Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts 2025-12-01

The handling of the Budget has been a disaster from start to finish. The conduct in Government fell short of transparency, openness and integrity standards. The impression given was that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances to give political cover for tax and welfare spending increases. On 4 November, the Chancellor failed to mention that the net result in OBR’s review showed increased tax revenues instead of a black hole. There was a significant proportion of the increase in taxes used to fund policy decisions on welfare spending.

Defended the Chancellor's actions, denied claims of inappropriate briefings and called for a full investigation into the OBR leak. Emphasised the need for fiscal prudence due to the productivity downgrade.

Responded to concerns raised by shadow Chancellor about OBR leaks, acknowledging the real impact of productivity downgrade but attributing it to previous government policies. Defended current Government's fiscal decisions and commitment to Budget security.

Welcomed OBR report but expressed concern over leaks during the Budget process, called for proper discussions within government to prevent future leaks. Mentioned the importance of market integrity.

Reassured Dame Meg Hillier about the Government's commitment to maintaining budget security and promised a review based on OBR recommendations.

Asked for clarity regarding potential criminal or civil actions due to leak incidents. Questioned government’s transparency in business rates communication and suggested reviewing Sweden's budget process model.

Reiterated commitment to taking forward OBR recommendations, emphasised security measures across all government bodies, defended Chancellor's decisions based on productivity downgrade and transitional relief for businesses.

Challenged the Conservative Party’s stance on public finances, pointing out inconsistencies and responsibility issues stemming from previous economic mismanagement.

Defended government actions regarding budget process integrity, emphasising robust relationship with OBR. Reiterated that early publication was due to addressing productivity downgrades and building fiscal stability.

Pointed out the shocking nature of leaks from the Office for Budget Responsibility, questioning the Treasury's role in partial information releases that have caused economic uncertainty. Suggested a thorough investigation into these leaks by relevant authorities.

Questioned whether there should be an inquiry by the National Crime Agency and National Cyber Security Centre to determine if illegal activities occurred during leaks, suggesting that sensitive information could have been traded based on leaks.

Expressed concern over weeks of speculation damaging businesses before the Budget. Believed the government could have done more to prevent such speculation and uncertainty in the run-up to the budget.

Expressed worry over repeated attempts to access statements before publication, questioning why Conservative Members weren't more concerned. Highlighted risks of having only £4 billion in headroom for fiscal stability.

Welcomed the report stating issues with document hosting across Cabinet Office, Treasury and OBR but emphasised that the material distinction between a significant black hole needing tax increase and actual forecasted impact must not be lost.

Asked if anyone in the OBR leadership had offered resignation given their responsibility for circumstances leading to vulnerability. Emphasised the importance of stability through fiscal headroom.

Critiqued the Chancellor's credibility, pointing out job losses due to punitive energy profits levy. Questioned why ministers kept their jobs while constituents lost theirs over policy impacts.

Acknowledged the importance of fiscal headroom for stability, emphasising how it helps maintain economic buffer against future shocks and positive bond market response to the budget.

Described the Budget as chaotic and dangerous. Criticised media briefings that informed speculation, suggesting damage to reputation. Demanded an apology from the government for their handling of the budget process.

Emphasised the importance of following proper OBR processes, noting past consequences of bypassing it. Highlighted contrast between current and previous government's relationship with OBR.

The Government takes this matter seriously, recognising the value of the OBR's role in a robust fiscal framework. He confirms that deeper forensic examination will be conducted on recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) events, highlighting the need for a serious response to restore public confidence.

Mr Jones criticises past Conservative mismanagement and calls for steps to rectify damage done to efforts of delivering transparency and honesty. He seeks clarity on what steps the Government will take in response to this breach.

Kirkham raises concerns over previous leaks, urges for a full investigation into who was trying to access the information, and seeks confirmation on when last there was headroom as low as £4 billion.

Hoare suggests that this event reflects poorly on the OBR's capabilities and questions whether it is fit for purpose. He proposes considering making the Treasury responsible for budget predictions, tapping into expertise within the Bank of England.

Maskell calls for a detailed timetable of economic information received by the Chancellor and expresses concern over previous leaks compromising the integrity of the Budget process.

Wilson criticises the Chancellor's use of selective information to distort forecasts, suggesting that this undermines the credibility of economic predictions. He questions whether briefing by special advisers or officials contributed to leaks.

Pinto-Duschinsky expresses shock over systematic failures in cyber-security leading to breaches, and calls for the resignation of the OBR chair based on these serious failures.

Williamson questions sources of pre-Budget leaks, suggesting that they may have originated from special advisers, Treasury officials or No. 10, implying potential misuse of information.

Brackenridge is concerned about leaks affecting previous fiscal events and welcomes the Chancellor’s decision to more than double fiscal headroom as strengthening UK resilience.

Tice argues that the Minister has misled Parliament on three occasions regarding borrowing forecasts, highlighting an increase in Government borrowing over five years compared to earlier OBR predictions.

Vince acknowledges the disappointment of leaks but focuses on positive aspects of the Budget such as freezing rail fares and prescription charges, lowering NHS waiting times and tackling tax evasion.

Morton criticises the Minister for misleading Parliament and questions why the Chancellor is not present to address concerns raised during the Budget debate.

Anderson asks about governance changes being considered by the Department to ensure those overseeing fiscal processes meet high standards of conduct. He also seeks clarity on confidence in OBR’s head delivering such changes.

Defended the Government's budget decisions, highlighted benefits for Wales and other regions. Mentioned resignations of OBR chair due to IT infrastructure failures.

Criticised the Treasury for failing to address critical IT infrastructure issues at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), leading to leaks and a loss of credibility. Suggested resignation of OBR chair.

Accused the Labour Government of breaking manifesto commitments regarding taxation, questioned legality if constituents refuse to pay taxes.

Expressed concern over multiple leaks from OBR and the impact on speculation and costs. Asked for clarification on previous leak incidents.

Proposed a legal measure to make it an offence for politicians to mislead the public deliberately on verifiable facts, aimed at rebuilding trust in politics.

Challenged Conservative criticisms of economy and public finances as inconsistent. Highlighted Chancellor’s commitment to stabilising economy.

Critiqued the Chancellor's approach during Budget presentation, suggested seizing control from unaccountable OBR for transparency.

Inquired about likely market impact if headroom was lower than £21.7 billion, emphasised need for greater financial stability.

Accused Chancellor of leaking Budget details to media and prioritising Back Benchers over public confidence. Asked for steps to address the leak issue.

Expressed concern over OBR productivity downgrade, questioned persistent underperformance in productivity since 2010.

Questioned accuracy of figures regarding agricultural property relief and business property relief. Demanded clarity on economic strategy for rural businesses.

Pressed Chief Secretary to clarify timeline of learning about Treasury's briefing discrepancies to the press.

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

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.

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?

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. How can this Government start to rebuild trust with the public when they are simply trying to do smoke and mirrors?

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.

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

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 the hon. Member for St Albans, 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 part 7 of the Financial Services Act 2012?

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.

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?

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. 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?