OBR: Resignation of Chair

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the resignation of the chair of the OBR.

Last week, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” was accessed prematurely ahead of the Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility took full responsibility for this and conducted a review into what had happened. That report was published on Monday, and I came to this House to make a statement. The report found “systemic issues”, which led, in its words, to the

“worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR.”

While I was making that statement on Monday afternoon, Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, resigned. The Chancellor has written to Mr Hughes to thank him for his many years of public service, and I have put my thanks on the record in this House, too. That decision was a matter for Mr Hughes.

We will work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts. The permanent secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of the Treasury’s security processes to inform future fiscal events. As I said when I was again at this Dispatch Box closing the Budget debate yesterday, the Government put the utmost weight on Budget security, including the prevention of leaks of information. A leak inquiry is now under way with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team.

There is also speculation in the press today surrounding the letter that the OBR sent to the Treasury Committee last Friday, which I wish to address clearly. The Chancellor was aware of that letter and was content for it to be published, and she agreed that with the permanent secretary.

Richard Hughes was a respected chair of the OBR, and his departure is a matter of deep regret. The circumstances surrounding his resignation remain unclear—although for the Chancellor, it has clearly been a useful distraction from her own conduct.

On Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing the details of the pre-measures forecast rounds, and members of the OBR board were clear to the Treasury Committee yesterday that that step was taken because of serious concerns about partial leaks and briefings about their forecasts. In relation to the market-moving briefings made on 14 November, which suggested that the public finances were, after all, in a better position, David Miles stated to the Committee:

“I think there had been a misconception that there had been some good news. It didn’t exist.”

The board members also clarified that those concerns were raised by Richard Hughes with the Treasury before the Budget, and that the information published on Friday was approved by the permanent secretary.

What discussions did the Treasury, including the Chancellor, have with Mr Hughes immediately prior to his resignation? Mr Hughes said last week that he served

“subject to the confidence of the Chancellor”.

Did the Chancellor give Mr Hughes her full confidence? Was any pressure put on Mr Hughes to resign? Did the Chancellor approve the OBR’s publication on Friday and discuss it with the permanent secretary? I believe that the Minister has confirmed that, but perhaps he might do so again. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Strathern, are you here as a Parliamentary Private Secretary?

I am.

In which case, behave.

Do Ministers agree with the OBR’s opinion that leaks and briefings about the forecasts damaged growth? If so, what action was taken by the Treasury regarding those leaks? May I ask once again whether it was appropriate for the Chancellor herself to opine publicly on the OBR’s productivity forecast before the Budget, given that those matters should remain strictly confidential?

As you know, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority seeking a full investigation into matters relating to the Chancellor’s statements on the state of the public finances. I have also written again this morning to the permanent secretary at the Treasury, requesting a full investigation into all these matters.

I thank the shadow Chancellor for his questions. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the decision for Richard Hughes to resign was a matter for Mr Hughes himself. I referred in my earlier remarks to the media reporting of the letter that the OBR published. The publication of that letter was agreed to by the Chancellor; it is completely untrue to suggest otherwise.

The reason for publishing the letter was the unique nature of the Budget and the context of the OBR’s productivity review, as it said itself, while acknowledging that that would not become usual practice owing to the importance of preserving a private space for discussions. We are completely committed to the OBR’s independence; it is a vital part of our fiscal framework. In fact, one of the first acts of this Parliament was to introduce a fiscal lock so that the OBR could never be sidelined.

The shadow Chancellor also referred to comments by Professor Miles at the Treasury Committee earlier this week. I note that, among his remarks, Professor Miles was very keen to be clear that the positive headroom number in the forecast of 31 October did not in any way suggest that the OBR assessment was that the fiscal outlook was problem-free.

When I last spoke in this House, Richard Hughes was still chair of the OBR. I pay tribute to him. He was a tenacious champion for its independence. A highly intellectual man, he ably led that organisation and made an honourable decision to take responsibility for what happened last Wednesday.

The Minister says that a leak inquiry is under way in the Treasury; leak inquiries have a habit of not finding someone responsible. But if somebody is found responsible, will they follow the lead set by Richard Hughes?

I will not speculate on the outcome of the leak inquiry, but it is under way now, with the Chancellor’s support. The Government take our obligations to this House very seriously, and last week we produced a Budget that delivers on our priorities for the British people.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

On behalf of my party, I thank Richard Hughes for his service. We respect his resignation. I also thank Laura Gardiner, Professor Ciaran Martin and Huw Stephens for the very quick turnaround of the investigatory report on the leak. In that report, the point is made that, unlike all other IT systems and services, the OBR’s website is locally managed and outside the gov.uk network. That decision was made, apparently, to ensure the OBR’s full independence from the Treasury. Will the Minister soon report back to the House with a timeline for decisions—between now and the OBR’s next report in spring 2026—on how these matters will be managed in future? Will he provide an outline of how the OBR website will be operated so that it is secure and maintains appropriate separation from the Treasury?

As I have made clear, the Treasury will be focused in the coming months on ensuring that we have stronger information security in the spring forecast and all future forecasts. It is worth my adding that the OBR has in recent years had significantly increased funding: since 2021-22, its budget has increased by 45%. As an independent organisation, it has full discretion in how it uses its budget.

I join the Chair of the Treasury Committee in thanking Richard Hughes for his service, and commend him for taking responsibility for the security leak that happened on his watch.

In testimony given to the Treasury Committee yesterday, the OBR described the “£21 billion average absolute revision” to their pre-measures forecasts as meaning, in effect, that between every six-month forecast, £21 billion on average is wiped off or added to the headroom. That leads me to ask: how can we ensure long termism in the UK’s fiscal institutions, despite this overall focus on headroom?

The Chancellor set out at the Budget how important it is to increase our headroom. We have increased it to £21.7 billion, which is critical to reducing the cost of borrowing and protecting us against future shocks. The Chancellor also announced that the OBR’s spring forecast will not include an assessment of the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules, and the Government will not respond to it with fiscal policy; but the OBR will produce a forecast in spring, as expected.

For what it is worth, I think the OBR has become too powerful. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a quangocracy, and the Chancellor alone should be responsible. Does the Chief Secretary agree that in future all communications between the Chancellor and the OBR should be in deep private? That is the only way the system will work. Never again do we want selective leaks. Can he promise that that will not happen in the next Budget?

The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on the role of the OBR. As a Government, we are committed to the OBR’s independence and its vital role as a core part of our political framework. As I mentioned, one of our first acts in this Parliament was to introduce the fiscal lock to ensure that the OBR can never again be sidelined as it was by the previous Government. Regarding the private space between the OBR and the Treasury, the publication of the OBR’s letter, which as I mentioned was agreed to by the Chancellor, was due to the unique nature of this Budget in the context of the OBR’s productivity review. We acknowledged that that would not become a usual practice, due to the importance of preserving a private space for conversations.