MPs urge Treasury to strengthen OBR safeguards before Budget

Cross-party MPs have warned the Treasury that the Office for Budget Responsibility should be protected from political pressure, not recast as the source of ministers’ fiscal constraints, as the government prepares for its next Budget.

In a report published on 23 September 2026, the Commons Treasury Committee rejected immediate fundamental reform of the fiscal watchdog’s role and independence. It warned that the current economic context is precisely when an independent fiscal voice needs protection.¹

Instead, the committee proposed a more parliamentary form of pressure: an additional 10-year OBR forecast, formal Commons time to debate the watchdog’s long-range Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report, and a government response within two months, by 23 November 2026.¹⁷

The report, HC 15 for the 2026–27 session, was published at 00:01 on 23 September and concludes the committee’s inquiry into “The OBR: 15 years on”.² Its recommendations are aimed at HM Treasury, leaving ministers with a clear procedural question: will they accept tighter scrutiny that could make short-term fiscal choices more visible to Parliament before the Budget?

The committee’s central move

The committee’s argument is deliberately two-sided. MPs did not endorse removing the OBR from its current role in the fiscal framework, despite evidence questioning whether too much weight is placed on its forecasts. But they also concluded that the current five-year horizon may encourage ministers and commentators to focus too narrowly on immediate “headroom” against fiscal rules.¹

Their answer is a supplementary 10-year forecast. It would sit alongside the existing five-year forecast and, according to the committee’s announcement, would not determine whether the government meets its current fiscal rules.³

That distinction matters. MPs are not proposing a new binding test for the Chancellor. They are asking for an additional analytical tool that could show whether policies with costs today might deliver benefits beyond the current fiscal-rule window.

The committee also wants the government to allocate parliamentary time to debate the OBR’s Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report, which examines longer-term pressures and includes 50-year projections.³ That would move a report often consumed by specialists into the Commons timetable, giving MPs a regular opportunity to connect Budget decisions with demographic, debt, climate, health and other long-range fiscal pressures.

“Do not blame the messenger”

The report’s political message is that ministers remain responsible for fiscal rules and policy choices. The OBR forecasts, costs policies and assesses compliance with the framework; it does not set the rules or decide whether a Chancellor changes taxes, borrowing or spending.¹

Treasury Committee chair Dame Meg Hillier said the OBR is sometimes portrayed as holding “a stranglehold” over ministers, but argued that its forecasts become more salient when governments operate with very limited fiscal room.³

Her point goes to the Westminster stakes: if ministers dislike the constraints revealed by an OBR forecast, the committee says they should explain their fiscal framework rather than weaken the institution measuring it.

External coverage echoed that position. Public Finance framed the committee’s warning as a call to protect the OBR’s role and independence while public finances remain constrained.⁵ Ayes To The Right described the proposed 10-year forecast as an addition to, not a replacement for, the five-year assessment used for the fiscal rules.⁶

Why the 10-year forecast matters

The most important practical effect of a 10-year forecast would be political rather than mechanical. If accepted, it would give MPs, the Treasury and the media another reference point when assessing whether Budget decisions are designed mainly to pass current fiscal tests or to improve the public finances over a longer horizon.

The committee heard evidence that some policies may have effects in years six to 10 that are not visible within the five-year window.¹ That is the committee’s opening for longer-term scrutiny.

An infrastructure, skills, health, welfare or tax-administration measure could look costly within the Budget scorecard but more defensible over a decade. Some savings, by contrast, could look less durable when projected further out.

The proposal also exposes a tension in the fiscal framework. The more Westminster debate revolves around narrow headroom against a rule, the greater the incentive for ministers to make decisions that satisfy the test date rather than the underlying sustainability problem.

A supplementary 10-year forecast would not remove that incentive. But it would give MPs a published basis for asking whether a Budget is merely compliant or genuinely sustainable.

Parliament seeks a bigger role

The procedural significance is that the Treasury Committee is trying to shape the accountability architecture around the OBR without rewriting the watchdog’s mandate. Select committees cannot force the Treasury to accept their recommendations, but government departments are expected to respond to committee reports. The report says the government has two months to reply.¹

The Accountability Index, which tracks select committee recommendations, records HM Treasury as the responsible department and lists 23 November 2026 as the response deadline.⁷ It also says no response data was available when its tracker entry was published.⁷

That creates a near-term Westminster test. A supportive Treasury response could commit to talks with the OBR on resourcing and methodology for a 10-year supplement, and to finding parliamentary time for debate on the Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report.

A resistant response could argue that the current framework already provides sufficient long-range analysis, or that additional forecasts risk overstating certainty. A partial response could accept the principle while delaying implementation until after the Budget.

The OBR’s initial reaction

The OBR did not publicly push back against the committee’s conclusions. Jonathan Haskel, chair of the Budget Responsibility Committee, welcomed the report, thanked Dame Meg Hillier and the committee, and said the watchdog would carefully consider the conclusions while continuing engagement with Parliament.⁴

That reaction keeps the institutional focus on the Treasury. The committee has signalled that the OBR’s independence should be preserved and that additional transparency should come through forecasts and parliamentary debate. The watchdog has said it will consider the recommendations.

Ministers now have until 23 November 2026 to say whether they will accept the committee’s model of stronger scrutiny.

What to watch by 23 November

The government response will show whether the Treasury is willing to give Parliament more structured opportunities to scrutinise fiscal sustainability outside the immediate Budget drama.

Three points will matter most. First, whether ministers explicitly endorse the committee’s defence of OBR independence. Second, whether they accept a 10-year supplementary forecast in principle, including any timetable and resource implications. Third, whether they agree to provide Commons time for debate on the Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report, making long-term fiscal risk a recurring parliamentary event rather than a specialist publication.

If ministers accept those steps, the committee will have used the OBR’s 15-year mark to strengthen the watchdog’s role while broadening scrutiny beyond the five-year fiscal-rule window.

If they resist, MPs will have a clear follow-up question before the Budget: why should Parliament accept the government’s fiscal framework without the additional tools needed to test whether it rewards short-term compliance over long-term resilience?