‘Mortified’ OBR chief Richard Hughes prepared to resign if Reeves loses confidence in him over Budget leak
An “outside party” may have accessed the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) assessment of Rachel Reeves’ budget, but its early publication is not thought to be a cyber attack.
The Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) document was published online more than half an hour before the Chancellor announced his budget; This was a significant error that led OBR chairman Richard Hughes to immediately launch an investigation.
Mr Hughes, who appointed a cyber security expert to investigate the incident, said he would be prepared to resign if he lost the confidence of the Chancellor and the Treasury Committee.
The OBR said at this stage there was no reason to believe there had been a cyber attack leading to the disclosure of the document, which would not normally have been published until after the Chancellor had completed his Budget statement.
Mr Hughes said he was “embarrassed” by the situation, telling a Resolution Foundation event: “A link to our EFO document was inadvertently made available to the public before the Chancellor’s statement was concluded on the date it is usually published.
“It was not published on our website, but there was a link that someone managed to find, which made it available and it was subsequently distributed. We took action to remove it as soon as it was discovered.”
Mr Hughes wrote to the Chancellor and the chair of the House of Commons Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, to apologize and take “full responsibility for what happened”.
An investigation has been launched, with expert input from Professor Ciaran Martin, former head of the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC), which will “determine the actions required to ensure this incident does not happen again”.
Mr Hughes said: “I am personally ashamed of what has happened. “We take budget security incredibly seriously so this investigation is currently ongoing and will be reported back very promptly at the beginning of next week.
“Personally, I serve on a day-to-day basis, subject to the confidence of the Chancellor and the Treasury Committee. If both of them conclude in the light of this investigation that they no longer trust me, then of course I will resign, which is what you do when you’re head of something called the Office for Budget Responsibility.”
The NCSC is not currently investigating the circumstances surrounding the publication of the report, and when asked whether Mr Hughes suggested there might have been a cyber attack, the OBR said they had “no reason to believe that this was the case”.
The OBR has previously said the reason for the document’s early publication was a “technical error” within the organisation.
Ms Reeves said she retained confidence in Mr Hughes despite the leak, which she said “should never happen again”, but admitted her anger was “at its highest level” when she learned of it ahead of the Budget in the House of Commons.
The chancellor told Sky News: “Richard Hughes wrote to me last night apologizing for his mistakes. This was a serious mistake, a serious breach.”
“They announced an investigation that will report back to me very quickly.
“But I have confidence in Richard and the OBR. They are doing important work. But I am disappointed by what happened yesterday and it should not have happened and must never happen again.”
Asked how angry he was, he told LBC Radio it was at the “higher end” of the 1 to 10 scale.
Meanwhile, Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, wrote to Mr Hughes about a section in the watchdog’s document stating that he had written to her about the forecast, but she said she had not received that letter.
The foreword to the OBR’s forecast said: “Given the unusual volume of speculation on the subject prior to the publication of this EFO, the Chairman has taken the unusual step of writing to the Chairman of the House of Commons Treasury Committee to set out the facts about the development of our forecast over the last four months.
“A copy of this letter is available on our website.”
In a letter to Mr Hughes on Thursday, Dame Meg said: “The foreword to your last Economic and Financial Outlook referred to a letter to be sent by you to me to ‘set out the facts as to the development of your forecast over the last four months’.
“I have not received that letter. Can you please send me a copy of this letter as originally intended as soon as possible?”
“In accordance with the committee’s usual practice, I will make this letter and your response public in due course.”
