Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Lord Barnett Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords—

[Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay]

My Lords, I listened at considerable length to the Minister reading out his brief in response to the amendments but I wondered whether, by any chance, he could do me the courtesy of answering my question, which I thought was fairly simple and clear. Why are we having just the word “intergenerational” with fairness? He has said that he does not want a Bible. I am suggesting that he might make it shorter, but why “intergenerational”? Why not any other sort of fairness? The document says that these are:

“The Treasury’s objectives for fiscal policy”.

This is a government document, so could the Minister please address the question that I raised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords—

[Lord Barnett]

The Minister asked us to withdraw our amendments, so I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I reply.

I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, on this occasion in Committee, when we have tabled serious amendments, would give us a good reason for withdrawing them. I have listened carefully. Neither my noble friend Lord Eatwell nor my noble friend Lord Peston had taken umbrage at the Government’s economic policy and what they seek to deliver—much as my noble friends and I might disagree with the Government. We were putting serious amendments, which it seems from all that the Minister said there is no good reason for rejecting. I can see nothing in the amendments that should cause the Government any problem.

Our amendment relates to the Bank of England Act, which the Government have accepted and are not seeking to amend, whatever they eventually put in the charter. The Minister was not with us when we debated these matters at length. The three words “subject to that” not just implied but provided a clear remit to the Monetary Policy Committee. I am not sure that it always carried out that remit very well or very carefully, or even, as the current governor has recently been saying, that the Monetary Policy Committee was allowed to discuss these things—a report of something that he said implied that he did not want the Monetary Policy Committee to discuss them.

All we are saying, and all my noble friend Lord Eatwell is saying, is that these words should be inserted. I do not recall either of my noble friends taking umbrage at any of the policies that the Government are proposing. That is not the purpose of Committee stage; its purpose is to have a serious discussion about whether an amendment should be accepted. I had hoped that the Minister would look at this first group of amendments more seriously, unlike with his Answers in the Chamber or to our Written Questions, which he seems not to take very seriously. On this occasion, at the start of the Committee stage, I had hoped that he would take it seriously before asking us to withdraw an amendment that has been put down very seriously without any party-political talk. He has not given me any good reason to withdraw it.

[Baroness Noakes]

I have been listening to what my noble friend has been saying. He seems to be saying that we cannot have the words relating to economic policy because we want this to relate to fiscal policy only. If we step back, it seems to me that the economic policy of the Government ought to be as capable as the fiscal policy of being subjected to the transparency objectives that the Government have set out. Indeed, one of the things that the Government are to be genuinely lauded on is their approach to transparency, not only in relation to the Office for Budget Responsibility but also, for example, in relation to the publication of expenditure amounts over £25,000.

Transparency has been one of the watchwords of our Government, but we come to the Bill and, for some reason, we are saying that the Office for Budget Responsibility will be required to look at our fiscal policy mandate only, not at our economic policy objectives. It seems to me that there is a transparency deficit if we are saying that we have to exclude economic policy, as it seems directly related to what the OBR will be doing. The only reason that my noble friend has given is that the Government have decided not to include it. Like other noble Lords, I am struggling for the rationale for excluding the Government’s economic policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and I confirm what he said about the broad purposes and the general greater transparency that flows from all this. I do not believe that anything in the Bill restricts the OBR’s ability, within its mandate, to lay out whatever it considers appropriate. Indeed, I do not think that anything in the guidance will dictate the methods of analysis that the OBR undertakes. The guidance absolutely cannot include provisions on that. The charter seeks to explain what transparency means. Perhaps it is appropriate to highlight paragraph 4.8 at the top of page 12 of the charter, which states:

“Transparently means that the OBR is to act openly, setting out with clarity the assumptions and judgements that underpin its work. It should proactively seek to make available its analysis. It should publish reports according to a regular and predictable process”.

It gives very wide latitude in the areas to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention. We are not seeking to circumscribe how it does this.

[Lord Barnett]

The noble Lord now seems to be saying that the OBR can already do the job that the amendments are suggesting. In that case, why not accept the amendments? He has not given us a good reason for rejecting them. He seems to be saying that the OBR can already do the job and the amendments are not necessary, so what harm would including them do?

