I would like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in two respects; first, in his comments on Amendment 9, which I will not repeat, and secondly, in his comments on Amendment 10. I am dubious about the value of giving enhanced status to an assessment of the output gap or when the economic cycle is likely to end for reasons largely already given by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The output gap is not an absolutely firm context and figure that is easily grasped and measured. As we saw with the previous Government, a lot of weight was put on the economic cycle because the golden rule about government expenditure and borrowing depended on it. The problem was that whenever a difficulty arose, lo and behold, the definition of the cycle changed to push the difficulty back. It proved to be a far more elastic concept than we thought, and the old Ricardian economic cycle that depended on grain crops just does not obtain in quite the same way today. So while I am sure that the Office for Budget Responsibility may well wish to opine on these matters, and it will be quite interesting to know what it thinks, it is of secondary importance in setting government policy. Indeed, because of its somewhat nebulous nature, I would not want us to put too much weight on it again.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Newby
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c1209 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:09:24 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_708654
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_708654
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_708654