2.2.4 – The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, delivered her Budget Speech, which lasted an hour and five minutes. Despite its length, it was far from the longest Budget Speech on record: that distinction belongs to William Gladstone, whose April 1853 statement ran for four hours and forty-five minutes. The demanding length of such speeches is the reason Chancellors are permitted, by convention, to have an alcoholic drink at the despatch box. The last to do so was Ken Clarke, who had a whisky during his 1996 Budget. Reeves, however, opted for water.
Following the Chancellor’s statement, the Leader of the Opposition delivered a 20-minute response. But this is only the beginning of the scrutiny that follows a Budget. As one of Parliament’s most significant annual events, the Budget triggers a detailed and multi-stage examination:
- Commons debate – After the Budget Statement, the House of Commons typically holds four days of debate on the government’s financial plans.
- Finance Bills – The Government then introduces Finance Bills to give legal effect to the Budget’s proposals. MPs also consider the “Budget Resolution”, which authorises government spending and taxation.
- Committee scrutiny – Key parliamentary committees, including the Treasury Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, conduct inquiries into the Budget. A Public Bill Committee also scrutinises the Finance Bill itself.
Once the Finance Bill has passed the Commons, it proceeds to the House of Lords. The Lords may propose amendments, but they cannot reject the bill outright or introduce “wrecking amendments”, reflecting the convention that financial privilege rests with the Commons. After this stage, the bill receives Royal Assent.
If the Government were to lose a Budget Resolution or a vote on a major element of the Finance Bill, it would be regarded as a matter of confidence. In such circumstances the Prime Minister would face significant political pressure either to resign or to call a General Election. Without the ability to raise revenue, the Government cannot function. This is why confidence-and-supply arrangements have historically been important. In 2017, after Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority, the Government relied on such an agreement with the DUP, under which the party’s ten MPs supported the Government in confidence votes and in votes relating to the supply of finance.
Thus, scrutiny of the Budget is not only a vital mechanism of parliamentary oversight; it also serves as a core test of the Government’s democratic mandate and its continued legitimacy. This is one of the reasons the process is so thorough and extensive.