Rachel Reeves: There were too many Budget leaks

There were ‘too many leaks’ ahead of the autumn Budget, Rachel Reeves admitted this morning as she faced MPs on the Treasury Select Committee. The Chancellor acknowledged there had been ‘too much speculation’ before her statement last month which was ‘inaccurate [and] very damaging’.

Much of the scrutiny focused on reports that the Treasury had considered raising income tax, in what would have been a clear breach of Labour’s manifesto promises last year. In an unprecedented scene-setting speech on 4 November – three weeks before the Budget – Reeves dropped heavy hints about income tax rises. However, nine days later, it emerged this was not in fact going to happen, with positive forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) cited as the reason for the turnaround.

Defending her pre-Budget address, Reeves said she had wanted to exercise caution about an inflation-linked revenue boost. Quizzed on when exactly she had decided to make the U-turn on income tax, the Chancellor praised her ‘very close partnership’ with the Prime Minister and insisted that the decision was taken by her and Keir Starmer ‘as a team’.

On the OBR’s leak of her Budget measures less than an hour before she delivered her statement to the Commons, Reeves struggled to contain her anger. ‘I want to say on the record how frustrated I am and have been by these incidents and the volume of speculation and leaks,’ she told the committee. ‘That is why I am doing something about it, because we cannot allow this to happen again.’ She said the government has launched an inquiry to find out where the ‘unauthorised’ briefings came from, alongside a review of Treasury physical security procedures.

But the post-Budget scrutiny isn’t over yet. This afternoon, Reeves will face further questions in the Commons after the Tories tabled a censure motion calling on her ‘to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, rolling the pitch for raising taxes, breaking her promises and increasing welfare spending’. The motion is very unlikely to pass, but it is sure to offer more discomfort for the beleaguered Chancellor.