I would like to make a statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead-up to the Budget. I understand that this is a topic that has held much interest and speculation over the weekend and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal statement to the House on the Government’s position. Secondly, the Government have also today received the results of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s investigation into the early release of the “Economic and fiscal outlook” at the Budget last week. I know that the House will be concerned to know the findings of that report, and I will turn to that in a moment.

On the first point, the Chancellor has been consistent and up front with the public about her considerations in the lead-up to the Budget last week. First, she was clear on her priorities at the Budget, which were to cut NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living and to cut our debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered on those priorities. Secondly, she was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of the reduced productivity forecast.

Thirdly, the Chancellor was clear on 4 November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that, with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion. Fourthly, she was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the Budget, and the Budget document shows those decisions costing £6.9 billion in 2029-30. Finally, the OBR has now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on 4 November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.

The combined effect of this information is that on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that the Government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this Government’s priorities for the Budget had been delivered, or any additional headroom built. In the light of that information, and knowing about the OBR’s productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on 4 November that challenging decisions would be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was correct.

The Chancellor took the step of delivering a speech before the Budget, precisely so that she could be up front about the circumstances that she was facing and the decisions that she would need to take. She has been honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said.

Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor began her Budget speech, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its entire “Economic and fiscal outlook” online. Let me be clear: this is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility; it is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor later that day. It has conducted an investigation into how the report came to be published prematurely, and it sent its report, including its findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Committee today at 12.30 pm. The report states:

“We are in no doubt that this failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR.”

It adds that the

“responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR.”

The report notes that this has

“inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation”,

and caused significant disruption on Budget day,

“to the Chancellor’s disadvantage”.

The report goes on to make it clear that a significant and long-standing issue has allowed external users to gain early access to the OBR’s publication, which contains full details of its forecasts and the Chancellor’s Budget.

In the days since the Budget, there has been speculation about the kind of error that led to the “Economic and fiscal outlook” being published early. The report today confirms that the cause was not

“simply a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early.”

The report concludes that the cause of the OBR’s error was “systemic issues”, and that the investigation has made it clear that

“the problem exposed last week was not a new one.”

Indeed, the report reveals that the OBR’s EFO in March was accessed before the Chancellor delivered the spring statement to the House. That underlines just how serious the situation is. Let me underline that as a Government, we take seriously the need to ensure that the OBR never allows this to happen again.

The report notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords and random-character URLs, were not used. It further notes that two configuration errors, which were not understood by the OBR’s online publishing function, prevented the safeguards in its online publishing software from being effective.

I am also very concerned that the report notes that

“it is very likely that the weaknesses that caused the premature accessing of the November 2025 EFO were pre-existing. Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 EFO was accessed prematurely”.

These findings are very serious indeed. The fact that market-sensitive information was prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning, and the fact that this may have been the case on more than one occasion makes the situation even more severe. We do not know at this stage the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions as a result of information being available early.

I want to share one further bit of information from the report with the House. On the morning of the Budget, the first IP address to successfully access the EFO had made 32 prior attempts that day, starting at around 5 am. That volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point. Unfortunately, that leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the EFO is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event. At this time, we do not have answers to all those questions, but the Treasury will make contact with previous Chancellors, to make them aware of developments relating to previous fiscal events. The OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the Government and the Treasury Committee now take time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow, at its post-Budget hearing.

Furthermore, in response to paragraph 3.4 of the report, which set out that the problem exposed last week is not new, I can confirm to the House that the Government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events be carried out—although I note that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber-activity. In addition, the report says that the OBR

“could not, in the time available, carry out a deeper forensic examination of other recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out”.

We will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements

“should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR.”

This Government are committed to the independence of the OBR and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy making. The Chancellor and the whole of the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and our constructive relationship with it over the past 16 months, in challenging economic times. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s economic and fiscal policy making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands.

In the light of press reports on this matter, I remind the House of the rules and conventions relating to parliamentary language. As “Erskine May” sets out, unless a discussion is based on a substantive motion, certain personal criticisms, including accusations of lying or deliberately misleading the House, are not permitted. I know that the House will want to be at its best. We take this very seriously.

I begin with the matter of the report on the OBR leak. We will of course study that report in detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, “We will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”, I seek immediate reassurance that this will not include scapegoating the OBR to distract from the serious questions surrounding the handling of the Budget by the Chancellor, Ministers, the Treasury and No. 10.

Let me turn to the other matters that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed in his statement. We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity, but it is increasingly clear that, in recent weeks, the conduct of people in Government fell short of those standards. That is not just my view; indeed, a member of the Cabinet is quoted in today’s press as saying:

“The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.”

The impression has been given that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for policy decisions around increases in taxes and welfare spending. On 4 November, the Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street, in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecasts, meaning lower tax receipts. The Chancellor herself says that the statement was meant to set the context relating to the public finances and the need take difficult decisions on tax, but—this is the key point that the right hon. Gentleman did not address—she failed to mention that the net result, in the OBR’s review of the economy, was that there was an increase in tax revenues, not a black hole. To quote the OBR’s Budget report:

“In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion… However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.”

