Finance and Insurance Market: Underwriting Fees

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge that the noble Lord also has a distinguished history in this area. As well as being a fund manager, he wrote a report for the DTI in February 2005, so there are lots of poachers turned gamekeepers out there in the jungle. We should wait to see what the OFT recommends. It can recommend a range of actions, which could include matters coming back to government. I and my colleagues in government would then follow them up in the appropriate way.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Ferrans report is yet another demonstration of the fact that if bankers are left to their own devices they behave in an uncompetitive way? While certain aspects of the report are being considered and are relevant to the OFT, it makes a number of suggestions about how some EU financial services directives could be strengthened to improve the sector and its competitiveness. Will the Minister give an undertaking that before the OFT reports, and in its ongoing discussions in Brussels, it will take forward the proposals in the Ferrans report to ensure that transparency and competition are promoted?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, as I have already said, it is expected that the Office of Fair Trading will report later this month, so we do not have long to wait. We should consider what the appropriate action is to take after my ministerial colleagues have had a chance to consider the recommendations of the OFT report. However, I hear what my noble friend says.

Air Passenger Duty

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the Government have not proposed anything yet. The coalition agreement talks about a change from APD to a per plane basis. Clearly, different constructions of the duty have different effects on usage of aircraft and on the environment. However, as I say, the Government have not proposed anything yet. We are in listening mode. The effect on the airlines, environmental effects and competitiveness are all issues that must be considered.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the APD is seen to be particularly unfair on the Caribbean? Will he ensure that as part of the review which the Government are undertaking, particular attention is given to the effect of the APD on the Caribbean, not just on the tourist industry there, which is increasingly important as a proportion of its economic activity, but on the Caribbean diaspora who live in the UK?

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the Caribbean. The Caribbean Tourism Organisation has produced a very helpful report as a contribution to the debate. I have met the Heads of Government of the dependent territories in the Caribbean, so I have heard first hand their strength of feeling in respect of this issue. However, under the Chicago Convention we have to have an objective basis for distinguishing between one country and another.

EU: Budget

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

When was the last year that DWP got a clean audit opinion?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I cannot tell the House that but I am very happy to write with the information. I think that it involves different auditing standards and a different structure but I shall be very happy to confirm that.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I thank the Minister for his very clear introduction to the debate. I was slightly concerned, however, that he did not refer the House with the degree of attention that it may deserve to paragraph 21 of the Explanatory Notes, which deals with the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. I was tempted to ask him whether the law officers had been consulted before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the statement that,

“pursuant to section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 … the Bill is compatible with the Convention rights”.

As this is the first time that we have debated the Bill, the Minister has not had the chance to give any undertaking to speak to the law officers, and it would be invidious to ask him to do so. However, one hopes that that will not be necessary.

Was there any alternative to the loan and the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has explained, there was not. If the EU had not intervened in the dramatic way in which it did, it is almost certain that Ireland would have had to default and leave the euro. That would have been bad not only for the eurozone but for the UK. It would have been bad for the UK for trade reasons—I shall come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, a bit later in my speech—as we have a large volume of exports to Ireland. Indeed, 40 per cent of Northern Ireland’s exports go to the Republic. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will expand on that point.

The prospect of Northern Ireland, as a depressed region of the United Kingdom, suffering significantly as the result of a major crisis in the Republic would have had not just a severe impact on Northern Ireland but, obviously, a severe knock-on effect here, including to the public finances. We would have had, in effect, to have filled in some of the hole that would have been knocked in the Northern Ireland economy. Such a crisis would also have been bad for the UK because of the exposure of UK banks. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, the Bank of England has set out starkly the scale of that issue. A default would have led to instability in sovereign debt markets more generally and could have increased the costs of UK government borrowing.

That does not necessarily mean that we agree with absolutely everything that is being done to restructure the Irish banking system. The arguments for establishing the National Asset Management Agency can be made either way. Effectively nationalising all the risks taken by all the Irish banks raises moral-hazard issues, which we have sought to avoid to a considerable extent in the United Kingdom.

