Spending Round 2013 - Treasury Contents


6  Release of Budget information

71. Prior to the Chancellor's Budget statement to the House, the London Evening Standard released an image on Twitter of its front page for that day. This included potentially market-sensitive information on the public finances, economic growth and duty changes. The image was subsequently removed and the Evening Standard's editor apologised to the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means.

72. In our Budget 2013 sessions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that "the practice that has gone on can't continue because of what happened."[168] Following the disclosure, the Chancellor requested that Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, conduct a review of the practice of pre-releasing information to journalists.[169] In his report, published on the day of our hearing with the Chancellor, Sir Nicholas concluded that:

    Recent practice in relation to pre-release of Budget information on Budget day appears to have been the product of a process of evolution. This has led, without any single strategic decision, to an increase in the amount of information being provided.

    Each of the individual decisions that led to this appears to have been made for good reason. Nonetheless the fact that the change occurred in a piecemeal fashion meant that the overall risk was not assessed. Moreover, while the pre-release was under strict embargo terms, these were uncodified and meant that the Treasury did not have a clear line of sight to, or control over, the risk management within media organisations. With the benefit of hindsight, this was unsatisfactory.[170]

73. The review states that because practice evolved piecemeal, once a behaviour had begun there was no ability to reverse it. Sir Nicholas describes in his report a "ratchet effect", whereby it was difficult to make a case for reversing a practice of pre-releasing certain information if this had not had an adverse impact.

74. When we considered this matter in our Report on Budget 2013, we recommended that "there should be no Treasury pre-releasing of Budget information, even in secure conditions."[171] Sir Nicholas, however, drew a distinction in his report between core and non-core information, recommending that:

    the Treasury introduces a ban on the pre-release of the core of the Budget (and Autumn Statement), that is: the economic and fiscal projections, the fiscal judgement and individual taxes, reliefs and allowances.[172]

In evidence to the Committee, the Chancellor said that:

    the central recommendation, which I accept in full, is that the Treasury introduces a ban on the pre-release of the core of the Budget and the autumn statement—that is, the economic and fiscal projections, the fiscal judgement, individual tax rates, reliefs and allowances. I am confident, as I think is Sir Nicholas, that this will prevent a repeat of what happened and the disservice that that did to Parliament.[173]

Asked what the justification was for the pre-release of non-core information, the Chancellor said that:

    I think it is perfectly reasonable, in the modern age, to try to explain the context in which a Budget happens. We no longer have the closed economy of the 1950s, when the Budget was the be-all and end-all. The Budget is one of a number of economic statements that we make during the year. It has been perfectly reasonable for myself, for Alistair Darling and for others to try to explain the context in which the Budget is happening, just as Government Ministers constantly seek to explain the context in which Government policy is made.[174]

75. Sir Nicholas offered no justification in his report for confining the ban on the pre-release of Budget information to "core" information, and the Committee is not convinced that a clear distinction between core and non-core information can always be drawn. The scope that exists for politically motivated judgements about whether data is core or non-core could be subject to abuse. There would also be scope for other information to be released principally for reasons of obtaining good coverage rather than in order to explain the "context" of the Budget. In addition, allowing the Government to pre-brief on certain topics, without the "core" data, leaves room for the Government to manage the message of Budgets and Autumn Statements to an unacceptable degree.

76. There is no public interest in pre-releasing Budget and Autumn Statement information, whether Ministers classify it as "core" information or not. The Treasury should not pre-release the Budget or Autumn Statement.

77. Sir Nicholas also stated that:

    the review focused largely on the activities of permanent civil servants rather than special advisers, since the evidence showed that the practice of pre-release was generally the preserve of permanent officials.[175]

78. The fact that special advisers were not included within the scope of the investigation merely increases the chance that pre-briefing and leaks may migrate to special advisers. For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee recommends that the prohibition on pre-briefing also include special advisers and Ministers.



168   Oral evidence to the Treasury Committee, Budget 2013, 26 March 2013, HC 1063-iii, Q 452 Back

169   HM Treasury, Review into the pre-release of Budget information, July 2013 Back

170   HM Treasury, Review into the pre-release of Budget information, July 2013, p 13 Back

171   Treasury Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2012-13, Budget 2013, HC 1063, p 92 Back

172   HM Treasury, Review into the pre-release of Budget information, July 2013, p 13 Back

173   Uncorrected oral evidence to the Treasury Committee, Spending Round 2013, 11 July 2012, HC 575-ii, Q 206 Back

174   Uncorrected oral evidence to the Treasury Committee, Spending Round 2013, 11 July 2012, HC 575-ii, Q 208 Back

175   HM Treasury, Review into the pre-release of Budget information, July 2013, p 3 Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 19 September 2013