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury argues that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was given before the Budget—although it is effectively an admission that the decision to leave such a small amount of headroom in the previous two fiscal events was irresponsible. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s argument fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions on spending, specifically on welfare.

On 14 November, the media were briefed that income tax rates would not be increased, following the improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply false. As I pointed out in my letter to the OBR before the Budget, the finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before that, on 31 October. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November

“because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”.

That is not true.

Since then, on Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing its estimates for headroom in each of its pre-measures forecast rounds. As a result, we now know that at no point was there a deficit on the scale suggested to the media. Why did the Chancellor claim that she did not know the size of the headroom forecast by the OBR in November, when its final forecast was submitted on 31 October? At what point were the Cabinet informed that the forecast still showed a surplus, and why did the Chancellor suggest that the OBR’s review of the economy had led to a significant deterioration in the public finances?

We now know that the briefings to the press were not just inappropriate but inaccurate. Those briefings can only have come from inside Government. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury finally give us a clear answer: was the Chancellor aware of those briefings, and did she authorise them—yes or no? Will he commit to a full investigation by both the permanent Secretary and the Financial Conduct Authority into those briefings, and will he explain why the Chancellor chose to opine repeatedly on the OBR’s forecasts before the Budget, when those forecasts were provided to her in strictest confidence?

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed this morning that the OBR’s publication on Friday was simply responding to a request from the Select Committee, but the OBR’s report on Wednesday said that it had already planned to write that letter. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that it was, in fact, a proactive choice by the OBR to publish that information, which clearly suggests that the OBR was concerned that the record of who knew what, when, would otherwise be less than clear? It is a matter of profound regret that although the Chancellor chose to appear before the media yesterday, she did not see fit to appear here today. Her credibility is in tatters, and to the long list of her failings in respect of these matters should be added that of disrespecting this House.

I was unclear from what the Shadow Chancellor said at the beginning of his comments whether he, like us, values the role of the OBR in the Budget-setting process. We value its independence and we value its integrity. That is why we take what happened last Wednesday with the utmost seriousness, and we are determined to pursue it.

The shadow Chancellor went on to make a series of points, which I will address, but he fails to acknowledge that the productivity downgrade was real. The £16 billion hit to the forecast as a result of the productivity downgrade was real. I wonder why he does not want to acknowledge that. Could it be because the productivity downgrade was the result of things that his Government did over the 14 years that they were in office? Could it be the fact that the productivity downgrade was the result of a review by the OBR of policies including cuts to public investment, the mishandling of Brexit, and the record of the previous Government? That is perhaps why he does not want to acknowledge that point. The productivity downgrade by £16 billion was real. The need to build headroom was crucial. Both were principles that guided the Chancellor going into the Budget, as was the importance of cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists, and cutting Government borrowing.

The shadow Chancellor will remember from when he was in government under the Conservatives that the process involving the OBR and the Treasury is an iterative one that runs until Budget day. When the Chancellor delivered her Budget, the “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which, as we have discussed, was published slightly early, set out the context for the decisions that she took. The shadow Chancellor raised the issue of information security. I am sure that he will have received the letter from the permanent Secretary sent on 25 November, which stated:

“As Permanent Secretary, I place the utmost weight on Budget security. I will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”

Finally, the shadow Chancellor asked where the Chancellor is today. I am very pleased to tell the House that the Chancellor has been at the Wales investment summit today, following the announcement yesterday of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales—just the latest in £16 billion of new investments announced since the summit was launched.

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. Members have to learn that they cannot run in front of other Members when they are speaking, please. It looks really bad on TV, and it is not courteous.

I, too, welcome the fact that the OBR has put its report out so quickly, so that it can put its house in order and make sure this never happens again. I have been saddened and troubled by the number of leaks, advertent and inadvertent, during the Budget process. Will the Chief Secretary please assure the House that there will be proper discussion in Government about how to prevent them? I need only point him to the words of the permanent Secretary at the Treasury to the Treasury Committee on 12 February this year, when he was very clear that leaks can be market moving and must not happen. Let us be clear that the Debt Management Office was still trading during the Budget process, and was selling gilts at a higher price as a result.

Mr Speaker, I can reassure my hon. Friend, you and the whole House that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, the permanent Secretary has made it clear that the Treasury puts the utmost weight on Budget security. The permanent secretary made it clear in his letter to the Shadow Chancellor that he will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I understand that the Minister says he does not have all the answers to the questions about the incredibly serious security failings at the OBR, but has he requested or received any advice on whether the attempts to access the information might have reached a criminal threshold under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a civil level under market abuse regulations? Are there any other arm’s length bodies, related either to the Minister’s Department or to other Departments, that might now need to conduct a similar internal review into their security?

The Budget process has been a mess. There have been leaks on a level that has never been seen before and huge amounts of flip-flopping, which has created uncertainty for households and the markets and has led to businesses putting investment on hold. During the pre-Budget press conference, the Chancellor talked about a reduction in productivity growth, but failed to mention that tax receipts were higher than expected. Why did the Government omit to communicate that information?

Following Sweden’s budget crisis in the early ’90s, its Government changed to a system where the Swedish Parliament saw a draft budget and debated it at length, and Opposition parties could propose alternatives and amendments. Have the Government given any consideration at all to introducing a better system?

