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?
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.
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.
Professor David Heald
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
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.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
