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 statementthat
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
|