Siobhain McDonagh (Lab) goes next. She asks if it is unfair for the £20,000 full cash Isa allowance to be preserved for people aged 65 or older, but not for younger people, who will have a cash Isa allowance of £12,000, and who will have to put the other £8,000 of their Isa allowance into stocks and shares. She suggests that is unfair to young people.
Reeves says she does not think there are many young people who can put £20,000 a year into an Isa.
She says the Treasury decided to exempt people aged 65 or over from the new restrictions because, at that age, people might need to be able to withdraw Isa savings quickly. She says the policy is intended to encourage other savers to put more money into stocks and shares, where value will build up more over time.
Reeves rejects claim raising income tax would have been more progressive than threshold freeze
John Glen (Con) asks how Reeves can say she has not breached the Labour manifesto.
Reeves says the manifesto clearly referred to rates of income tax, national insurance and VAT.
Q; Do you accept increasing the headline rate of income tax would be more progressive than freezing thresholds?
This is a claim made by the Resolution Foundation.
Reeves says she does not accept that.
Here is the Resolution Foundation chart showing why an income tax rise would have been more progressive.
Jim Dickson (Lab) is asking the questions now.
Q: Are you worried about the impact of your measures on the squeezed middle?
Reeves says this is the first time Dickson (MP for Dartford) has spoken to her without mentioning the Lower Thames Crossing (which the government is backing).
She accepts that she has asked everyone to make a contribution.
Bobby Dean (Lib Dem) comes in on this topic.
Q: Would it be a good idea for the Treasury distributional analysis to look at the impact of measures on the richest 1%, or the richest 0.1%.
Reeves says it is hard to get data on the very richest, because it is a small group of people.
Yuan Yang asks about special educational needs and disabilities (Send) provision costs.
Reeves says the OBR figures on this assumed that the costs would be absorbed just within one budget. That will not happen, she says.
She says the Send review will deliver a system that works for families, children and schools. The education secretary is leading on this.
She says too many parents are let down by the Send system. MPs know this from the postbag they get. “The system just doesn’t work,” she says. She says her mum was as special needs teacher when Reeves was young. But she became a classroom teacher instead because, even then, special needs education was being cut.
Bobby Dean (Lib Dem) goes next.
Q: Do you accept that you had too little headroom in your spring statement?
Reeves says she cannot remember other parties (like Dean’s) calling for higher taxes at the time. She thinks she got it right.
But the headroom has been increased to £21.7bn, she says.
Yuan Yang (Lab) goes next.
Q: The OBR decided this year to use a higher threshold for deciding whether or not a policy will lead to higher growth. Did they consult you about that?
Reeves says what matters most is not how the OBR scores policies but whether or not they actually promote growth.
She lists a string of measures which she says will lead to higher growth, including the three trade deals, which she says she thinks will have “a significant impact”.
John Glen is also asking about spending. He says the budget implies there will be very tough spending settlements outside health, defence and education.
Reeves says the spending settlements have been decided. She says departments are always under pressure.
Q: But, outside defence, health and education, settlements will be as tough as they were between 2010 and 2015 (in the George Osborne austerity era).
Reeves says there was an uplift in spending when the government came into office.
Reeves rejects claim budget contains unrealistic plans to restrict public spending at end of decade
John Grady (Lab) is asking the questions now. He asks Reeves how she responds to the claims from economists that the retraction in government spending she has pencilled in for the end of the decade is realistic. Do you believe those economists are wrong?
Reeves says she believes in the numbers in her budget.
This is what Faisal Islam, the BBC’s economics editor, is saying about Reeves’s comment about the revenue boost to the Treasury from higher inflation. (See 10.21am.)
Chancellor is saying that the OBR’s productivity downgrade was different to the inflation-linked buoyancy of tax revenues…
Suggests that Treasury caution would have accounted for the full hit from productivity, but have been more cautious about banking an inflation-linked revenue boost, especially before the measures were costed… essentially a defence of the Nov 4th scene setter speech focus on productivity downgrade.
