on the OBR”.

That was in the context of a wider discussion about the virtues of, and the need for, clarity.

Nothing is set out in the charter that can undermine the Bill. The guidance can relate only to functions conferred by the Bill; it cannot add to or distort them. Further, as we have noted, the charter must be approved by another place before it can come into effect. I have listened carefully to the debate, which has suggested to me that even those who say that we do not need the interpretation of the charter are actually using different definitions. I think that the charter is the right place in which to provide the OBR with the clarity that it quite rightly seeks. For that reason, and because the noble Lord admits that the amendment does not quite work technically, I ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Eatwell]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. If we get Clause 5(3) right, it may work very well, but we have been chewing this matter over perhaps to excess. The Minister made one point about the issue of impartiality with respect to the Congressional Budget Office. While there is some relationship between the CBO and the OBR, the Congressional Budget Office is actually a creature of Congress. That is different from the OBR, which is a creature of the Executive. It means that we have a very different issue before us.

I am still disturbed by the definition of “objectively”. As I pointed out, the notion of merit and demerit is rather difficult in and of itself, and therefore, in preparing for the final draft of the charter, I would like the Government to consider whether the word “merits” conveys exactly what they want it to.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am not sure whether this will help, but just to be clear, we are expecting the OBR to assess the impact of policies on forecasts. So there is no question of merits and demerits, other than that we are trying to exclude all questions of merit and demerit and keep to the factual impact of policies. I am struggling a bit with any suggestion that we are somehow dragging the OBR into considerations of merit or demerit. The noble Lord took the example of employment and unemployment. All we ask of the OBR is that it should tell us what the factual situation is and absolutely not to comment on its merits or demerits. There is no question of enormity of judgment by the OBR in this or any other respect.

The basic underlying language here is the same as that which applies to the National Audit Office in the National Audit Office Act 1983. That is all we are trying to replicate in this respect, even though this is scrutiny and not audit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell]

The noble Lord sounds like the fellows in my college whose standard reaction to any proposal of mine is, “We’ve always done it that way”. One peculiarity in the drafting of this Bill and of the charter is that everything is defined in terms of negatives. What we have in the charter is that the OBR should not analyse or comment on the particular merits of something. Why not say what you mean by using words such as, “The OBR should analyse or comment only on the impacts of Government policy”, as the Minister has just said? Why is everything defined in terms of the negative? Why can we not say what we want to achieve in positive terms?

The other problem with this is that I give the Government enormous credit for incorporating Clause 5(2) in the Bill. They deserve tremendous credit for doing that. However, subsection (1) weakens it, not necessarily as presented now, but it provides an opening for future Governments to change this guidance. That is what we do not want. It is unfortunate that this qualifying subsection is incorporated in Clause 5(2), which is tremendously to the Government’s credit.

I shall take away the Minister’s comments and think about them. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, of course the OBR should be cost-effective and efficient—there is no question about that—and the amendment seeks to increase the requirement for it to be so. However, in reality the amendment would not change in substance the requirement on the OBR because, if it was ever challenged on this point, the challenge would be subject to what it would have been reasonable for the OBR to have done. I agree with my noble friend that it would be nice if we could have more direct language here but I am advised that the amendment would make negligible difference. That is because if it was ever tested in a legal context—one hopes it will not be—the reasonableness of what the OBR had done would be encapsulated in the words “aim to”.

At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, jumping up again, I have to say that this is the same as the requirement on the National Audit Office, as set out in Part 2. It is not necessarily a good defence; I merely observe—

[Lord Eatwell]

We have always done it that way.

[Lord Sassoon]

Of course, in the wider context, the accounting officer will have to answer for the OBR’s cost-effectiveness and efficiency and it will be subject to the normal governance and scrutiny arrangements for public bodies. Those scrutiny arrangements will include an audit, I say advisedly, by the NAO, which will have the power to examine and report to Parliament on a number of matters, including the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the OBR.

I thank my noble friend for trying to tease out what is going on here. It has enabled me to ask questions and to establish that the words as originally drafted essentially encapsulate the test that a court would use if the OBR was ever challenged. On the basis that we are trying to arrive at the same point, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.