SIR Iain Duncan Smith has said the government wanted the head of the OBR gone because he published advice which contradicted what they were claiming about the public finances.

Speaking on GB News, he said: “I think that the house was misled by the whole run into the Budget. We now also know that cabinet ministers appear to have been misled about this so-called black hole of £20 billion.

“We know that the OBR told them on a number of occasions that there was no such thing as a black hole of £20 billion. They said you had a surplus, which was small, that it was there, moved up to about £4.5 billion.

“But she kept on going on about this black hole, and it was briefed into all the papers they all reported, that’s why all the journalists are saying it’s true; they were briefed.

“The OBR, of course, that release was unforgivable, but we need to get to the bottom of that. But the real point is that the head of the OBR was so fed up with having the OBRs reports simply denied by the government, that he came out and published the advice, and that’s why they want him to go, and why he’s gone, in reality.

Iain Duncan Smith GB News.jpg

“Because he made it clear, the OBR forecasts were clear that she did not have a black hole necessitating some massive tax rise. Her decisions were hers alone to raise taxes, nothing to do with an existing black hole from any other government or anything else.

“And I think that is the deceit that has taken place throughout all of this by her and her team. And now it appears, even the cabinet was deceived about the black hole. So many of them running departments that needed some investment, were told, basically, ‘back off, because we got a black hole, we have to fill it.’

“Not true.

“What the [Centre for Social Justice] has pointed out is that overall, at the end of this Parliament, the way things are going, the benefit bill will be over £91 billion higher.

“The government chose to do no welfare reform on it. We put forward a report that said you could get the bill down by at least £30 to £40 billion – all that was up.

“And in this year, the report, they show that the result of not controlling welfare has meant that therefore, working families, working hard, who have made decisions about the numbers of children they have, will be earning less than an equivalent family [with] three children who are on benefits, in fact, to such a degree that they’d have to be earning £71,000 a year to take home about £28,000.

“So the reality that we’ve got here is that the government has skewed everything against working age people. And what is happening now there is a disincentive built into the system to go to work.

“It’s actually turning out not worth your while to work, to make all those choices, to try and rent your property or to buy a property, you’re going to be worse off than you were before.

“That is a terribly damaging position to be in. When I left the Department of Work and Pensions,…we’d taken £35 billion out of the cost of the welfare budget, we had the lowest number of workless households since records began, and over 1,600 people [who] had been out of work every day were going back into work.

“That was a success story. The problem is right now, all that has gone under the bus, and we’re now left with a government that can’t take the tough decisions to actually reform and change and cut back on the welfare spending.

“The OBR has made it very clear that ending the two child limit will do next to nothing for child poverty in real terms, these invented figures won’t come about. It’s not because of that that people find themselves below the poverty line, it’s because those that go into work aren’t earning enough.

“And secondly, those who have had extra children, quite often take the choice, therefore, not to go into work. And the whole point about this was to get people to make the same choices in work and out of work that others have to.

“Families in work make choices about how many children they have, how they manage their budgets. The reality that was introduced for that was to say, well, if everybody’s making the same choices, the limits to getting back into work are reduced. People will be able to make that choice to step into work.

“So it’s quite clear that this is a bit of a payment back to the back benches. Remember when they came in Starmer said, no, he wasn’t going to change that. He wasn’t going to get rid of the two child limit. So did the chancellor.

“After the rebellion that stopped them getting the £5 billion reduction on welfare this is when they went and to pay back to the back benchers. It’s not going to work. They’re going to end up paying substantive amounts of money more.

“It’s an invented target. In other words, this will not and almost every economist says it will hardly make any real difference to what they call child poverty. Child poverty is about getting people back to work, about making sure work pays, and ensuring that those ultimately you are unable to are supported.

“This choice is about limiting your life so that you won’t be able to make those choices about going back into work. So I think it’s a tactical, strategic and a monetary mistake.

“And by the way, when they say they found the money by taxing gambling, that money from taxing gambling spent on this will not last the number and costs it will make down the line.

“I’m afraid it will be temporarily affordable. It will soon become unaffordable. £91 billion extra pounds on welfare by the end of this Parliament. That is staggering.”