Another issue is whether, even with all this activity, we will have been successful in stabilising the Irish economy. To pose the question that Martin Wolf posed in the Financial Times recently, the question is not whether the Irish banking sector is too big to fail but whether it is too big to save. Hopefully, the answer is that the Irish banking sector can be saved as—heaven knows—it is not lacking resources. The amount that has gone in both from the Irish Government and, via them, from the EU is now considerable.

It would have been irresponsible for the UK not to participate in the Irish bailout, but the Irish problem is not the only issue facing the eurozone. There are broader issues that relate to Greece, Portugal and now Spain and Italy. Given that we are outside the eurozone, it is a logical if inglorious position for us not to commit to taking part in any further bailouts of other member states.

When contemplating this debate, I cast my mind back to the debates that we had a decade ago on whether Britain should join the euro subsequent to, as many noble Lords will remember, the famous five tests. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his place. Uniquely in my hearing, he was able to make a joke—which at least I laughed at at the time—about whether we should join the euro. At a TUC summer reception, he said that, having been asked by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, what he thought about the five tests, he had replied, “Well, we’ve won one, we’ve lost one, we’ve drawn one, but I think we might win the series in Sydney”. A decade on, a lot has changed both in cricket and in our perceptions of the euro.

At that time, many of us on these Benches supported Britain’s attempts to join the euro. One of the joys of doing a considerable amount of work with Charles Kennedy, as I was doing then, was that we were summoned from time to time to see the Prime Minister for an uplifting talk on matters of common interest and concern, of which the euro was one. At that point, Charles Kennedy was keen to press the case for British membership of the euro on a Prime Minister who was keen but extremely nervous about that prospect. Indeed, he said at the time that he would like to join the euro but he thought that it was impossible to beat both public opinion and the popular press—he could beat one, he thought, but not both—so he did not attempt it. As a result, we are now in a situation in which nobody seriously thinks that we should join the euro in the foreseeable future. Although it is inconceivable—for the reasons given by Tony Blair among many other reasons—that we should join the euro at this point, some of us at least are not absolutely convinced that we took the right decision a decade ago.

However, if I were to dilate on that argument and those tests, I would no doubt keep your Lordships here all evening. I know how much Members—particularly those opposite—hate overlong speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is clearly already extremely impatient with me, and I can understand why that might be the case.

Even though we are agreed that we should not join the euro, two interlinked questions need to be considered—we cannot amend the Bill, and it would be foolish to attempt to do so—in this discussion on the Bill, which gives us an opportunity to range slightly wider. Realistically, what should our role be in terms of ensuring financial stability within Europe? And what should the eurozone do now? As I say, the two issues are inextricably linked, but the first principle should surely be to support eurozone members in doing whatever they agree is prudent to strengthen the working of the eurozone. For example, it would surely be perverse and ridiculous if the Government committed themselves to having a referendum on changes to the EU treaties that eurozone members decided were necessary to allow eurozone members to support each other more effectively. Can the Minister assure us that, as a non-eurozone member, we will wave through any proposed changes to the EU treaties without requiring a referendum in the United Kingdom?

As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has pointed out, the Chancellor is more generally in an extremely odd position when considering the development of the eurozone. The eurozone’s success or failure is obviously of crucial importance to the future of the British economy, as has been exemplified by the situation in Ireland. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are three reasons why the success or failure of the euro and the eurozone is important to us. The first of those reasons, to which he referred—and on which he was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—relates to trade. It seems to me bizarre and sad that we export more to Ireland than to the BRICs combined. However, that may be a slightly misleading figure, as I suspect that the figure includes all the re-exports of goods that come from the rest of the world to Ireland via the UK. For example, I suspect that goods that are shipped from France to Ireland by road through the UK count as UK exports to Ireland. I may be wrong on that, but that may slightly inflate the figure. Even if that is not the case, the figure is still very high.

