158.  The timing of the Pre-Budget Report was only announced on 12 November, less than a fortnight before the Statement was made.[323] In our reports on both the 2005 and 2006 Pre-Budget Reports we recommended that the Treasury should give at least 4 weeks' notice of the date of the Report in order to enhance its usefulness as a vehicle for consultation and when this was not possible should indicate what factors underlay the delay. [324] The previous year's Pre-Budget Report was presented to the House with only 4 days' notice.

159.  We acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding the Pre-Budget Report this year made it difficult for the Treasury to offer much advance notice of its publication. Clearly, material in the Report was being modified and adapted up to the last minute. We accept that it may be unrealistic for the Government in the current climate to give any commitment to a particular notice period though we maintain that a longer lead-time would be helpful.

160.  What does remain within the Government's gift is the opportunity to allow the House ample time to debate the Pre-Budget Report once it has been published. This year's Pre-Budget Report, together with its copious accompanying documents, represented a major public policy announcement. It was as perhaps as carefully scrutinised and analysed as a typical Budget. Pressed during the Business Statement on whether she would be able to find time for a full debate on the Pre-Budget Report the Leader of the House conceded that there was a case for this:

that there needs to be a statement with ample time, and an opportunity thereafter for debate, so that hon. Members can make speeches and the Treasury can respond. I will keep that under review.[325]

161.  We recommend that the Government makes available a full day's debate for the Pre-Budget Report.

324   Treasury Committee, Second Report of Session 2005-06, The 2005 Pre-Budget Report 2008, HC 739, para 3; Second Report of Sessions 2006-07, The 2006 Pre-Budget Report, HC 739, para 96 Back

325   HC Deb, 13 November 2008, col. 957 Back