Rachel Reeves' Spring Statement: The fallout at Westminster - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 82

News

Rachel Reeves' Spring Statement: The fallout at Westminster - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 82

21 Mar 2025

Is Rachel Reeves gearing up for a standard Spring Statement — or are we in emergency budget territory? In this episode we dig into what form next week’s parliamentary statement might take and why it may be more than just an economic update. We trace the history of the “one fiscal event” a year rule, explore the tough choices facing the Chancellor, and ask whether Parliament still has any real say over tax and spending. Plus, could post-legislative scrutiny finally be coming into its own?

LISTEN

In this episode, Ruth and Mark cut through the fiscal fog surrounding Rachel Reeves’ upcoming Spring Economic Statement — officially billed as a routine forecast update, but with growing signals it could be something much bigger. With whispers of an “emergency budget” and mounting pressure from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) latest projections, they weigh the procedural factors that will determine whether Reeves will take action now to meet her fiscal rules, or kick the tougher decisions down the road to the autumn Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review.

They also take a step back to explore how we got here. The current approach of having just one major fiscal event per year was introduced in 2016 by then-Chancellor Philip Hammond, aiming to bring predictability and control. But when long-term economic forecasts suggest those all-important fiscal rules are at risk — especially ones that stretch five years into the future — that system starts to show its cracks.

They also speak to Professor David Heald, who delivers a sobering assessment of how little control Parliament has over public finances — before spending takes place. He argues that the UK’s budget-setting process is executive-dominated and ripe for reform, but political incentives keep the status quo firmly in place.

Later, Ruth and Mark highlight an encouraging sign of reform: the growing use of post-legislative scrutiny, with the Football Governance Bill now including a statutory review clause. They reflect on how tools like these could support longer-term thinking in Parliament — if only they were used more systematically.

← Back to Parliament Matters homepage

Listen on our YouTube channel (captioned)

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Our guest

Professor David Heald

David Heald is Emeritus Professor and Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the Adam Smith Business School at the University of Glasgow, specialising in public sector accounting reform, public expenditure management, public audit, infrastructure financing, and financing devolved governments. Before becoming an academic, he qualified as a member of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and worked as a management accountant in the engineering and steel industries. Among his many public roles, he is a member of HM Treasury’s User and Preparer Advisory Group on government financial reporting and a former adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee.

Resources

Professor David Heald

Personal website

Hansard Society

How does Parliament authorise the Government's taxation plans? A procedural guide to the Budget process
How does Parliament approve Government spending? A procedural guide to the Estimates process

UK Parliament

Spring Statement 2025: Background briefing, House of Commons Library

Transcript

Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.

ntro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox

Mark D'Arcy: and I'm Mark D'Arcy. Coming up this week

Ruth Fox: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a spring statement or is it an emergency budget? What exactly might Rachel Reeves' big statement next week be and what might it mean?

Mark D'Arcy: Will MP's scrutiny of whatever the Chancellor announces make any difference or is that just all an empty ritual?

Ruth Fox: And is Parliament getting serious about how the laws it has already passed are working out?

Mark D'Arcy: But first Ruth, let's talk about Rachel Reeves [00:01:00] Spring Statement next week. It's actually the Spring Economic Announcement, or the Spring Forecast.

Ruth Fox: Spring forecast, yes.

Mark D'Arcy: Or something like that. It's supposed to be quite a low key event. It's supposed to be a kind of update based on the latest projections that have emerged from the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Slight course correction, nothing very big, just keeping you informed, guys, kind of deal. Not so much this time. Kemi Badenoch caused a bit of a furore at Prime Minister's Question Time this week when she referred to it quite deliberately as an emergency budget, implying that the government's being forced into making really serious changes because things have gone awry and their strategy isn't working, there was a roar of derision from Labour MPs.

But there is, I think, a bit of a graduation here that we've got to talk about. What's the difference between a statement, first of all, and a budget, or a mini budget, or an emergency budget, or any of the other possible identities that might be pinned on to the event that's due to happen next Wednesday?

Ruth Fox: Yeah, well, you've got to [00:02:00] go back, Mark, nearly 10 years, goodness, to sort of explain the history of this. So, in 2016, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer decided we should have just one fiscal event, as it's called, per year. So, one major event where they announced tax and spending changes. And that was going to be the budget

Mark D'Arcy: The then chancellor of the Exchequer was

Ruth Fox: Philip Hammond, I think. I wouldn't, I wouldn't swear by that, but I'm pretty sure it was Philip Hammond. He basically wanted one fiscal event, so there'd be autumn budget, and then in the spring there would be this forecast, this statement by the Chancellor, which would be solely a response to the second forecast in the year by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is the independent body that was established under the coalition years to provide independent authoritative analysis on the state of the public finances, the government's tax and spend plans and so on.

And it's proved a bit of a straitjacket around chancellors because it forecasts whether the government is going to meet its fiscal rules, which we'll come onto in a minute. But, for context, most countries only have one fiscal event. We were unusual in having two in a year.

Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.

Apple

YouTube Podcasts

Spotify

More ways to subscribe

Parliament Matters homepage

Latest / Highlights

News / Will key Government bills pass by the end of the parliamentary Session? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 138

With the King’s Speech set for 13 May, attention turns to the end of the current parliamentary Session and the frantic “wash-up” period before prorogation, likely in late April. We assess which Bills can still make it through in the remaining sitting days. With major Lords amendments on issues including revenge porn, social media access for under-16s, court transcripts and AI safety, Ministers face intense pressure and possible concessions. We also examine the political stakes around the Chagos Islands Bill and the stalled Hillsborough Law. The episode also answers listener questions on parliamentary procedure and reform, before exploring the sharp rise in Written Parliamentary Questions and what it means for effective scrutiny in Westminster. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 23-27 March 2026

The Prime Minister will face questions from the Liaison Committee, comprising Select Committee chairs. The Conservatives will choose the topic for Tuesday’s Opposition Day debate, while the Home Secretary and the Energy and Transport Secretaries will take oral questions from MPs. The Commons will consider Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, National Insurance Bill, and Victims and Courts Bill, and will continue Committee Stage scrutiny of elections legislation. In the Lords, the Pension Schemes and the Crime and Policing Bills will complete their final stages, while Peers continue scrutiny of the English Devolution Bill. MPs will also debate an e-petition on the puberty blockers trial. Select Committees will focus on child poverty, dynamic alignment, the Defence Investment Plan, energy resilience, national resilience, and Royal Mail service delivery.

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Is the assisted dying bill being filibustered? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 135

Debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been so slow in the House of Lords that opponents of the Bill are accused of deliberately running down the clock. Conservative Peer Lord Harper rejects claims of filibustering, arguing that Peers are undertaking necessary scrutiny of a flawed and complex bill. He contends the legislation lacks adequate safeguards and was unsuited to the Private Member’s Bill process and discusses whether MPs might attempt to revive it in a future parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS