OBR: Resignation of Chair

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

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

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

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.

[Sir Mel Stride]

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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

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.

[James Murray]

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.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

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?

[James Murray]

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.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

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?

[James Murray]

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.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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?

[James Murray]

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.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I echo fellow members of the Treasury Committee in commending Richard Hughes for his work and for taking responsibility for what the OBR itself acknowledged is the worst failure in its 15-year history. The shadow Chancellor failed to mention that Professor Miles stated in his testimony to the Committee yesterday that the Chancellor’s remarks on 4 November were entirely consistent with the forecast set out by the OBR at the time, in which the fiscal picture was not as rosy as the Opposition, bizarrely, now claim it was. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to some of Professor Miles’s comments yesterday. There has been a lot of discussion in this place about the £4.2 billion headroom identified in the forecast by the OBR on 31 October and what, in our view, that implied about the fiscal situation. Professor Miles said that the

“£4 billion in the pre-measures forecast is not inconsistent with the sentiment that this is a very challenging fiscal position.”

It is because of that fiscal position that we made the choices that we did.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has just confirmed a leak inquiry is under way at the Treasury, and I will be paying close attention to that inquiry. Richard Hughes was an outstanding public servant, and he was truly independent. Will the Minister confirm that the person the Chancellor nominates to this position has to be endorsed by the Treasury Committee? Will he commit to someone of equal independence and stature being nominated to this position?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Lady will know, the process is now under way for an external recruitment of a new chair of the OBR. The normal process will be followed in terms of the Chancellor making the appointment and the Treasury Committee being involved. The hon. Lady mentions that I have confirmed the leak inquiry today; I have confirmed it again today, but I mentioned it in my remarks to the House yesterday.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Over my years here, I have seen many Budgets. Members on the Government Benches wave their Order Papers on the day, then watch as the Budget unravels over the next 48 hours, but we do not seem to have had any of that with this Budget. It has been extraordinarily tight in what it seeks to achieve—[Interruption.] The Tories are protesting on the Opposition Benches about the individuals involved, rather than the content of the Budget itself, because they have very little argument to make.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. While the process around the Budget is important, what this Budget means for people across Britain is that we have cut the cost of living, continue to cut NHS waiting lists, and cut Government borrowing.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The head of the OBR has taken responsibility and resigned, just like the BBC director general took responsibility for a crisis and resigned. Given the backdrop that the UK is in the throes of a full-on fiscal crisis of the Chancellor’s own making—both materially by removing £66 billion from the economy with no corresponding stimulus and objectively by briefings, counter-briefings, screeching U-turns, leaks, and a profound lack of discretion over market-sensitive information—why will she not resign?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor has delivered a Budget that takes the challenges of this country head on, cuts the cost of living, continues to cut NHS waiting lists, cuts Government borrowing, and meets the priorities of the British people.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The OBR’s investigation has two particularly striking findings: the first was the number of attempts to access the documents in question; and the second was the lack of security for those documents. What specific actions does the Minister believe the OBR should take to overcome those things at future fiscal events? Does he agree it is possible to have confidence in the principle of an independent OBR alongside undertaking meaningful and significant scrutiny of some of the organisation’s actions?

[James Murray]

I very much agree with the sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. The OBR is a vital part of our fiscal framework—indeed, as I mentioned earlier, one of the first acts we took on entering government was to strengthen its role to ensure that it could never be sidelined. It is precisely because we see the OBR as holding such an important place in our fiscal framework that it is important that we maintain its integrity and trust.

My hon. Friend asks what further steps the OBR will take. We will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and the OBR to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events is carried out. Let me add that there is no evidence of hostile cyber-activity, but the OBR report’s findings indicated access at previous fiscal events. That is a very serious matter that we will investigate.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Richard Hughes was a first-rate public servant, but he did the right thing on the narrow matter of the premature upload of the file last week. OBR representatives told us a number of things yesterday in the Treasury Committee. They told us that there was a £16 billion downgrade and £4.2 billion of headroom on 31 October, because there were also improved tax revenues. I do not think £4.2 billion can be characterised as a black hole, but it was a challenging circumstance—that is the truth. Will the Minister consider, in all future Budgets, that such a letter should be made available, at the same time that Budget publications and OBR publications are made available, setting out what was said to the Chancellor at what point? We could then verify whether the press conference on 4 November was very wide of the mark and gave a materially misleading view of what was actually happening.