On the issue of omissions, on a number of occasions over the past year Ministers have repeated the claim that they would introduce permanently lower business rates for businesses in this country, but they omitted to say that business rates Bills would go up because of the higher valuations. Pubs are now saying that their average increase will be £12,000 a year, or 76% over the next three years. Why did the Government omit to mention that?

I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made in my statement about how we are going to take forward the recommendations in the report. As I made very clear, this is an incredibly serious incident, and we take it incredibly seriously. We are going to move urgently to take forward the recommendations in the report.

The hon. Lady asks about other arm’s length bodies and Government organisations. We take security, information security and cyber-security incredibly seriously right across Government, and the spending review focused on ensuring that all Departments and all Government bodies are adequately resourced so that they have the right information technology, cyber-security and information security for the future.

The hon. Lady referred to the Chancellor’s speech on 4 November, where the Chancellor set out the challenges we are facing and the principles that would guide her going into the Budget: cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting Government borrowing. That is exactly what she delivered in her Budget last week. On business rates—I suspect this is a debate for another day, rather than for this statement—I point anyone concerned about increases in their valuations towards the generous transitional relief, which will cap the increase in Bills at 15% or less for most small businesses next year.

Having spent the past 18 months arguing that this Government have mismanaged the public finances, the Conservatives have now come to the House to argue that the public finances are fine after all. Their position is patently absurd. Due to the OBR’s productivity downgrade, which was a direct result of the Conservative Government’s decisions, the headroom available to the Government had been cut by 57%. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are right to be angry about the state of the public finances, but that they are on the Opposition Benches because they are responsible for it? The Chancellor is on our Benches, making decisions in the national interest.

Mr Murphy, I brought you in to ask a short question, not to give a full-blown statement. Please do not test the Chair too often.

I thank my hon. Friend for his Intervention. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the Conservatives want to completely distance themselves from their record in government. We have seen their record in government laid bare in the OBR’s productivity downgrade. That investigation by the OBR resulted in a hit to the public finances to the tune of £16 billion. That was a real consequence for our economy, and we had to take real decisions to correct it.

Mr Speaker, you described the chaos and leaks in the run-up to the Budget as a “hokey-cokey”. Just today, the House had to be suspended because the statement arrived so late, on a Budget that was delivered so early that the Chancellor had not actually given it. That was a few hours after the Prime Minister had had to do a second launch to try to explain the Budget, a day after the Chancellor had toured the studios trying to say that she did not mislead people over it. Would it not have been clearer for the Prime Minister just to say that he was hiking tax to put up welfare?

What is clear is that we delivered a Budget to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

Is it not the case that after 14 years of the Conservatives telling the country that politics cannot make positive change, this Government have delivered answers on the two-child limit, apprenticeships, the future economy and decent public services? That is why the Conservatives’ response is as it seems to be. However, this incident has not covered the OBR in glory. I hear Ministers expressing confidence in the OBR and faith in the role that it has to play in the future. Surely, though, this is the moment to say that it is on its last warning.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the OBR plays a critical role in the Budget process and an important role in the robust and transparent fiscal framework that underpins our approach in government. Indeed, the first Bill passed by this Government included the fiscal lock, which prevents the sidelining of the OBR that the previous Government did, causing chaos for people across this country.

The leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and financial forecasts on Wednesday was obviously shocking, and it has rightly come up with a swift and complete report on how that happened. The partial information and the leaks from the Treasury over the many months in the run-up to the Budget were, in my opinion, equally shocking, and they caused real-life choices to be made in the economy and dampened confidence. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury therefore commit to an equally thorough and equally rapid leak report to be presented to this House?

As I said earlier, the Government take the Budget process and our responsibilities to this House very seriously. As the hon. Lady is aware, the permanent Secretary has committed to keeping all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

As others have said, given that the “Economic and fiscal outlook” contains highly sensitive information on which billions of pounds can be traded, and given that the investigation report makes it clear that this was not the first time that confidential information had been released before a fiscal event, does the Minister agree that there might be a role for the National Crime Agency, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre, in looking into whether something untoward has taken place?

As I set out in my earlier remarks, we will be taking forward the recommendations of the report. In particular, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we will be working with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation of a forensic examination of other fiscal events. The truth is that because of the early publication of the EFO last week, it has come to light from the initial analysis of the OBR that that also happened in March, but we do not yet know if it happened at previous fiscal events, including for previous Chancellors.

While the detail of whether the Treasury was dealing with a fiscal black hole or a fiscal lack of headroom will be rather lost on most of my Bath constituents, does the Minister agree that the weeks of speculation leading up to the Budget were very damaging, particularly to businesses, and that his Department could have done more to avoid that?

I recognise that there was a lot of speculation in the media in the run-up to the Budget. From the Government’s point of view, the Chancellor took a decision to set out her priorities and the challenges going into that Budget on 4 November. We set out the context around the productivity downgrade, the importance of building fiscal headroom, and the importance of cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting Government borrowing.

It is very worrying to hear about the repeated attempts to access the statement before it was given, and I wonder why Conservative Members are not a little more concerned, given that the same situation may have affected them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a Government left themselves with only £4 billion of headroom, they would be taking unacceptable risks with the UK’s fiscal stability?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: imagine if I were trying to defend a Budget to the House that was delivered with just a few billion pounds of headroom—what message would that send about the UK economy? The headroom is there to reduce the cost of Government borrowing and to give us protection against future shocks that might come our way.

