The paper says that Professor David Miles of the OBR’s budget responsibility committee told MPs on the Treasury select committee on Tuesday that the watchdog had raised the issue of leaks with the department before the chancellor’s statement last week.
Rather ironic considering the OBR then leaked the whole budget, but still a valid criticism despite that faux pas:
“I think it was clear that there was lots of information appearing in the press which perhaps wouldn’t normally be out there and that this wasn’t from our point of view particularly helpful,” he said.
He added: “We made it clear that they were not helpful and that we weren’t in a position of course to put them right.”
Miles was appearing before the committee after the OBR chair, Richard Hughes, resigned on Monday, taking responsibility for the inadvertent release of its budget documents about an hour before Rachel Reeves stood up to announce her tax and spending plans.
The prime minister’s official spokesperson insisted on Tuesday that the watchdog’s chair had not been pushed. “It’s categorically untrue that Richard Hughes was forced to go,” he said. “The chancellor has written to Richard and thanked him for leading the OBR and his many years dedicated to public service.”
As well as the premature budget release, Hughes’s departure also followed the publication on Friday of a letter that took what he called the “unusual step” of spelling out the evolution of the OBR’s forecasts over time, prompting a furious row about Reeves’s account of the backdrop to her budget decisions.
Miles said the letter was published because the watchdog felt the public had received a false impression, which was “damaging to the OBR and to the process”.
However, he denied that, as opposition politicians have claimed, the OBR’s letter showed Reeves was misleading in her 4 November pre-budget speech, in which she underlined the perilous state of the public finances.
He said the OBR’s forecasts “didn’t suggest that the fiscal outlook was problem free” and described the margin for error, or headroom, on the chancellor’s fiscal rules, which was £4.2bn in the 31 October forecast, as a “sliver” and “wafer thin”.
“I don’t think it was misleading for the chancellor to say that the fiscal position was very challenging,” he said.
However, Miles did highlight two “misconceptions” – the idea that the OBR had shifted the time period over which it assesses the yields on government bonds, perhaps under pressure from government; or that its forecasts had swung dramatically at the last minute, affecting Labour’s decision-making.
He told MPs there was “a view that the OBR’s forecasts were wildly fluctuating in the process both leading up to the pre-measures forecast, and perhaps after it as well, and that that had made the budget process more chaotic than it otherwise would have been”.
His evidence also flatly contradicted a government briefing on 14 November, as markets reacted to news that Reeves had dropped plans to raise income tax, which suggested that decision resulted from improved forecasts.
“There seemed to be a misconception that there seemed to have been some good news, and I’m not sure where that came from: it didn’t exist,” he told the committee.
“What had happened is that the forecast for headroom had gradually improved a little bit in the run-up to 31 October” (when the final ‘pre-measures’ forecast was sent to Reeves).
What seems clear from this evidence is that the concerted witch-hunt by the right wing press, suggesting that Rachel Reeves misled the public is far from reality, however it does appear true that the whole run-up to the budget was mismanaged.
As Miles told the Treasury committee, the slew of leaks may have hit economic growth by exaggerating consumer and business uncertainty, which “may well have been exacerbated by leaks which some days seemed to be suggesting one thing and the next day something different”, adding: “I don’t think that can have helped.”
Let's hope lessons are learned.
“I think it was clear that there was lots of information appearing in the press which perhaps wouldn’t normally be out there and that this wasn’t from our point of view particularly helpful,” he said.
He added: “We made it clear that they were not helpful and that we weren’t in a position of course to put them right.”
Miles was appearing before the committee after the OBR chair, Richard Hughes, resigned on Monday, taking responsibility for the inadvertent release of its budget documents about an hour before Rachel Reeves stood up to announce her tax and spending plans.
The prime minister’s official spokesperson insisted on Tuesday that the watchdog’s chair had not been pushed. “It’s categorically untrue that Richard Hughes was forced to go,” he said. “The chancellor has written to Richard and thanked him for leading the OBR and his many years dedicated to public service.”
As well as the premature budget release, Hughes’s departure also followed the publication on Friday of a letter that took what he called the “unusual step” of spelling out the evolution of the OBR’s forecasts over time, prompting a furious row about Reeves’s account of the backdrop to her budget decisions.
Miles said the letter was published because the watchdog felt the public had received a false impression, which was “damaging to the OBR and to the process”.
However, he denied that, as opposition politicians have claimed, the OBR’s letter showed Reeves was misleading in her 4 November pre-budget speech, in which she underlined the perilous state of the public finances.
He said the OBR’s forecasts “didn’t suggest that the fiscal outlook was problem free” and described the margin for error, or headroom, on the chancellor’s fiscal rules, which was £4.2bn in the 31 October forecast, as a “sliver” and “wafer thin”.
“I don’t think it was misleading for the chancellor to say that the fiscal position was very challenging,” he said.
However, Miles did highlight two “misconceptions” – the idea that the OBR had shifted the time period over which it assesses the yields on government bonds, perhaps under pressure from government; or that its forecasts had swung dramatically at the last minute, affecting Labour’s decision-making.
He told MPs there was “a view that the OBR’s forecasts were wildly fluctuating in the process both leading up to the pre-measures forecast, and perhaps after it as well, and that that had made the budget process more chaotic than it otherwise would have been”.
His evidence also flatly contradicted a government briefing on 14 November, as markets reacted to news that Reeves had dropped plans to raise income tax, which suggested that decision resulted from improved forecasts.
“There seemed to be a misconception that there seemed to have been some good news, and I’m not sure where that came from: it didn’t exist,” he told the committee.
“What had happened is that the forecast for headroom had gradually improved a little bit in the run-up to 31 October” (when the final ‘pre-measures’ forecast was sent to Reeves).
What seems clear from this evidence is that the concerted witch-hunt by the right wing press, suggesting that Rachel Reeves misled the public is far from reality, however it does appear true that the whole run-up to the budget was mismanaged.
As Miles told the Treasury committee, the slew of leaks may have hit economic growth by exaggerating consumer and business uncertainty, which “may well have been exacerbated by leaks which some days seemed to be suggesting one thing and the next day something different”, adding: “I don’t think that can have helped.”
Let's hope lessons are learned.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.