[Lord Higgins]

I shall try to speed up the proceedings in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said. We have a specific amendment to the Bill and the Minister can say one of three things. He can say: “I accept it and will table an amendment at a later stage”; “I do not accept it for the following reasons and we will return to the matter if we wish at the next stage”; or, “I am not sure, so I’ll think about it and return to it at the next stage”. I am not in the least clear whether he proposes to accept, reject or think about the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Barnett]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) the objectives for economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government, especially for growth and employment,”

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, I want to stop my noble friend from getting too angry. Like the noble Lord, I have a little experience of replying to debates on Finance Bills—rather more than he has, it seems. For five years, I had at least two Finance Bills a year. I would have told the Committee an hour ago that I would think about the matter again, so I am glad that he has done that now, even it has taken him an hour and 17 minutes to do so. If he had done that an hour ago, we could have ended this debate in that length of time because there was no need for it. I agree with the noble Lord that we meandered wide from the subject and had no need to do so. I think that I now speak on behalf of my noble friend as well in saying that, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Higgins]

This amendment is grouped with Amendments 6, 8 and 35, which are rather more sophisticated than my amendment. Clause 1(7) states:

“The Charter (or the modified Charter) does not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons”,

and my amendment adds “and the House of Lords”. The variations on that suggest the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House and so on. It would seem appropriate that the charter should be considered by a resolution in each House and, if we have any serious problem at that stage, we ought to be able to express a view one way or another. It is a somewhat draconian measure because it would presumably mean that the charter was or was not accepted, but over the years, and despite the row we had on the Floor of the House this afternoon, there increasingly seems to be a tendency for your Lordships’ House to be more involved in affairs involving money. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, I hope this group will last only a very few minutes and that the Minister will accept the amendments. As we debated this afternoon on the Floor of the House, this is not a money Bill. I do not think the Speaker in any way thought about certifying it as a money Bill. Every Bill costs a few bob, but in no way could this be described as a money Bill. I assume that the Minister is going to say that he will accept the amendments. It is quite straightforward: there is no reason whatever why the House of Lords and its Economic Affairs Committee should not be involved in looking at what the OBR is saying. When I was on the Economic Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee, my noble friend Lord Peston was in the chair, and we had the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor and almost everybody else there. I can think of no good reason for the Minister having the word “resist”. I hope he will not use it because there is no reason to refuse these amendments. I hope he will support them.

[Lord Newby]

I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and possibly to bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that when the Monetary Policy Committee was established, a specific committee of your Lordships’ House was established for the sole purpose of reviewing the way in which that committee worked. There can be no issue of propriety about whether the House of Lords should have a role here. This raises a broader question about the coalition’s view of the role of the House of Lords on financial and economic matters. The previous Government and the former Prime Minister were almost implacably opposed to this House having anything to do with economic affairs, which I thought was a pity because there is clearly expertise here. Last week, we discussed ways in which the House of Lords might play a part in tax policy-making. That would be very sensible as well and it would form part of the piece, along with these amendments, under which the House of Lords would have an enhanced role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, we all now wait with bated breath to see whether the word “resist” appears on the Minister’s brief. Perhaps I may share my own experience with the Committee. When I became a Minister, I was told that of course there would be some duties in the House of Lords but that I should not worry about that. In fact, every effort would be made to reduce those duties to an absolute minimum. I came to the conclusion that most people in the other place had a very poor appreciation of what happens in the House of Lords and of the excellent work that this House does, particularly in revising legislation. That is particularly pronounced in the Treasury. When I became a Minister in the Treasury, I found that there was almost no institutional knowledge there about the processes of the House of Lords. The noble Lord has succeeded me as a Peer based in the Treasury, but you then have to go back 25 years to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to find the last Member of the House of Lords who was a Treasury Minister, and another 10 years before you come to Lord Cockfield, who was a GOAT in his own day, although not so described. The Treasury starts with a disposition that matters to do with the economy and finance should not detain the House of Lords. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is correct in ensuring that the House of Lords is respected in the contribution that it can make by virtue of the breadth of experience represented on the Benches. I support the amendment.

[Lord Barnett]

When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I could not care at all what the House of Lords was doing about Finance Bills, because it could not amend them. The noble Lord is quite right. My noble friend Lord Davies was my PPS for much of that time, and he knows that one place we did not care about was the House of Lords, because it could not amend our Bills.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, perhaps I could take us back into the history of some of this. When what became the Bank of England Act 1998 appeared before us as a Bill, it had exactly the same fault that this Bill has in referring to the House of Commons as the House that would look at the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. My noble friend Lord Barnett and I moved an amendment in a slightly different form from this one. It said, “delete House of Commons and insert Parliament”, and it was accepted. I did not know it at the time but that happened over the dead body of my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister and Chancellor. However, that went in. At the same time, we set up the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee to look at the Finance Bills. As my noble friend Lord Barnett pointed out, we cannot amend Finance Bills, but the Clerk of the Parliaments wrote a definitive statement, which I hope the Minister has read, saying that there was nothing in Erskine May to prevent the House of Lords looking at Finance Bills. The House cannot amend them, so we set up the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee to look at them. The House of Lords can look at the substance of Finance Bills—it can look at any bit of them, according to the Clerk of the Parliaments. That is the definitive view. However, it can only draw attention to certain considerations; it cannot amend. So that is the history.