On the process failure of the premature publication of the document, I think there is consensus across the House that it is damaging to the reputations of the UK, the OBR and the Treasury. I welcome the fact that the report says there are issues for the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the OBR in respect of how documents are hosted. However, on the substantive issue of what the OBR had told the Treasury and the net overall effect of that, there can be no doubt. There may be a dispute about whether £4.2 billion was sufficient or not, but we know for certain that the OBR did not say there was a significant black hole that required a 2p increase in income tax, which was the consequence of the Chancellor’s press conference. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the material distinction between those two issues must not be lost, and that he must face up to the reality of the overall net effect and the impression that was left?

The right hon. Gentleman is a former Treasury Minister, so he will know the importance of the OBR’s productivity downgrade and the impact that that has had on the forecasts. He will know that £16 billion is a significant downgrade to have had as a result of that productivity review, and he will know that were I here defending a Budget with just a few billion pounds of headroom, that would not be a position that any of us would want to be in.

The Chief Secretary quoted the OBR review, which said:

“The ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred” was

“with the leadership of the OBR.”

Has anyone in the OBR leadership offered their resignation, or has that gone out of fashion?

That is a matter for the leadership of the OBR. Let me emphasise how important the OBR is as an institution for this Government in providing a robust and transparent fiscal framework that underpins the stability we have returned to the economy.

Two weeks ago, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister said with a straight face to me that he would not take lessons on credibility. I understand the error of my ways now; I should have given those lessons to the Chancellor, because since then we have seen that she has not been entirely truthful with the public—as one of my constituents said to me today while I was travelling down from Aberdeen, she lied to the public. While she was doing that, my constituents were fearing for their jobs through the Government’s punitive energy profits levy. Some 100 more jobs are being lost at Harbour Energy as a result of the Minister’s policies. Why is it okay for them to lose their jobs, yet she keeps hers?

I think the right hon. Gentleman means the Chancellor.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the energy profits levy. Let me be clear: we know that oil and gas have a role to play in our energy mix for many years to come. We want to support that industry while we make the transition to clean power, and that is the role that the energy profits levy will play. We set out at the Budget how the energy profits levy will come to an end in 2030, or sooner if the price floor is triggered.

My right hon. Friend will acknowledge, as he already has done, the importance of stability for families and businesses across this country. What we have called fiscal headroom is frankly money for a rainy day, and it is fundamental to being able to maintain that stability—something that was a failure of the Conservative Government for some time. Will he also acknowledge the importance of the way in which the bond markets responded positively to the Budget, for exactly the reason that it delivers us the stability we all need?

While the Government do not comment on movements in the bond market, it was very important to us to create that extra headroom in order to bring down the cost of Government borrowing and ensure that we have that buffer for the future.

I have been here a few years and have seen the run to different Budgets. In line with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, I have to say that this Budget has been utterly chaotic and appallingly dangerous. The reality is that the Minister said there was plenty of speculation in the media. It was not speculation; it was informed statements by the media of what they had been briefed from the Government. The Government know full well the damage that that has done to our reputation, and the unprecedented requirement of the OBR to publish its advice to them demonstrates the damage that they have done. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box in all decency and say, “The Government apologise for the mess that they have made”?

I will come to the Dispatch Box and say that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. As the permanent Secretary has set out, he places the utmost weight on Budget security. As I have said to several hon. and right hon. Members, the permanent secretary will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the real-world and market impacts we saw last week underscore the importance of following proper process with the OBR? We saw the evidence to the contrary just three years ago, when the then Government chose to ignore and bypass the OBR entirely, causing interest rates and mortgage costs to soar.

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing a comparison between the way in which we as a Government interact with the OBR and the way in which the Liz Truss Government interacted with the OBR. We value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship that we have had with it over the past 16 months. That is in stark contrast with the previous Government, who sidelined the OBR and caused economic chaos for families across the country.

The Government will not apologise for this sorry and tangled affair, but will they at least learn a couple of lessons, such as the fact that there have always been very good reasons for observing total secrecy until Budget day and, secondly, when not in a financial black hole, do not start digging oneself into one?

As the Budget documents and as the EFO makes clear, the downgrade in productivity was real. That was a £16 billion hit to economic forecasts, and it was a challenge that we inherited as a result of what the right hon. Member’s Government did when they were in power. We took the right and necessary decisions to fix the public finances, making sure that we could do so without going down the route of uncontrolled borrowing—like his Government did—or the route of slashing public investment.

Mr Speaker, you were rightly furious last week when this OBR report was prematurely leaked to the public and the markets. It is clear from the independent report that this was an accident waiting to happen due to pre-existing cyber-security failures—pre-existing failures that may well have laid open previous Budgets to this kind of access, which should concern the Conservative party as much as any other party. This is about the integrity of the OBR.

The non-executive directors of the OBR, Baroness Hogg—who is totally independent—and Dame Susan Rice, both conclude that

“ultimate responsibility…rests…with the leadership of the OBR.”

I would not expect the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say whether he has confidence in the chair of the OBR, but is it not clear that those non-executive directors lack that confidence?