However, if one wants suddenly to change gear completely and export significantly greater amounts to the BRICs, the problem is that, frankly, that is easier said than done. It is not easy for a small business suddenly to decide to sell its products in China or Brazil, given the problems of language and distance. Therefore, even with the best will in the world, it would take a while before we could re-orientate our trade significantly away from the eurozone, particularly given that our strength rests in exports of services, many of which are easier to export to the eurozone than to the BRICs. That is particularly the case in countries where there are institutional barriers to exports of services. It is not simply that a lawyer or accountant seeking to open an office in India has their work cut out for them but that they cannot do it. Therefore, it would be an extremely difficult challenge for the UK simply to do a handbrake turn and suddenly start newly exporting huge quantities of goods to the BRICs. Therefore, we need the eurozone to do well, because that is where many of our exporters already have links and where, as we grow, they could develop those links significantly more.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, of course I admit that our trade with the eurozone is important, but is the noble Lord aware that our trade with the rest of the world—both inwards and outwards—is in fact increasing very much faster than that with the eurozone? Surely that points the way to the future rather than to the past.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the fact that such trade may be increasing more quickly is not surprising for two reasons. First, it is increasing from a smaller base, so it is easier to achieve a higher percentage increase. Secondly, most of those economies are growing more quickly than the eurozone, so you are feeding into a more buoyant economy. I completely accept that, but my point was slightly different. Incidentally, another problem about exporting to some of those other countries is that the newly passed Bribery Act is making many companies, not least small-to-medium-sized companies, very wary about their ability to export to China or India, for example, because they fear—sometimes rightly and sometimes, no doubt, incorrectly—that they may be faced with business practices there which they need to follow in order to gain access to a market but which they would not have to follow in the eurozone. In the medium term, I am extremely optimistic about the prospects for exports to the BRICs, but in the short term, given that we are starting from a relatively low base, it is a forlorn hope to think that the BRICs can solve our export problems.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I will be extremely brief. In the interests of transparency, would the noble Lord care to share with your Lordships’ House the contents of the note that he has received from his Chief Whip?

[Lord Newby]

I may be mistaken—I do not know the noble Lord desperately well—but I think that, in a former incarnation, he was a Whip. It is not normal, when asked a question, to pose a question back, but I would be inclined to ask the noble Lord, if the House so allowed me, whether, when he was a Whip, he thought it a good idea that everyone who received a note from him in another place be required to divulge the contents of that note. My guess—I may be wrong—is that he would not necessarily have been desperately happy at that.

[Lord McAvoy]

I did not have to send notes. I just looked encouraging.

[Lord Newby]

Well, as I am sure the noble Lord is learning, we do things differently in your Lordships' House. I realise that I must make progress.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Even in your Lordships' House, I believe that I am right in saying that the Companion suggests that Second Reading speeches should be curtailed to some 15 minutes. We are now in the 17th minute of the noble Lord's peroration.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. He will be aware that I have been interrupted on a number of occasions. However, I am well aware of the conventions of the House and will happily draw my speech to a conclusion by saying, as I said at the beginning, that we support the Bill.

Banking: Liability.

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I cannot comment on the pension arrangements. I believe they took place before the previous election, and I am no position to comment on the pension arrangements for former directors of RBS. As regards the other matters, if there are any complaints about any regulated firm, I am sure the FSA will be, as it always is, open to looking into any complaints that are made.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the FSA and the report that RBS under Sir Fred Goodwin was properly governed? If he does, will he explain what he thinks a failure of corporate governance might look like?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I have not conducted an investigation into RBS. The FSA has, and it published a summary note on 2 December. It is clearly regrettable that we do not see the full report, but I should point out that the really important consequences of this are the change in the regulatory landscape that was brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the fact that the Independent Commission on Banking is looking at the structure of banking in this country, so there are important ongoing inquiries that the RBS saga bears on.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to this debate. I would have more sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, if the Labour Party had been able to explain how it was going to save so much as £1 of the £44 billion that it legally committed itself to cutting under the legislation to halve the budget deficit, which it passed in the previous Parliament. Every time a measure that involves a cut of any sort to public expenditure comes before your Lordships’ House, the Labour Party opposes it. Today has been no different. The noble Baroness accuses those of us on these Benches of many heinous crimes—of being heartless and uncaring. I reject those allegations, which are completely unfair on her part and simply untrue.

As regards the child trust fund, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, accused the coalition Benches of broken promises. This is a Liberal Democrat promise that the coalition has kept. She says she has never heard any arguments in favour of that stance. She has been spared the many speeches that I have made on the subject in your Lordships’ House. We opposed the introduction of the child trust fund, we have opposed it consistently ever since and we do not now mourn its passing. There are several reasons for that; I will give just two.

