In a dramatic turn for the UK’s fiscal watchdog, Richard Hughes has resigned as chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) following what has been described as the “worst failure” in the organisation’s 15-year history—a leak that exposed Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s Budget nearly an hour before her scheduled speech in the House of Commons. The fallout from this breach has sent ripples through government, financial markets, and the wider political landscape, raising questions about transparency, accountability, and the future independence of the OBR.
The saga began on November 26, 2025, when the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, a highly sensitive document detailing the government’s fiscal plans, was accidentally published online between 11:30am and 12:08pm. According to the OBR’s internal report, the document was accessed 43 times by 32 unique users during this window. The first successful access came at 11:35am—by a user who had already attempted to break through over 30 times. Just six minutes later, Reuters published key details from the Budget, well before Reeves had a chance to present it to Parliament. The OBR’s report, released on December 1, 2025, confirmed that this was not an isolated incident; previous leaks had occurred within the OBR but had gone undetected, fueling concerns about systemic vulnerabilities under Hughes’s leadership (as reported by Financial Times).
The watchdog’s internal inquiry did not mince words, branding the episode as a failure of leadership and online security. “The ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR,” the report stated. “It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR. It was seriously disruptive to the Chancellor, who had every right to expect that the Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) would not be publicly available until she sat down at the end of her Budget speech, when it should, as is usual, have been published alongside the Treasury’s explanatory Red Book.”
In his resignation letter, Richard Hughes expressed deep regret, stating he needed to “play my part in enabling the organisation that I have loved leading for the past five years to quickly move on from this regrettable incident.” Taking full responsibility, Hughes added, “I have, therefore, decided it is in the best interest of the OBR for me to resign as chair and take full responsibility to the shortcomings identified in the report.”
The inquiry rejected any suggestion that the leak was the result of a hostile cyber attack. Instead, it found that the weaknesses which allowed the breach were “pre-existing” and recommended that the OBR’s website be moved into the government’s digital architecture—a step already taken by many other independent bodies. The government has announced it will work with the National Cyber Security Centre to conduct a forensic examination of other fiscal events to ensure no further breaches have occurred, as confirmed by James Murray, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons.
Murray did not hide his frustration over the incident, calling it “a very serious breach of highly sensitive information” and “a discourtesy to this House.” He emphasized the importance of urgent action, saying, “We will make sure that work is carried out urgently.” He also pointed out that the number of access attempts suggested the individual responsible “had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point.”
The political fallout has been swift and fierce. Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition, accused the OBR of a “serious error” in publishing the document early, while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed Labour was using Hughes as a “human shield.” The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson called the episode a “catastrophic error” that the OBR must learn from. Meanwhile, James Murray publicly thanked Hughes for his dedication to public service, a sentiment echoed by other government officials.
Yet, as The Guardian and The Times reported, the leak was only the latest flashpoint in a fraught relationship between the OBR and the government. Tensions had been simmering for some time, with Hughes known for fiercely defending the OBR’s independence and refusing to credit government “pro-growth” policies unless they had a material impact on the economy. “We’ll still be producing two full economic and fiscal forecasts looking five years out, twice a year, now and in the spring,” Hughes told reporters. “But with this change of legislation, the government doesn’t feel obliged to respond to those forecasts with policy in the spring. It’ll be more like a health check on the economy and the public finances. There’ll be no loss of transparency from the forecast documentation that we’ll produce.”
This balancing act—between independence and political pressure—has long defined the OBR’s role. Some critics on both the right and left have accused the watchdog of being either an agent of austerity or an arm of a so-called “woke deep state.” Others, including Cabinet ministers, have bristled at the OBR’s new powers, such as its decision to cost the ballooning expenses of special educational needs in England, which sparked internal government backlash.
Hughes, for his part, denied that the OBR’s 35-member forecasting group was too powerful. “The powers given to us are those given to us by Parliament in an Act of Parliament, and that’s to produce a forecast. Chancellors set their own targets. They set their own policies. Chancellors are in charge of £1.5 trillion worth of revenue and £1.5 trillion worth of spending. If they don’t want to meet their targets, they can change them, which we’ve seen chancellors do in the past as well. All we do is produce a baseline forecast, cost government policies when they give them to us, and we give them an assessment about whether we’re up there, in line and on track to meet those targets,” Hughes explained.
As the dust settles, attention now turns to the future of the OBR. The Chancellor faces the delicate task of appointing a new chair—someone seen as both respected and fiercely independent. Any hint of political interference could rattle markets and undermine the OBR’s credibility, potentially raising government borrowing costs. The Financial Times notes that the list of potential successors will be closely watched for any sign of a departure from the OBR’s established model.
For now, the episode serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of robust digital security, clear lines of accountability, and the delicate balance between independent oversight and political realities. Richard Hughes’s resignation marks the end of a turbulent chapter for the OBR, but the questions it raises about trust, transparency, and the future of fiscal scrutiny in the UK are far from settled.