It is clear that this is a very serious matter, and it is right that the Government respond to it with the seriousness it demands. As my hon. Friend made clear, this is not—to quote the OBR again—

“simply a matter of pressing” the wrong button

“on a locally managed website too early.”

This is a systemic issue and a far more serious one, and it deserves our serious attention.

Under the last Conservative Government, we saw years of chaos, incompetence and mismanagement, and very often a lack of transparency and honesty with the British public. The Government promised change, and had a responsibility to deliver a clean break from the Conservatives’ approach to government. Will the Minister acknowledge the damage that has been done to those efforts, and what steps will the Government take to rectify it?

One of the reasons we take this matter so seriously is precisely the value that we place on the OBR. We see it as having a vital role in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, which is why we take last week’s breach of information so very seriously.

It is really concerning that these leaks have happened before. I understand that the investigation is still under way, but could the OBR tell who was trying to access this information, and can my right hon. Friend confirm that this will be investigated fully? Can he also confirm when last there was headroom as low as £4 billion?

My hon. Friend asks what the OBR report was able to conclude. It said that

“We could not, in the time available, carry out deeper forensic examination of other recent EFO events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out.”

That is exactly what the Government will be doing.

I think it should be recognised that events such as these allow Ministers and the wider Government to reflect on current circumstances. I am not seeking to scapegoat the OBR, but it is not the messiah—sometimes, it can be a very naughty boy—and it does have to revise its predictions at all times. Is it too traditional to suggest to this Government that the Treasury should be the office of budget responsibility, and that there are good brains in the Bank that could be tapped into? Is now not a good opportunity to reflect on what advice the Government need, whether the OBR is fit for purpose, and whether it should be disbanded?

I have a great deal of personal respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I take a different view of the OBR. We value the role of the OBR in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, and it is precisely because we value that role that we take last week’s breach of information so seriously.

To bring to a conclusion the ensuing debate about who knew what and when, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should publish a detailed timetable of the economic information that the Chancellor was in receipt of, including the return on tax receipts and the impact on wage growth?

As my hon. Friend knows, the OBR has already published its forecasts at various rounds during the Budget process. The process is iterative between the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that in the Budget, we cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

The Government have had a lucky break with the coincidence of the OBR’s confession and report on its leak of the Budget details, which has given the Minister an opportunity to use the shame of the OBR to deflect from the real criticism that should lie with the Chancellor, who, weeks before, was using selective information and distorting the forecasts to cover up the fact that she was taking money from those who work to pay those who do not work. Is that not the real shame of what we are discussing?

The real focus of the Chancellor has been on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, like all Members of this House, values the importance of the Office for Budget Responsibility and takes this matter with the same seriousness that we in government do.

Like many other Members, I have been shocked by the early release of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, as this kind of error risks compromising the integrity of the Budget process in moving markets. The evidence that has now emerged that this was not the first time that the OBR forecast was accessed prematurely owing to systematic failures in its own cyber-security, is simply unforgivable. Given this appalling failure, which the chair of the OBR himself acknowledges is the worst failure in the organisation’s history, can the Minister tell the House what he thinks it would take for the chair of the OBR to resign?

Obviously, the questions about what is done by the leadership of the OBR are for the leadership of the OBR, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government take last week’s information breach incredibly seriously. The fact that it was not simply a case of the wrong button being pressed on a locally managed website, the fact that it was a systemic issue and the fact that it had happened at least once before, in March this year—and who knows whether it had happened at previous events—underscore just how serious a matter it is, and just what a failing it represents.

We know that the Chief Secretary is a very thoughtful, intelligent man, and he will know that the press were being briefed extensively about what the Budget was going to say. They were not making it up. Where does the Chief Secretary believe that that briefing was coming from? Does he believe that it was coming from special advisers, does he believe that it was coming from Treasury officials, does he believe that it was coming from No. 10—or does he think that a Christmas elf had a hand in all this?

I know that journalists from all publications need no encouragement to speculate on the contents of a Budget. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to my earlier remarks: this Government take the Budget process, and our responsibility to the House, very seriously.

Like other Members on both sides of the House—I hope—I am deeply concerned and shocked by the fact that the OBR has leaked not just the autumn Budget but previous fiscal events: it is hugely concerning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s decision to more than double fiscal headroom has been welcomed by markets and will strengthen UK resilience?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that not only doubling the headroom but getting it to £21.7 billion is a crucial step in strengthening the resilience of the UK economy and the public finances, helping to bring down Government borrowing and protect us from future shocks.

It concerns me that the Minister has today, in this House, misled the House—inadvertently—on three separate occasions, as the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the British people this morning. Cutting borrowing is simply not the case. The OBR’s numbers show clearly that over the next five years Government borrowing will increase by a net £504 billion, which is £60 billion more than was forecast by the OBR back in March. The Minister cannot even claim that it is a percentage of net debt, because all those numbers are increasing, so will he please correct the record?

Borrowing falls in every year of this forecast.

I call Chris Vince.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am shocked to be picked so early, but I appreciate it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The premature publishing of the OBR report is very disappointing; I think Members across the House can agree on that. It is particularly disappointing for me and for residents in Harlow, because it detracts from a Budget that makes a real difference to families in my Constituency by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, lowering waiting times for the NHS and—as the House knows, an area I am particularly concerned about—tackling tax evasion.

