Indeed. The question is: what is appropriate to put in the legislation? There is an element here of risking treating the OBR inappropriately by telling it to do things that are clearly already self-evident to the OBR, in that it has already started to make significant comments on sustainability but is not rushing to final conclusions or making it the subject of a separate major piece of work. Therefore I am absolutely sympathetic to the principle but I am not sure that we should get into the game of writing down everything that the OBR is to do. The question this provokes in my mind is whether anything more should be said about this point in the charter. If there is any more to be said, it should be in the charter, and it is in that context that I should like to reflect on the substance of Amendment 27.
Amendment 18 makes an explicit link between the OBR and the Treasury’s objectives and mandate. I absolutely agree that it is important for the OBR to work in the context of these objectives and the mandate. Therefore, the purpose behind my noble friend’s amendment is entirely appropriate but I am a little concerned that, taken particularly with Amendment 30, it would not provide sufficient protection to keep the OBR out of what could become broader and politicised debates about policy scenarios.
I have thought about this carefully. I believe that the current design achieves a balance for the broad remit for the OBR with a sufficiently clear focus on government policy, and any amendment in this area would need to ensure that that careful balance was protected. I am worried that the amendment might challenge that. As I said, I believe that the substance of what is intended is already in the Bill. I very much took to heart the words of noble Lords on this area at Second Reading, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who noted the importance of the OBR not being drawn into wider political debates and not opining on alternative policy options. We have to keep the OBR focused on the fact that its forecast has to be of the economic policies that have been decided by the Government. However, we should not through inappropriate drafting risk taking the OBR into debates about the policy itself.
I shall continue to think carefully about whether we have got the balance right, but I hope my noble friend understands that we may risk drawing the OBR into something wider than I suspect he intends. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Sassoon
(Conservative)
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 c216-7GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:10:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688235
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688235
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688235