This is the astonishing moment Rachel Reeves realised the Budget had been leaked early after her Labour colleague Torsten Bell handed her his phone in Parliament.
The Chancellor is thought to have been unaware of the mistake by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) mistake until she found out the bad news from Mr Bell.
Video footage broadcast live at 12.11pm showed Ms Reeves anxiously looking at the phone while Sir Keir Starmer was speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions.
Ms Reeves was then seen writing something down while looking at Treasury minister James Murray’s phone as Sir Keir continued to address the House of Commons.
Moments later the Chancellor and Mr Bell were spotted exchanging notes, with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Treasury telling Ms Reeves: ‘It’s fine, it’s fine.’
When she stood up to speak, Ms Reeves said the pre-Budget publication of the OBR’s document was ‘deeply disappointing and a serious error on their part’.
Just minutes earlier, the Chancellor’s second Budget was revealed ahead of time by the unexpected early publication of the Budget watchdog’s analysis.
The report laid out a series of tax rises to fill a black hole in the public finances, and that the UK’s economy will grow more slowly than predicted over the next four years.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is handed Torsten Bell’s phone as she learns about the Budget leak
Ms Reeves can be seen reading the bad news as Prime Minister’s Questions continues today
Ms Reeves can be seen looking at Torsten Bell’s phone while Sir Keir Starmer is speaking
The OBR also revealed Ms Reeves will introduce measures aimed at helping those struggling with living costs, including an end to the two-child limit on benefits.
The document is not meant to be released until after the Chancellor has delivered her Budget in the House of Commons.
But it was published on the OBR website early, the latest in a series of leaks and early disclosures ahead of the statement. The OBR apologised, blaming a ‘technical error’.
Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said it was an ‘utterly outrageous’ leak of market-sensitive information which could constitute a criminal act.