Reeves rules out putting capital gains tax on primary residences, and moving to pensions 'single lock'
Baldwin says Reeves chose not to put pro-growth measures in the budget.
Reeves says she does not accept that. That is not what she said, she says. She cites measures such as the decision to go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow as growth measures.
Q: Do you accept that your pre-budget comments led to businesses putting investment on hold?
Reeves says the previous government raised taxes to a record high.
She says she has returned stability to the economy.
Interest rates have been cut, she says. She says under Liz Truss, who Baldwin “may not want to remember”, interest rates went through the roof.
Baldwin says last year she asked Reeves if she was looking at changing council tax, or road prices. Reeves told the committee she was not looking at those. Baldwin says she would argue the budget shows Reeves is doing those things.
Baldwin asks Reeves to rule out putting capital gains tax on primary residences, or moving to a single lock for state pensions, in this parliament.
Reeves does rule those out.
Updated
Harriett Baldwin (Con) goes next.
She says there were no measures in the budget to boost growth.
Reeves does not accept that. She says the growth forecast has gone up for 2025.
Reeves says decision not to raise income tax taken by her and Starmer 'as a team'
John Glen (Con) goes next. He says he cannot see what new “data points” the chancellor had between 4 November, when the chancellor gave her speech implying income tax would go up, and 13 November, when the FT said that plan had been dropped. He says the forecasts from the OBR imply those data points had not changed.
Reeves says the published forecast figures were not the only relevant data points. She says there were also OBR costings for proposed policies.
As you’ll know from your time at the Treasury, pre-measures is not the final word from the Office for Budget Responsibility, because then you have post-measures forecasts.
They take into account the policy decisions that we take as a government on tax and spend … so there was plenty of additional information being shared between the OBR and the Treasury between 30 October and major measures one and indeed major measures two.
Q: What changed between 4 November and 13 November?
Reeves says she was clear on 4 November that everyone would have to contribute.
She claims that was not a breach of the manifesto.
Q: The manifesto said you would not raises taxes for working people?
Reeves ignores this point, and says she was clear in her speech on 4 November on the need to build more headroom into the plan, and on the need for everyone to contribute.
She says they did look at putting up income tax.
But they were able to keep the contribution from working people as low as possible.
Q: Who made the decision?
Reeves says she was meeting the PM two or three times a week at this point. They decided this “as a team”, because that is what they are.
UPDATE: Reeves said:
The prime minister and I met two, three times a week during the budget process. That is not always the case between chancellors and prime ministers. I recognise that. But there is a very close partnership between myself and the prime minister. And so we took him through all of the numbers and all of the options and we decided it together as a team, because that is what the prime minister and I am.
Updated
Q: Will you publish your leak inquiry findings?
Bowler says he will publish the findings of his review of budget security.
But he does not commit to publishing the inquiry findings.
Hillier says her committee would like to see those findings anyway. She says her committee does not leak.
Before the budget, the Treasury had higher revenues than expected because of inflation.
But Reeves says she did not regard that as good news. The government wants lower inflation, she says.
Q: You told the BBC on 10 November that you could keep your manifesto commitments, but that would need deep cuts to capital spending. Which option did you choose?
Reeves says she said everyone would have to make a contribution. But she kept that to a minimum.
Q: So of those two options, which did you choose? Or did you choose other options?
Reeves says there are always other options.
By freezing the thresholds, she asked everyone to contribute.
She says the Tories froze thresholds for seven years. She has frozen them for another three years.
Reeves is now being asked about the leak to the Financial Times on 13 November saying that Reeves had dropped plans to raise income tax in the budget.
Reeves claims some aspects of the story were misleading.
She says it contained some inaccurate information and an inaccurate picture of her budget strategy. It implied that she had given up elements of her plan, including wanting to raise extra headroom.
She says that was why No 10 issued a statement.
Hillier says the story was written by George Parker, the FT’s political editor. She says he is very experienced. His story said his information came from someone briefed on Reeves’s plans.