Not only is my hon. Friend an excellent advocate for tackling tax avoidance and evasion, but he is absolutely right to point to the fact that what is important for people across this country is that this Budget cuts the cost of living, cuts NHS waiting lists and cuts Government borrowing.

It is deeply damaging and, dare I say, unprecedented that we find ourselves here today, listening to this statement about OBR forecasts, midway through the debate on the Budget. It raises more questions, not least because the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer those questions. Why?

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady missed my explanation of where the Chancellor was, but I am pleased to announce to the House that the Chancellor is in Wales today, at the Wales investment summit. She is there following yesterday’s announcement of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales, and that is just the latest tranche of the £16 billion of new investment announced since the summit was launched.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement. The integrity of fiscal forecasting depends not only on technical expertise, but on the public’s confidence in the people who deliver it. Clearly, that confidence has been shaken in the past few days. Can he outline what governance changes he and the Department are thinking about enacting so that those overseeing the fiscal process meet the highest standards of conduct and scrutiny? Does he have confidence in the head of the OBR delivering them?

I emphasise to my hon. Friend and all Members of this House that the Chancellor and all of us in the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship we have had with it over the past 16 months, in challenging times. Obviously, the matter that we are discussing today—the early publication of the report last Wednesday—is incredibly serious. The reason we as a Government are taking it so seriously is that we want to preserve the integrity and independence of the OBR in the future.

I am very interested to learn that the Chancellor is in Wales today. Amid all the message manipulation, she leaves the Minister to explain exactly why the continued freeze on income tax thresholds will hit Wales badly: an estimated five times more Welsh workers will be pulled into the basic rate compared with in the UK as a whole. I can only presume that the Treasury consulted the Labour Welsh Government. Will he release their response specifically in relation to confidence and a cost of living hit?

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not welcome the fact that the Chancellor is in Wales today to promote investment in Wales, but I can point her to the fact that the decision to lift the two-child benefit cap will benefit children in Wales, that the money off energy Bills will benefit people in Wales, and that the changes to the fiscal framework will benefit people in Wales. The decisions that this Government took will cut the cost of living and make sure that we cut Government borrowing, which will benefit people right across the UK.

The OBR is a valuable institution, and the “Economic and fiscal outlook” is by far the most important document that it produces. Today’s report makes it clear that the OBR’s IT infrastructure was a point of critical failure that should have been identified as far back as 2013. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the OBR now cannot credibly lead the investigatory and reconstruction work, and that he should resign?

Events are moving quickly, and I understand that the chair of the OBR has resigned. That is what I understand from messages passed to me.

Through the morass of leaks, one thing is crystal clear: this Labour Government broke their manifesto commitment. The Chancellor said:

“I am asking everyone to make a contribution”,—[Official Report, 26 November 2025;
Vol. 776, c. 393.]

then went around the studios at the weekend saying,

“I am asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more”.

She is not asking; she is telling the public. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that if my constituents say they will not pay their taxes, they will not face any criminal or financial repercussions?

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget last week that we were taking the fair and necessary taxation decisions to ensure that everyone makes a contribution, but that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible thanks to the other choices made. Increasing tax on property income, increasing tax on properties worth more than £2 million and reforming gambling taxation all mean that we can keep taxes on working people as low as possible.

The report on the OBR leak makes deeply worrying reading. I welcome the resignation of the chair of the OBR, because leadership on these issues matters. It turns out that the leak was not unprecedented as we thought last week. It has leaked other documents, and it may need to go back further to look at that. Such leaks could have led to speculation and costs running into millions. Does my right hon. Friend know how many times this has happened before, and if not, does he know when we will know that information? More importantly, does he know how many times the OBR Budget report was viewed externally before the Chancellor delivered the Budget last week?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of what happened last week. The initial report by the OBR sets out just how many times the report was accessed and shared before the Chancellor had given her Budget speech. There were 32 attempts to access it, starting at about 5 am that day, and it was then shared multiple times before the Chancellor had delivered her Budget speech. We do not have all of the answers to his questions, and the OBR has acknowledged that in the limited time available it has not done forensic analysis of what happened at all previous fiscal events. We know that the EFO for the March 2025 spring statement was certainly accessed. What we will do as a Government is work to make sure we have full information, and urgently find out what was shared—or rather what was inadvertently shared—at previous fiscal events.

We have had plenty of disagreement today, but I think it is clear that there is consensus that truth and accountability matter. I draw the attention of the House to the campaign by Compassion in Politics for a targeted legal measure that would make it an offence for any politician or candidate to mislead the public deliberately on a matter of verifiable fact. This is being taken forward in Wales, and it has long-standing cross-party support in this House. Will the Government support those of us who are campaigning for a political truthfulness Bill to rebuild trust in politics?

This Government take the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards incredibly seriously and abide by his rulings. We know what damage the previous Government did to trust in politics. It would be foolish to suggest that no Government at any point in the future will ever face difficulties, but it is how the Government respond to those difficulties that matters. This Government have shown that we respond in a way that is transparent, fair and brings an end to any sense that people have behaved improperly.