[James Murray]

As will be clear, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Richard Hughes’s contribution to public service. However, I disagree that the premature publication of the forecast last Wednesday was a narrow matter. The report showed that it was about not simply a single error, but more systemic issues, which it highlighted, so I disagree with the characterisation of that as narrow.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of Professor Miles’s comments at the Treasury Committee. Professor Miles confirmed that the £4 billion headroom identified in the forecast on 31 October was not inconsistent with the sentiment that this is a very challenging fiscal position.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the OBR’s letter, the nature of its being published and what it speaks about for the future. As I said earlier, the publication of the OBR letter was agreed to by the Chancellor due to the unique nature of this Budget and the context of the OBR’s productivity review, as it said itself, while acknowledging that it would not become usual practice, due to the importance of preserving a private space for discussion.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

The OBR leak was deeply disturbing, particularly in the light of international sensitivities. Can the Chief Secretary rule out foreign actors exploiting the OBR’s inadequate security at any point?

[James Murray]

The OBR’s report into the premature publication of its forecast found no evidence of hostile cyber-activity, but it looked at the spring forecast and identified what happened there. Concerningly, it identified that there had also been premature access to the forecast at that fiscal event. The report did not look further back at, for instance, the Chancellor’s first Budget last year or Budgets delivered by Conservative Chancellors under the previous Government. That is why it is so important that the Government take forward the report’s recommendation to conduct a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Government seem to be keen to maximise the gravity of the OBR’s accidental leak while minimising the gravity of the Chancellor’s deliberate leaks. The Minister has twice frankly admitted not being aware of the case of Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton, who resigned for inadvertently leaking to a journalist a single sentence of his 1947 Budget moments before it was due to be announced. Now that he has understood what actually happened then and that that was the paradigm case, does he think it holds any lessons or examples of conduct that the Chancellor ought to consider following?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I came here this morning expecting to be critiqued by the Opposition for their view of Government policy; I did not expect a critique of my knowledge of history, but that appears to be the route that the right hon. Gentleman wants to take. When I gave way to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said I was being too generous, and I am inclined to agree with him.

On the broader point just made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I think we need to be really careful about downplaying the seriousness of the OBR publishing its forecast early. It is not a “narrow matter”, as the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said; we cannot simply brush it away. This is a serious leak of highly sensitive information, and we take it very seriously as a Government.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Three years ago, the role of the OBR came into sharp focus after the delivery of another Budget, which became known as the mini-Budget, by which the markets were sent spiralling and the Bank of England was forced to take emergency action. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the events of this last week have been serious, we have taken action within a week? Three years on, we are still living with the consequences of the decisions taken by the Conservatives.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people across Britain are still living with the consequences of what the previous Government did in that mini-Budget, when they sidelined the OBR. In fact, one of the reasons we are so keen to protect and strengthen the OBR’s integrity is the vital role it plays in our fiscal framework. The very first Bill passed by this Government included the fiscal lock, which now prevents the OBR from being sidelined.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Chancellor announced in the Budget that she would legislate for only one assessment of the fiscal rules every year, instead of two, which is the case at the moment. In the light of the change in the OBR’s leadership, will the Minister commit today to seeking the views of the incoming chair of the OBR about the economic and fiscal impact of that decision before the Government plough ahead with it?

[James Murray]

