Amendment 9 is grouped with Amendment 15, which my noble friend Lord Eatwell will speak to. I have discovered that the more work one does jointly, the more thoughts one has. Therefore, one or two things emerge from this amendment that had not occurred to me when I tabled it. I will mention what they are, but that does not necessarily mean that we should debate them today: we might save them for Report.
The amendment covers the role of the two or more other members. They are referred to in the Notes as non-experts. I had not thought through the implication, because the word is not used in the Bill, that the OBR people are the experts. At some point I shall try to find a way by which we can discuss the distinction between expert and non-expert. I assure the Minister that this is a probing amendment for elucidation. I am asking what the point is of having these people. Given that we have experts, what do they contribute? They cost money—I assume that they expect to be paid—and they will have to be serviced with briefings of all sorts. The point of the amendment is to ask generally why we need this class of member; and, secondly, if this is what the Bill intends and if we are to have them, to ask the OBR, which will want to appoint them: ““Can you tell us why you need them in this broad category, and why you need these specific people?””. I was intrigued by the Notes saying explicitly that these people will not be experts.
My other point is that so far, the only thing that we have any practical experience of, given the operation of the OBR, is that these people are not experts in the sense that they are not economists. I assure the Committee that there are other experts in the world. One or two of my colleagues, particularly in the United States, believe that economics will develop into a universal science that will cover everything in the field of human knowledge. I do not hold that view. It seems to me that although the experts so far are economists, I can think of other areas of expertise that would class people as experts for the purposes of the Bill. I do not expect the Minister to talk about that today, but I will raise it on Report. Statisticians and businessmen have wide experience and could be classed as experts in this context. The point of this probing amendment is to seek enlightenment. I beg to move.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Peston
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c179-80GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:05:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688113
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688113
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688113