First, it is hopelessly untargeted. Only 73 per cent of parents take up the offer of doing something with the voucher that they get when they are allocated their child trust fund. Incidentally, this figure has remained absolutely static since the child trust fund was introduced in 2002. Around that figure, in the constituencies that are predominantly middle-class—Buckinghamshire, for example—the percentage goes up to 84 per cent. In the constituencies that are poor—Belfast West, for example —it goes down to 48 per cent. The people who take up their options under the child trust fund to insert additional savings for their children are predominantly those who need no extra incentive from the state to do so. That is our first major criticism of it.

Secondly, one of the purposes of the child trust fund was to instil the saving habit in young people. The saving habit involves forgoing expenditure now to gain greater benefit later. That is what thrift is all about; that is what the saving habit is all about. This measure does nothing to encourage thrift among young people. It is simply a windfall gain at the age of 18. That is, again, an argument that I have made many times in your Lordships’ House. Looking to the future, for many parents, the ISA—particularly a child ISA—is a tax-efficient way of saving for their children. That is the way in which we should look for parents to gain a benefit in saving for their children. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, shakes her head but I believe it to be the truth, however hard she shakes it.

Looked-after children are clearly in a different situation from everybody else because they do not have parents. Like the noble Baroness, I hope the Government can do something for them. However, doing something for looked-after children is very different from doing something for every child. Looked-after children are a very small proportion of the population. Doing something for them in a whole raft of ways is hugely important. We do quite a lot for looked-after children and no doubt much more can be done. It would be a very positive move if Mark Hoban and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, could enable something to happen in this specific area for looked-after children. However, that is very different from saying that every child, however affluent, should benefit from this scheme. Therefore, I do not change my view that, on balance, abolishing this scheme is a more sensible way of saving public money.

It was difficult to oppose the principle of the saving gateway and we did not. However, we had major questions about it. One was that unlike middle-class tax incentives for saving which apply, for example, to pensions all the way through, the saving gateway applied only to two years of savings. Thereby, the amount by which you could benefit was relatively small. The saving habit for people—having got them into it and having given them the incentive—was removed after two years. You could not get another one, whatever happened to you. So if the scheme would kick-start a saving habit within two years, great; but if not, I am afraid that it was unlikely to have been successful.

The other question that I would very much have liked to have been answered was: what proportion of the potential beneficiaries of the saving gateway would actually have taken it up? One of the obvious problems about poor people is that they do not have a surplus. Therefore, while we would ideally wish them, like everyone else, to save, in reality that is crying for the moon for many of those individuals and families. They require every penny that they have to make ends meet.

The Minister also mentioned that virtually no financial institution was prepared to touch the saving gateway because it was not worth their while. Not even the Post Office, which one would have hoped would administer this scheme, was prepared to do so because it could not make it pay. One wonders whether, in reality, once the measure had been introduced, RBS and Lloyds would have continued with it. As we have seen with basic bank accounts, it is very difficult to get the banks enthusiastically to support things that they do not make any money from. Given our approach to the largely nationalised banks, which unfortunately is almost totally hands-off, I would not put any faith in them implementing the saving gateway.

It would be like being in favour of sin to say that the saving gateway was a terrible idea, but it was badly flawed and, frankly, if we are going to make any cuts, this seems to be a reasonably high-priority and low-cost—in social terms—way of doing it.

The health in pregnancy grant is another untargeted grant. In times of stress and financial stringency one should look at targeting the public money we have available for this kind of thing, rather than making a blanket payment. I note that the grant was introduced in April 2009, and important though it may be, it was not exactly the top priority for a Labour Government, who at that point had been in office for 12 years.

