My Lords, having had the opportunity to listen to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I have become more convinced of the value of the amendment. My conviction derives from the following points. First, we must recognise that this is a very peculiar body, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised. It is of the Treasury but not in the Treasury. It is of the Treasury because it plays an important role in the formulation of the Treasury’s policy by providing it with the information and forecasts that are necessary for the development of policy. However, it stands outside as well. It is that independence with which we have all been concerned. Analogies with other public bodies do not work very well. This is a very peculiar body that we are trying to get right in the Bill.
Having listened to the arguments, the major reason why I am even more convinced of the value of the amendment is that I was involved in such a process when I was chairman of the British Library. I had a very tough and effective chief executive, and we tried to build a board that would serve various important roles at the library. However, we were continually—I was going to say ““interfered with”” but that does not sound quite right—guided in a very decisive way by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is not one of the most powerful departments, certainly when compared with the Treasury. It played a very active role in the so-called independent nomination process. I was continually having vigorous arguments with the Permanent Secretary at the DCMS in which I would tell her to take her tanks off my lawn and allow us at least to nominate members, as was our right under the relevant Act. I am not convinced that the nomination process will be as independent as might be expected from looking at the simple structure laid out in the Bill.
The amendment would protect the Treasury and the Chancellor from the accusation that there was any compromise to the independence of the OBR in the nomination of non-executives by granting oversight to the Treasury Select Committee. The point is important. Members of the Treasury Select Committee are politicians, and therefore they are very sensitive to issues of political independence. It is what they know about and their area of expertise. They can spot political tendencies a mile off because they are experienced politicians and that is their job. Having listened to the argument, I have become much more convinced of the value of this amendment. I was a little tentative when I set out, but now I am convinced that it is the right thing to do. We will return to this on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 10 withdrawn.
Amendment 11
Moved by
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Eatwell
(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 c191-2GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:12:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688152
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688152
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688152