On 3 September, the Shadow Chancellor stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and claimed that the hole in the public finances could be as much as £40 billion. As it happens, that was not the case, not least because of the Chancellor’s steadfast commitment to stabilising our economy. Does the Minister not agree that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to go around claiming that people are talking down the economy and talking up the gap in our public finances, when the only people doing that are them?

My hon. Friend is right. I do not hold out any hope that the Conservatives will speak with any consistency or do anything other than try to talk down the British economy. In stark contrast, we are cutting Government borrowing, increasing the headroom, and making sure we have stable public finances and a stable economy, because it is on that basis that we can boost investment and growth.

The demeanour of a good Chancellor should be somewhere between an undertaker and an oncologist—a reassuring presence and no words wasted—not a party entertainer trialling a few tricks before they go on stage, which is what this Chancellor did before the Budget. In seizing back control from the OBR—which is unaccountable and unelected, and should never have been set up in the first place—will the Minister recognise that, unless the Treasury and Ministers are straight with the public, no one will be trusted?

The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the role of the OBR. We value its role in a transparent and robust fiscal framework. Madam Deputy Speaker, during this debate Richard Hughes has offered his resignation. May I put on record, on behalf of the Government, our thanks to him for his dedication to public service?

It strikes me that much of the criticism from the Opposition Benches is rooted in the decision to increase funds to raise the headroom. I know that forecasts are a job for the OBR, but given that it is busy at the moment, could my right hon. Friend advise me on what the likely impact on the markets would have been of having headroom of just £4 billion?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, had I been here today defending a headroom of £4 billion or less, it would have been a completely impossible task. This Government are determined to ensure that we increase headroom to give us greater stability. By increasing it to £21.7 billion, we have done just that.

If the Chancellor really takes the integrity of the Budget as seriously as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, she would not have leaked so much of it to the media beforehand. There is speculation and then there is being spoon-fed. The only principle guiding the Chancellor was keeping her Back Benchers happy and the only cuts were to confidence. Will the Chief Secretary set out exactly what steps the Chancellor will take to clear up this mess? Will she come back before this House, and will she refer herself to the Financial Conduct Authority?

I do not quite understand the hon. Lady’s question. When we got into office in July last year, our task was to fix the mess of the public finances that the Conservatives had left. At this Budget, the OBR’s productivity downgrade revealed further damage—deep scars—that her Government’s actions caused to our economy as a result of slashing public investment and mishandling Brexit, so if anyone wants to come to this Chamber and apologise, might it be her?

First, I express my concern about the findings of the leak report, which are completely unacceptable, especially as they are apparently so systemic. The OBR productivity downgrade reduced revenues by £16 billion. Why does my right hon. Friend think productivity growth has, since 2010, so consistently underperformed against forecasts—and in other countries too?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question on the OBR productivity downgrade, which has clearly played a really important and difficult role in this Budget process. What the OBR’s review of productivity made clear is that under the previous Government the decision to cut public services and cut public investment, and the mishandling of Brexit, left deep scars on our economy. Those are deep scars that we had to take decisions at this Budget to correct.

At last year’s autumn Budget, the Chancellor claimed that 75% of farms would be unaffected by agricultural property relief and business property relief, a figure that has been widely disputed. This year there is yet more confusion over the figures, with the Chancellor implying that public finances were significantly worse than the OBR assessment suggested. After years of being ignored and taken for granted by the Conservatives, how can rural businesses have confidence in this Government’s economic strategy if key figures are inaccurate or misrepresented?

I have taken part in a number of debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall on the changes to APR and BPR that the Government introduced at the Budget last year. We have debated the figures extensively. Some of the difference in people’s figures stems from the fact that we are talking about estates, which is the right measure when we are talking about inheritance tax, rather than the value of farms themselves. I also hope that the hon. Lady will have seen the change we made to the system at this Budget through the spousal transfer.

As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the “Ministerial Code” requires Ministers to be

“as open as possible with Parliament and the public”.

Exactly when did the Chief Secretary learn that the Chancellor did not face the shortfall that the Treasury was briefing to the press?

As a Treasury Minister, I have obviously been involved in discussions with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister’s team throughout the Budget process. We developed these policies collectively to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

The Prime Minister said this morning that politics is about choices. The Chancellor chose not to disclose the improved tax outlook from the OBR when she addressed the country on 4 November; the Chancellor chose to overstate the challenges with the public finances; the Chancellor chose to withhold the more positive forecasts from her Cabinet colleagues; and the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer questions on her conduct in office. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s position is untenable and that she should now choose to resign?

The Chancellor chose on 4 November to be up front with people about the challenges we face. At the Budget, she chose to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

I feel I should declare at the start of this question that I am one of the few people in the Chamber who apparently is not shocked at what has been going on this week. I am also not shocked that a Labour Cabinet member has said:

“The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish”.

Can the Chief Secretary tell us which Labour Cabinet member said that, and can they have a bigger role in the next Budget?

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he backed Liz Truss for leader?

The Chancellor announced that her plans aim to fund public services, avoid austerity and invest for the future, portraying a positive future and spending that seems manageable. Meanwhile, the OBR forecasts that if borrowing increases in the short term, it could have a potential impact on future spending in terms of welfare and debt interest, which could erode the economy. What steps will the Treasury take after the Budget to ensure that, through the Chancellor’s plans, we are not sacrificing long-term stability?