The amendment in this context would do exactly the same thing. It would enable the House of Lords, in various ways, to involve itself in scrutinising the Office for Budget Responsibility, as my noble friend Lord Myners pointed out, but we would have no powers to order it to do anything at all. That is essentially the position of the House of Lords in making a contribution.

I think I may be speaking only for myself when I say that I have a certain amour propre for your Lordships’ House. I have been here a long time. In my younger days when I was an LSE student, I would have abolished it like a shot. When I got here, one of my noble friends said, “You were hardly here a day when you sold out, and you just love the place”. That has been my position for 23 years. I take a certain offence from the fact that the Bill does not include the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Higgins]

Perhaps I may intervene for a moment before the Minister replies. Amendment 21 suggests that there should be a discussion between the Bank and the Treasury to agree the forecast. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, says that we want competition and so there may be two separate forecasts. That is fine but the two ought to be reconcilable, and in any event there should ultimately be a set of agreed forecasts which form the basis for the Government taking action. I do not think that you can have one set of policies on the monetary side being made on the basis of one forecast and fiscal decisions being made on the other. So far as concerns the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes, it seems that the whole object of this exercise is to say that the Treasury shall not have its own forecasts and that the forecasts should be independent. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Barnett]

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on Amendment 21 because I do not see why the Treasury and the Bank of England should necessarily agree. Perhaps I may make one or two points about the previous replies that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. He said that amendments are unnecessary because the powers are already in the Bill. Although they are unnecessary, equally one could say that accepting the amendments would do no harm to the Bill, as they would only be repeating what is in the Bill. He also made the case for reserving the power for the Commons—at least he has given us a reason for rejecting an amendment. I disagree with him. I reserve the right to consider the matter on Report because I see no reason why the House of Lords should not consider these matters.

[Lord Eatwell]

The amendments raise in different ways an important issue in relation to the draft charter. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, drew attention to paragraph 3.7, which states:

“The Treasury will continue to maintain the necessary analytical and macroeconomic expertise to provide on-going advice to the Government”.

That sounds perfectly sensible. However, it goes to the heart of the rather grey area of what OBR independence means that the same paragraph should declare:

“The Government intends to adopt the OBR’s fiscal and economic forecasts as the official forecast for the Budget Report”.

Indeed, according to the draft charter:

“The OBR’s forecasts are essential inputs to the Government’s ongoing policy-making”.

And yet, the Government retain the right to disagree. I can see that the Government can maintain the right to disagree with anybody, especially with an independent body—which the OBR is supposed to be—but I do not then see how they can adopt the OBR’s fiscal and economic forecasts as the official forecast for the Budget report. They cannot adopt something with which they disagree as the official forecast; it just does not work. They cannot have it both ways; it is nonsensical.

It is obvious that the OBR will need to work closely with staff at the Treasury and other government departments in developing costings. That is why we should expect consistency between the OBR’s forecasts and those used by the Treasury—after all, they have worked together to bring them to fruition. They are the crucial decision variables. In his foreword to the forecast document that we discussed in the Chamber today, Robert Chote thanks government departments for providing the decision variables which have gone into it. The OBR is in essence a rather peculiar body. It is not really a non-departmental public body; it is a Treasury non-departmental public body which plays a crucial role in the development of policy. As paragraph 3.7 of the charter precisely states, it is the “official forecast”. I do not understand how the Government can disagree with the official forecast. They can disagree with the OBR, for example, when it takes a punt in describing some scenarios, as it does in the charter, but how can they disagree with the official forecast?

I cannot see why there is a need to require consistency between forecasts put forward by the Treasury and those put forward by the Bank of England. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to competition between forecasts. I would take a rather different view and say that to require consistency would endow forecasts with spurious precision, whereas there are number of judgments in forecasts which are worth discussing in the context of the formation of economic policy.

The underlying point is that the OBR is distanced from official policy-making to a degree that was not possible in the past. That is an achievement of which this Government should be proud. But to describe the OBR as “independent” is an exaggeration. It is useful for propaganda purposes, but it is not credible to grown-ups, because it has to be involved in policy-making. There is a degree of independent methodology but not really of judgment, which is a different dimension. The Minister has to answer the following question: how can there be an official forecast with which the Government then disagree?