Again, in an ideal world, would it not be nice if we kept this grant? We are not in an ideal world. Under Labour, we were not going to be in an ideal world. The Labour Party was committed to making cuts worth tens of billions of pounds; it still has not identified where they should be made. If you have to make cuts, these are sensible. Reluctantly, on that basis, I support the Bill.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Grand Committee

I am being fair and honest in my observation that I believe that his predecessor but one may well have been inclined to give a similarly high-level summary of the content of the OBR report, but I suggest that if the OBR was in a position to say that it did not believe that the way in which its conclusion was presented to Parliament represented a fair, balanced and complete presentation, that would be a significant endorsement of the independence of the OBR and would protect it from the danger that my noble friend Lord Barnett cited earlier—namely, that the committee of the OBR, in its naivety, may be used by politicians to project a different set of conclusions from those which the committee had in mind. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish that Chancellors were models of balance and completeness in the way in which they present figures, but the noble Lord, Lord Myners, is placing an unrealistic burden on the OBR if he expects it to undertake this task. For example, he uses the word “balance”; balance is not an objective fact but, to a considerable extent, is a subjective view. That goes equally for “completeness”—at what point does the failure to refer to the paragraphs on page 73 in the OBR report render the Chancellor’s statement incomplete? When the Chancellor has made a political speech on the economy, to expect the chair of the OBR to audit it, to coin a phrase, in some way as the noble Lord suggests is, frankly, impossible. While I agree with the sentiments behind the amendment, I do not think that it is workable.

[Lord Burns]

My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, knows that what he is asking for is impossible; we also know that he can be very good at creating a little bit of mischief every now and again and we have to see this amendment in that light.

The OBR can be responsible only for its own documents; it cannot possibly hold the Chancellor to account. That is a job for Parliament, including the Treasury Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee. I can think of nothing that would make the job of the OBR more impossible than to give it a task that began to resemble this. The key thing is that the OBR has to be kept out of the political debate but the noble Lord, Lord Myners, implies that he would like to plunge it directly into that debate. I am sure he has used the amendment as a vehicle to make quite sensible points about some of the practices that occur from time to time, but the OBR will not protect us from those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 32, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Barnett. When I first saw subsection (3), I must say that I was appalled, in particular by the words “may not consider”. This body is supposed to be independent and, unless we are to get a new form of thought police brought in here, can presumably consider anything that it likes. That does not mean that it should be involved in a report on itself. However, to tell a group—at the moment, a group of three expert economists—that what it can think about is limited by an Act of Parliament is absolutely absurd. I draw the Committee’s attention to what “may not consider” means; that you cannot even think or talk about something and that it has nothing to do with you. This is incompatible with the group’s independence and professionalism. I wonder what serious, self-respecting economist would wish to work under those circumstances. I would not, under any circumstances, be willing to work and be told that. I can remember the sad old days in the Treasury when everybody was told that under no circumstances were we ever to discuss or use the word “devaluation”. It did not have any effect: we just did it privately or secretly, and so on. That was the worst example of this that I can remember.

I was appalled by this subsection and I thought that taking out “not” was the best way of dealing with it. However, the method proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is better still: take out the whole subsection. It may well be that we could put in another clause of a more positive nature. It is perfectly obvious that the OBR’s job is to consider the whole issue in the context of government policy, because, as the Minister has emphasised—although I slightly disagree with his logic—the OBR is not a decision-making body, it is just a forecasting body. I do not entirely accept that distinction, as noble Lords are aware, but I can at least see the Minister’s position. I accept what my noble friend Lord Eatwell and others have said; that forecasting is the OBR’s main role. There should not be a clause in what will eventually be a statute telling the OBR what it may consider, unless the meaning of “consider” in the English language has changed. My general view is that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was much better than mine or that of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. We should remove subsection (3).

[Lord Newby]

We had a long debate on this issue at our previous meeting and I am not going to rehearse all the arguments. I suggested, out of frustration, that we were spending too long on this form of words, which, in slightly more words, actually had the same purpose as Amendment 31. We did not spend any time looking at it, because we were considering the amendments in order. However, Amendment 31 is clear and achieves the purpose that we sought to achieve in our debate last time, which was that the OBR, in making its assessments, obviously should take account of government economic and other policies. Equally, in the context of the second part of the subsection, the OBR’s role should not be what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, thinks it would be. It should not be able to stray and look at anyone’s alternative policies—that way madness lies. The OBR must have a straightforward remit to look at what the Government are proposing and work on the assumptions that the Government are making in their policies.