Long-term stability is at the heart of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at the Budget last year, which were met at the spring statement earlier this year and were met again at the Budget last week. As many hon. Members have mentioned today, the fact that we are meeting those fiscal rules with far greater headroom—£21.7 billion in this Budget—gives us greater stability, helps to bring down the costs of Government borrowing and protects us from future shocks.

Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, has said that the Government’s “repeated mistakes” and misinformation about the public finances have sucked all the energy from the economy. Chief Secretary, the former chief economist is correct, isn’t he?

As we said at the Budget, not only were we setting out to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing; we were also focusing on growth through public investment in transport, energy, roads, railways and all the infrastructure that businesses need to invest to boost jobs and growth across the country. We invested in every part of the country, with a focus on Wylfa in Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the northern growth corridor, because we know that growth has to happen right across the country to benefit people in every part of the UK.

There has been too much obfuscation today between what the Office for Budget Responsibility did in leaking its report early and the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Chancellor before she made her statement about there not being the fiscal black hole that she made out. There were leaks to the press, and Mr Speaker stood in this Chamber and admonished the Government for leaking. It was not speculation in the press; this has been nothing but “Jackanory”. How can this Government start to rebuild trust with the public when they are simply trying to do smoke and mirrors and not face up to the fact that they kept leaking to the press?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier when I underscored how importantly Ministers in this Government take the Budget process and how importantly we take our responsibilities to this House. I referred earlier to the words of the permanent Secretary at the Treasury about the fact that he will

“continue to keep all aspects” of Budget security

“under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”

The forecasts are meant to help the Government to decide what to do, but there was nothing in this forecast of oil and gas revenues, which explains why the energy profits levy was kept. We have seen a £6.2 billion downgrade in the expected revenue from oil and gas to the end of the Budget period—a 40% decrease in just a year from what it was bringing in—while production is down 55% and 33% for gas and oil over the period. None of that is to do with the size of the basin; it is all to do with the fiscal and regulatory regime that this Government are imposing on the North sea. It was announced today that 100 jobs are going at Harbour Energy, and there will be more to come. Every job loss from now on is on this Government, because they know exactly what the oil and gas sector has been saying to them—it has been saying exactly the same to me, too, but I have chosen to listen. Why have the Government decided on the back of the OBR forecast to keep the EPL, when they know the impact it is having on jobs, investment and production and the future of the North sea?

I can reassure the hon. Lady that since we won the election I have spent many hours with the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen. It is exactly why we confirmed in the Budget last week that we will end the energy profits levy in 2030, or sooner if a price floor is triggered.

When did the Chancellor first brief her Cabinet colleagues on the realities of the OBR forecast?

The Chancellor obviously spoke to Cabinet on the day of the Budget, as is the normal process, to let them know what was coming in the Budget later that day.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury failed to answer a critical question raised by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor and a similar question raised by Daisy Cooper, so I will ask the question in a slightly different way. Does the Minister agree that the FCA must urgently investigate whether conduct has fallen short of, in particular, part 7 of the Financial Services Act 2012 and article 12(1)(c) of the UK market abuse regulation, and does he agree that no stone should be left unturned in that investigation?

The Chancellor has now delivered her Budget, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has published its figures. We have been clear that we were focused on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing.

It has been dragged out of the Government that there was no black hole of £20 billion to £30 billion in the run-up to the Budget. In fact, there was a surplus. That means that Treasury insiders were deliberately misleading the press, the markets and our constituents in the run-up to the Budget, when they intended all along to raise taxes on working people to fund increased welfare. Why is the Minister continuing to take the public—our constituents—for fools?

I cannot work out if the hon. Gentleman is implying that he thinks a few billion pounds of headroom is acceptable, because the Government certainly do not think it is. We think that having £4.2 billion or less of headroom is not an acceptable position for our economy to be in. We had the result of the OBR productivity downgrade, which had hit revenues by £16 billion, and that is why decisions were necessary to restore the public finances and meet our priorities going into Budget.

The British public are, by nature, a forgiving people. However, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not recognise that obfuscation of the kind we have seen over the weekend deeply damages public confidence?

I hate to break it to the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt the British people will forgive the Tories for Liz Truss’s record in office.

According to the latest House of Commons Library briefing and the economic forecasts, the freeze on the income tax threshold is projected to raise over £38 billion per year by 2029-30. For comparison, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that by 2030 the freeze will raise approximately £8 billion annually, which is similar to adding 1p to the basic rate of income tax. Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor’s statement that she met Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise income taxes, and does he agree that she misled the public and this House?

No. The Chancellor—

Order. I believe that the hon. Member was trying to say that the Chancellor inadvertently misled the House, but he did not say the word “inadvertently”—

Noted, but we need to be mindful of our language at all times.

At the Budget, the decisions the Chancellor took on tax were fair and necessary. Yes, we are asking everyone to make a contribution, but we have also taken decisions on increasing property income taxation, asked people with properties worth over £2 million to contribute more, and changed the way that gambling companies are taxed. All those decisions meant that we were able to keep the tax burden on working people as low as possible.