Reeves says the leak was definitely not authorised. It was a leak; it was not a briefing to the press.
Bowler tells the committee the inquiry will definitely have to intensify its security in relation to budget information.
Reeves says the Treasury will soon advertise for a replacement for Richard Hughes as chair of the OBR. But that will probably start after Christmas, she says.
Reeves says there were 'too many leaks' ahead of budget, but procedures being reviewed, and leak inquiry underway
The Treasury committee is starting.
Meg Hillier, the chair, starts.
Q: Does the resignation of Richard Hughes as chair of the OBR show that, when an organisation makes a mistake, the honourable thing is for the leader to resign?
Rachel Reeves starts by paying tribute to Hughes.
She says leaks are unacceptable.
The budget had too much speculation. There were too many leaks. And much of that leaks and speculation was inaccurate.
Reeves says she wants to state how frustrated she is about this.
She is doing something about this.
A leak inquiry is underway.
A review of Treasury physical security procedures is under way, she says.
And she says the National cybersecurity Centre has been asked to do a forensic examination of the way the recent OBR report was accessed. She says that will be published.
James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, says the National Cybersecurity Centre review will also look at how the March OBR report was accessed early. He says a media organisation has said it did that.
UPDATE: Reeves said:
I am grateful as well to have the opportunity to make a statement and to reiterate in the strongest terms that leaks are unacceptable.
The budget had too much speculation. There were too many leaks, and much of that, those leaks and speculation, were inaccurate, very damaging, as well as the IT security issues … The OBR’s report also noted that the spring statement had been accessed early as well.
I want to say on the record how frustrated I am and have been by these incidents and the volume of speculation and leaks, and that is why I am doing something about it, because we cannot allow this to happen again.
A leak inquiry is under way with my full support, being led by the permanent secretary at the Treasury, and we are also conducting a review of the Treasury security processes to inform future fiscal events.
We also clearly need to look explicitly at physical IT security.
The Treasury have asked the National Centre for Cybersecurity to undertake a forensic examination of recent economic and financial outlooks.
The outcome of that review, of course, will be public, and we’ll write to you with the outcomes of that review.
Updated
Lammy says Council of Europe 'heading for politcal declaration' on ECHR
David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, is in Strasbourg this morning for a Council of Europe meeting where reform of the way the European convention on human rights is interpreted will be discussed.
Here is our overnight preview story by Pippa Crerer and Rajeev Syal.
And this is what Lammy said this morning, according to a Sky News report.
I’m very pleased that the initial conversations that I have had with now well over 20 member states [has] demonstrated that, on the way that some of these issues have been interpreted in member countries, we can achieve consensus and we can arrive at a political declaration that chimes with our respective populations.
We’re heading for a political declaration, and I’m very pleased to be here to kick off that process.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will start giving evidence to the Treasury committee at 10am. She will appear alongside James Bowler, permanent secretary at the Treasury, and Dharmesh Nayee, its director of strategy, planning and budget.
This is what the Treasury committee said in a news release about the topics it wants to cover.
Members are likely to examine the significant changes to the Treasury’s tax and spending plans, and potential implications for the economy, public services and government debt.
The chancellor is also expected to answer questions on topical issues, such as how her department handled the months leading up to the budget and the recently announced leak inquiry.
Starmer says £500m boost to youth services will give every child 'chance to thrive'
Keir Starmer has been tweeting this morning about the national youth strategy.
It’s our generation’s responsibility to break down barriers to opportunity for young people.
We’re investing in youth services so every child has the chance to thrive and we’re boosting apprenticeships so young people can see their talents take them as far as they can.
At the heart of the strategy is a plan to spend £500m boosting youth services. This is how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport summarises it.
-Build or refurbish up to 250 youth facilities over the next four years, as well as providing equipment for activities to around 2,500 youth organisations, through a new £350m ‘Better Youth Spaces’ programme. It will provide safe and welcoming spaces, offering young people somewhere to go, something meaningful to do, and someone who cares about their wellbeing.