[Lord Burns]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I had hoped that the purpose of the clause was to restrict the activities of the OBR to avoid it getting into political trouble. There are two clear cases where I could see this happening. One is where it is asked to continue a practice that has emerged in the past 20 or 30 years, whereby a Government ask the Treasury to cost the opposition manifesto as an election approaches. That practice has been divisive and has not suited anyone. I had hoped that this clause, by restricting the OBR to consideration of government policies, would prevent the Government or anyone else—for example, the Treasury Committee—asking it what the effect would be of implementing the Opposition’s manifesto.

The second thing that I had hoped would be avoided was getting into the sort of detailed arguments that took place in the summer about what the effects of particular packages of measures would be on economic activity, unemployment, the PSBR and so on. The remit given to the OBR by the Bill, as I read it, is to tell us what the effect would be on public finances of a whole set of government policies, taking into account the world environment and everything else, and whether or not the Government are on a sustainable path as a result of that collection of policies. That remains very challenging and is what the OBR’s job should be restricted to. It is set out early in the Bill. I had assumed that this clause was there to prevent encroachment, or a widening of the OBR’s remit to include a number of other things, all of which would lead us into a difficult area of political activity.

IMF and World Bank: Appointment Procedures

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I said at the outset that the improvements to the processes for appointing the heads of these organisations must be part of wider reform packages for the entire governance of the IMF and the World Bank. Progress is being made on that in the quota shares, the voting arrangements and the governance arrangements. Equally, it is critical that, under the new arrangements, the four BRIC countries are in the top 10 voting and quota share countries, so we will have a much better balance in both voting and representation. It is equally important that the UK remains a top five member and that we retain our board seat.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that these top appointments are intensely political? Therefore, simply having a process that is called “open and transparent” will not guarantee that the best person gets the job. Would it not be sensible, as the noble Lord, Lord Stern, said, for the British Government to make it clear at this stage that they expect the next head of the IMF and the World Bank not to be a European or an American?

[Lord Sassoon]

I can only restate the position of the Government: these appointments should be made regardless of nationality or gender.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Barnett]

Listening to the previous debate, I am even more confused than I was before about which staff are now being employed by the OBR and what the plans are for the future. Perhaps the noble Lord can help us on that. I know from a Written Answer in which I got a proper answer from the noble Lord that 12 Treasury members were still working officially for the OBR—full time, I assume. As I now understand it, having listened to the previous discussion, there are a lot of non-executive members as well as executive members. Quality will be required in the new members of the OBR, but they will not necessarily be non-executive or executive members.

I do not quite understand what we are talking about when we refer to “staff”. For example, I understand that Robert Chote, quite rightly, retired from his position as head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I am not clear whether that institute is continuing with another head. I think that it probably is. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, nodding—perhaps she is the new chair—but it is just adding to the 50-odd independent forecasters that we have, or whatever the number was before, plus one. I should be glad if the noble Lord could clarify that.

In Amendment 12, my noble friend Lord Peston and I say that the staff must not be civil servants, because we were both worried about them either remaining as officials of the Treasury or being temporarily transferred to the OBR, which we would not find very satisfactory. The whole point about the OBR is that not only must it be independent, which I am sure it will be, but it must be seen to be independent. If we are not careful, because of its proximity to the Chancellor and the Treasury, it will not necessarily be seen to be as independent as it should be. For example, on the previous amendment my noble friend Lord Myners talked about the OBR moving its office to Victoria Street. However, it may be moving to the offices of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for all I know. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that as well. My noble friend was worried about whether they would have to keep traipsing backward and forward between the OBR offices and the Treasury, rather than inviting any Treasury officials to whom they want to talk to come to them. The foreword of the recent OBR report makes it clear that it sees not only the Treasury. It states that,

“we have also drawn heavily on the help and expertise of officials across government”.

There is a whole load of them, including Revenue and Customs, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The OBR officials go to lots of offices, so there is a wide-scale connection with government. I do not object to them seeing officials in government departments—that is sensible—but it makes me wonder, when I see the number of departments that the OBR visits, just how big it is, or is going to be. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, could tell us how many staff the OBR has now, how many are full time, how many are part time, how many are quality, how many are not quality—doing the footwork, you might say—how many are experts, how many are executive, and how many are part-time executive. For example, are Robert Chote and the two people with him full time or part time? I do not know. Unfortunately, I have not seen the minutes of the Treasury Select Committee, where the answers may have already been given. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the provision in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 1is sensible. It states:

“Staff are to be employed on such terms as to remuneration and other matters as the Office may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine”.

