FORMER Liberal Democrat minister Danny Alexander was yesterday accused of appearing to “lean” on the independent finances watchdog after MPs found several “concerning” requests to change economic forecasts.
The Treasury Select Committee believes some of the Treasury’s suggestions to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) which aimed to alter the economic and fiscal outlook were “inappropriate” as they “strayed beyond the factual” in December 2014.
Evidence showing Alexander, the then chief secretary to the Treasury, made two requests for changes which the report said were “particularly concerning”.
Early sight by the Treasury of the OBR’s work is intended to ensure facts are correct.
But Conservative Andrew Tyrie, the Treasury Select Committee chairman, said it was clear Alexander made requests for non-factual changes to the economic and fiscal outlook. He said: “This looks like a misjudgment. It gives the appearance of a minister trying to lean on the OBR. The OBR’s independence is hard-earned and easily squandered.
“Little or no damage appears to have been done in this case, but this shouldn’t be repeated. The Treasury Committee will do what it can to prevent any further such episodes.”
The criticism emerged after MPs analysed email exchanges between OBR and Treasury officials, prompted by a report in the Times which suggested the Government department had tried to interfere with OBR forecasts.
Tyrie said a revised memorandum of understanding is needed to make “crystal clear” the reasons for early sight of the OBR’s work.
He adding: “Any requests or comments which could be construed as going beyond this should be brought to the attention of the chairman immediately and, if necessary, the chairman of the (Budget Responsibility Committee).”
The committee’s report concluded: “A number of Treasury requests for non-factual changes appear to have been taken on board by the OBR. This is unacceptable.
“The removal of words such as ‘topslice’ to describe spending cuts, and ‘complicated’ to describe the then Government’s fiscal assumption, cannot be held to have improved the clarity of the economic and fiscal outlook, nor did they make it more factually accurate. Nonetheless, the committee is satisfied that, on this occasion, the changes the OBR made in response to Treasury requests made no material difference to the analysis contained in the final document.”
A Treasury spokesman said: “In establishing the OBR in 2010, independence and transparency was introduced to economic and fiscal forecasting process for the first time ever, with clear safeguards established to make sure this is protected.
“Officials and ministers have acted entirely properly, respecting that independence, at all times.”
The MPs also examined a review of the OBR by Sir David Ramsden, the chief economic adviser to the Treasury, which the Government labelled independent.
They noted Sir David was “manifestly professionally incapable” of conducting an independent review as he is a “reliable, highly competent and loyal” Treasury official, reports to Chancellor George Osborne, is bound by the civil service code and has a duty to support Government policy of the day.
The select committee report noted: “It would have been difficult for Sir David to have reached conclusions that differed substantially from those of ministers.
“The fact that the Government accepted his recommendations on the day his review was published, in full and without comment, suggests that he may not have attempted to do so.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here