-Launch a network of 50 Young Futures Hubs by March 2029 as part of a local transformation programme of £70m, providing access to youth workers and other professionals, supporting their wellbeing and career development and preventing them from harm.
-The first eight hubs to be operational by March 2026 are in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, County Durham, Nottingham, Bristol, Tower Hamlets, and Brighton and Hove.
-Support organisations in underserved areas to deliver high-quality youth work and activities through a ‘Richer Young Lives Fund’ worth over £60m.
-Boost young people’s wellbeing, personal development, and essential life skills through a new £22.5m programme of support around the school day in up to 400 schools.
-Recruit and train youth workers, volunteers and other trusted adults with £15 million of investment.
-Strengthen youth services through £5 million to improve local partnerships, better information sharing, and digital infrastructure, ensuring young people receive high-quality, safe, and effective support in their communities.
Nandy says she does not think Australian-style social media ban for teenagers could be enforced in UK
Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, was on the media round for the government this morning. She was there to talk about the new national youth strategy being published today. There is a news release about it here, the actual strategy is available here, and here is Pippa Crerar’s story about it, based on an interview with Nandy.
In the interview Nandy expressed scepticism about the UK followng Australia and banining under-16s from having social media accounts.
She has spoken more about that in her interviews this morning. She said the government is not totally ruling out doing something similar. Asked if the UK would follow Australia if the Australian ban is deemed a success, she told BBC Breakfast:
Yes, we certainly would consider it, not only if it worked, but if young people … believed that it was working and trusted that that was a solution.
But she also stressed that at this point the government is not minded to introduce a similar social media ban for teenagers. She told Times Radio:
We don’t think [this will be a good idea]. We asked young people what they thought about it, and the overwhelming response was concerns about enforceability.
Are we seriously saying that we’re going to start prosecuting young people for going on social media?
There’s also a real concern particularly amongst girls that if people can’t see the problem with behaviour online, they won’t be able to see the problem with behaviour in the real world.
What they really wanted was more education, more advice, and particularly someone who cared about them, who they could talk to, an adult who they could trust … to be able to navigate some of this.
Updated
Asylum overhaul in UK could lead to rise in homelessness and backlogs, says report
Shabana Mahmood’s radical plans to overhaul the asylum system could cause “unintended consequences” such as increased homelessness among people seeking refuge and growing case backlogs, Whitehall’s spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, has concluded. Rajeev Syal has the story.
Here is the NAO’s report. And here is its eight-page summary.
Rachel Reeves faces Treasury committee before Tory censure motion in Commons saying she misled voters about budget
Good morning. It is PMQs today, but Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is also facing intense scrutiny in the Commons today. She is giving evidence to the Treasury committee at 10am and then, from about 4pm, she will face a rare censure motion in the Commons.
Anyone who listens to Commons debates regularly will have heard an MP accuse another member of “misleading” people, only for the speaker to intervene to say they must have meant “unintentionally misleading”. Under rules intended to maintain decorum in debates, MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of lying, or anything similar. But there is an exception if whether or not a particular MP has lied is the actual subject of the debate.
And that is what is happening today. It is an opposition day, meaning the Conservative party can decide the motions to be debated, and it has tabled a censure motion urging Reeves “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”. There is no chance of the motion passing, but it does mean that for about three hours in the Commons in it will be open season on the chancellor.
Commenting on the motion, Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said:
Rachel Reeves has repeatedly misled the British public. She promised she wouldn’t raise taxes on working people - and then she did. She insisted there was a black hole in the public finances - and there wasn’t.
Rachel Reeves has put party before country, so today the Conservatives are giving MPs the chance to formally censure the Chancellor and call on her to apologise to families across the country.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The ONS publishes annual life expectancy figures.
Morning: David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, and Lord Hermer, the attorney general, attend a Council of Europe summit in Strasbourg to discuss migration and the European convention on human rights.
10am: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
After 12.30pm: MPs debate two Tory opposition days motions: first, one criticising the employment rights bill, and accusing the government of “making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult”; and then another urging Reeves “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”.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