Surely that is the sensible way of doing it, with the chairman deciding which staff he wants. It would be slightly surprising if none of them came from a Civil Service econometrics background, which would bring strength to the office. Just because they have come out of Whitehall does not mean that they are somehow tied hand and foot to Treasury thinking. No doubt, people will come in from academia and elsewhere. It is for the chairman himself to decide who the best people are to do the job.

[Lord Turnbull]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Newby. As I understand it, the number of staff would be around 20. Some may be seconded from the Treasury, some may be brought in from academia, and some may come from somewhere else. It is basically for the chairman of the OBR to assemble the best team that he wants, and we should not fetter that discretion, because there is a safeguard in Clause 5(2), which states:

“The Office must perform that duty objectively, transparently and impartially”.

In other words, anyone who is on loan from another government department is subject to that duty, which should ensure that the right degree of independence is maintained. If you say that someone with a Civil Service career must resign from the Civil Service in order to go and work for the OBR, you will raise all sorts of issues relating to pensions, seniority, this, that and the other. You will make it difficult to assemble the best-quality team, and that should be paramount.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I am not in the least concerned about the precise drafting of amendments, because all our proceedings in Committee are exploratory. The central point is that the staff of the OBR should be simply the staff of the OBR—end of story. It needs to be made clear that they are not other staff. The purpose of the amendment is to say categorically that these staff are now the staff of the OBR. I take it for granted that they will be full-time rather than part-time staff. This has nothing to do with the chairman or others choosing the best people; it is to do with the status of the staff. That is all the amendment is about. They should be the staff of the OBR and therefore, unless the law is changed, they will not be the staff of the Treasury or of anywhere else. My noble friend Lord Barnett and I would like a simple answer from the Minister. Are the staff the staff of the OBR? That can be answered with a yes or no.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a quick question. Is he opposed to any staff going on secondment from the Treasury to the OBR?

[Lord Peston]

Yes, categorically. The Bill refers to them as the staff of the OBR. We can argue about language, but if somebody asks who my staff are, I say, “He works for me and so does he. They are on my budget and they are my staff”. Sorry, I should have said “she”. If someone said to me, “Actually, they are not, they are Treasury officials on secondment,” I would not regard that as a correct use of the words “my staff”. The Minister may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, that the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett and me does not matter, and may be perfectly happy for them to be on secondment, work part time and so on. If that is the position, I would like to know. My position is that an independent body appoints its own staff, and they are its staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Myners]

So, the OBR will have its own information staff—it will not be relying on the Treasury for that. Of the 13 people, there is now minus one who is doing FOI; minus two was a PA. I must note that when the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was an employee of UBS Warburg, he probably had more than 13 PAs, let alone 13 staff. Can he confirm that that number now includes a freedom of information officer in the OBR, and that it does not rely on the Treasury for that function?

[Lord Newby]

Surely there is an easy solution: make the PA also responsible for freedom of information.

[Lord Sassoon]

It is clearly up to Robert Chote how he deploys his staff and what they do. Noble Lords obviously have not quite grasped what is meant by the independence of the OBR. It means that it is for the office to organise its life. I have not the faintest idea how it will do it, but I am sure that it will do it professionally and appropriately and that it will devote the necessary resources.

In answer to another question, I was going to quote from page 3 of the OBR report to summarise the contacts that it has had in the build-up to producing its 150 pages, but the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has already pointed to the key paragraph. The OBR made it clear that it would publish the list of contacts, which, as it promised, is coming out this week, shortly after the publication of the report.

Nothing in the Bill stops the OBR publishing any minutes, reports or documents of any kind that it wants to. As well as focusing on the critical point that we should not require it to produce minutes for the sake of minutes when the output is forecasts rather than policy-making discussions, it is also important that we should recognise that if it wants to disclose anything about the way in which it goes about its business, it is entirely free to do so. It can draw on external expertise. It might have committees with external experts. There is nothing to preclude that. The core executive functions cannot be delegated, though, and the minimum output will be the two formal reports per year. However, it is already also producing a considerable amount of other information, and it will do so in future. It is for the office to be as transparent as it thinks is appropriate, consistent with its mandate.