I want to be clear about what the OBR is required to do and what the Chancellor announced last week in the Budget. The OBR is required to produce two forecasts a year, and the Chancellor will commission a second forecast in due course. As she announced in the Budget, however, that forecast will not include an assessment of the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules, and the Government will not respond with fiscal policy.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Was the Minister as surprised as I was to find out that such a sensitive document was being managed by something that was using WordPress? What reassurances can he give my constituents—what reassurances has he had from the OBR—that, moving forward, these sorts of documents will be password protected and, crucially, protected from foreign interference?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I will admit that I was surprised to read the OBR’s report, which made it clear that any assumptions we might have had that this was a simple error were not true—more systemic issues were revealed in the report. As I understand it, there was functionality within the OBR’s IT and website systems to have greater security, but they were not configured correctly to provide that security. For me, that underscores the fact that this is not one inadvertent error by one official; it is a systemic issue with the information security, which is so important.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Although I remain convinced that there are ways of delivering the guardrails that the Treasury needs without the OBR, I know that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are not persuaded of that argument. However, might the Chief Secretary be persuaded that the resignation of the chair of the OBR and the recruitment process that is now under way presents an opportunity for the Treasury and the permanent secretary to reflect on what they need the OBR to be doing for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? What skills does the OBR need, what shape does it need to be, and what does it actually need to do to get the economy right? Will they be availing themselves of this opportunity to recast the OBR and reflect on its roles and responsibilities?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—I am glad that, not having had time to take his intervention yesterday, we are now back to business as usual with frequent exchanges across the Chamber. We probably disagree about the OBR’s role, but I hope he recognises the benefit of one of the changes to what the OBR will do that the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget. As I said to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) a few moments ago, although the OBR is required to produce two forecasts a year, the Chancellor has announced that the spring forecast will not include an assessment against the fiscal rules, and the Government will not respond with fiscal policy.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I find it rather curious that Conservative Members have a lot to say about Hugh Dalton’s Budget in 1947, but so little to say about Liz Truss’s Budget in 2022.

[Dr Arthur]

Exactly. It is very curious.

All the staff in my office diligently followed Mr Speaker’s advice on cyber-security and the threat of foreign intervention in our IT, and it is right that we take these matters seriously. However, based on the reports we have seen, I am not convinced that the OBR had taken the same kinds of steps to protect its own systems. Were the OBR and other Government Departments and agencies offered this advice but just did not follow it, or has there been an oversight in how we are managing security right across Government?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that while Conservative Members are keen to raise points of history, they seem to be rewriting history when it comes to their last few years in office. He asks an important question about cyber-security. The Government will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and the OBR to take forward the OBR report’s recommendation that a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events be carried out. For the avoidance of doubt, I should reiterate that the report found no evidence of hostile cyber-activity, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that information security and cyber-security are important for all of us across Government. Indeed, that was reflected in the spending review.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

For the first time in its history, the OBR was forced to correct the record about the forecasting process in the run-up to the Budget. Is not the reason that the Chancellor selectively leaked information from the OBR to mislead the public and justify tax rises?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can rephrase that: the Chancellor inadvertently misled the public to justify those tax rises.

[James Murray]

The OBR set out in black and white that the productivity downgrade reduced tax receipts by £16 billion, and identified the cause of that downgrade as the previous Government’s record in office, whether their slashing of public investment or their mishandling of Brexit. In her speech on 4 November, the Chancellor was clear that this productivity downgrade, combined with the clear need to increase headroom to build resilience in the public finances, would require everyone to make a contribution. That is what happened at the Budget.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was disappointed, as were my constituents, by the botched and premature release of the Budget on the OBR website, and I welcome the news that the OBR is welcoming in an expert in cyber-security. I sincerely hope that it is not the Leader of the Opposition—who, as we know, has form with accessing websites improperly. After all, the Conservatives really could not do without her.

My question is about the cyber-security expert reporting back. When do the Government expect to hear back, and can we be assured that, in the interim, the OBR has got its security systems into the shape they need to be in?

[James Murray]

The Government take this matter very seriously indeed and will move urgently to take forward that recommendation of the report, working with the National Cyber Security Centre. Cyber-security is an important matter for the OBR, and indeed for all Government Departments and bodies all year round, but the forecast is especially market sensitive, so it is particularly important to ensure that it is not published prematurely. That is why we take so seriously what happened last week, what seems to have happened in the spring, and what may even have happened at previous fiscal events.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The OBR’s assessments have an incredible impact on households and businesses in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the whole United Kingdom. Can the Minister please outline what steps will be taken to ensure full transparency around this resignation and to safeguard trust in the OBR’s future work, so that public confidence in our economy is in no way undermined?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the importance of trust, and not just in the economy but in the public finances. In the Government’s view, the OBR’s role is a critical part of that trust. It is because of that role that the OBR plays in our robust and transparent fiscal framework that we take the premature release of this information so seriously and are following up the matters it raises so urgently.