I do not for one minute take this to be a trivial point. I made the comparison with the MPC because it is critical. However, the amendments would require the OBR and the BRC to do a number of things that on the one hand are not required—consistent with the principles of accountability, transparency and independence—and, on the other, would put minor straitjackets on it that are not necessary because it should be free to publish whatever it sees fit to publish.

This has been an interesting discussion. I am sympathetic to some of the objectives that are desired, but I am afraid that the amendments in this group do not add anything to the underlying purposes, which I understand are well intentioned. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

Perhaps I may try again. Under Clause 4(1) it is the duty of the office to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances. For the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, it would be difficult to report on the sustainability of the public finances without having regard to a lot of things, including—critically and at the centre—government economic policy. That links to what is laid out in the charter. If there is any doubt about whether the office will take account of government economic policies, as opposed to any other economic policies, we should look at Clause 5 for guidance on how the main duty is to be performed. The first point, which is important, is that the office has complete discretion, subject to certain subsections. Therefore, there will be a raft of approaches and other considerations that it can bring in if it considers them to be relevant.

We may then go on to subsection (3), having established that the OBR could not exercise its main duty without having regard to economic policies. Clause 5(3) makes it abundantly clear that when it looks at economic and other policies, it must have regard to any relevant government policies—not just economic policies, or economic policies defined in the widest sense by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Under Clause 4, the office must have regard to economic policy; otherwise, how on earth would it start to look at sustainability? Clause 5(3) makes it clear that the policies that it must have regard to are not alternative policies but the policies of the Government. It is clear if one follows it through.

[Lord Newby]

Everybody agrees on the substance. The problem is that the Minister is trying to turn words that are inelegant and the wrong way round to mean what we all agree on. Without wishing to claim the fee of a parliamentary counsel, it seems to me that we could deal with this simply by redrafting subsection (3) to read: “The office must perform that duty, taking account of any government policies that are relevant to the performance of that duty. It may not consider…”

[Lord Eatwell]

Absolutely. We have just heard clarity provided from this incredibly obscurantist piece of drafting. This subsection is a negative. It says:

“Where any Government policies are relevant … the Office may not consider”.

You are taken to the negative. The verb with operational significance in that sentence is “may not”. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, has hit the nail on the head. If one really wants to achieve what we are all trying to achieve, this subsection should be split into two with Clause 5(3) saying, “Take these things into account” and a new Clause 5(4) saying, “Don’t mess around looking at other people’s policies”.

Autumn Forecast

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, earlier on I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, describe 2010 as the year of Labour policies, but he said it so sotto voce that I left it there. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, now talks about the strength of the economy this year as being down to the previous Government’s policies. I remind noble Lords of what the OBR says about the reason why growth is now forecast by it to be much stronger in 2010 than had been previously forecast. It is principally down to the confidence of industry in restocking. That position has changed in its forecasts since June. I wonder where that confidence comes from. It comes from the fact that we came in in May and took immediate and decisive action to get the economy under control, which has resulted in British business restocking because it knows that sustained growth is coming. Let us stop going on about this and celebrate the fact that the growth is there and that industry has the confidence to understand precisely that.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, at the end of this period, with job losses in the public sector being 160,000 fewer than was predicted earlier on in the year, there will in fact be over 350,000 more people working in the public sector than when the Labour Government came into office in 1997? Can he also give an estimate of how much less the reduction in private sector employment will be as a result of this revised forecast over the forecast in June?

[Lord Sassoon]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. I can confirm the figures that he quoted. The relevance is that, for all the rebalancing of the economy that we are doing and the very significant rebalancing of the welfare system, the shift of jobs out of the public sector is now very significantly below what was achieved even within the past 20 years in the early 1990s. Therefore, we should have confidence in the productive capability of the private sector to absorb that number of jobs many times over. I can only stand by the figures for the net increase of employment that are set out by the OBR in its tables.