Middle East: Economic Update

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

That response exposes a shadow Chancellor who is out of credible ideas. I was sad to read in the weekend’s newspapers that once again, he is being lined up for the sack by the Leader of the Opposition, but to be honest, after his performance today, I can understand her choice.

The shadow Chancellor talks about the IMF. Yes, the IMF did downgrade the forecast. Why? It is because of a war, which his party unquestioningly backed, and because of our high exposure to global energy markets, which his party allowed. We are taking the right choices. We did not back this war, nor did we follow the calls of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform to join in. We are investing in and reforming our energy market, so that we can take back control of our energy security.

The shadow Chancellor talks about the economy. Well, let’s talk about the economy. Before this war broke out, our economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February and 0.3% in the three months to January. Inflation was expected by the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility to return to target, and interest rates had been cut by their fastest rate in 17 years, compared with hitting 5.25% under the Conservatives, which saw mortgage costs going through the roof. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) says it is the Bank of England’s job to address inflation, but we had the same Bank of England when the Conservatives were in government. It has cut interest rates while we have been in government because we got control of the public finances, and the Conservatives lost control of the public finances.

The shadow Chancellor says that the response to a fossil fuel crisis is to rely more on fossil fuels and to reduce investment in clean, home-grown energy. He is ignoring the fundamental lesson of both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Chancellor opposed new solar energy, opposed onshore wind power and did not invest in either Sizewell C or small modular reactors, as this Labour Government are doing. Just today, the CEO of RenewableUK has said that

“reducing the link between the volatile global gas prices and the cost of electricity is the best way to protect households, businesses and industries against the unpredictable and volatile costs of fossil fuels in the long term, to strengthen the UK’s energy security.”

The shadow Chancellor says that tiebacks make no difference, yet Offshore Energies UK says that

“developing fields as tiebacks reduces costs, lowers emissions, and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure”,

which is exactly why we are doing it.

The shadow Chancellor says that delinking would lead to higher prices. It is the exact opposite. The whole aim here is to move to fixed prices. By increasing the electricity generator levy—we do not know whether the Conservative party supports or opposes it—we incentivise those energy companies to come off the levy and come on to contracts for difference. We are beginning the negotiations with industry, so that we can reduce that volatility in prices. As the CEO of E.ON has said today,

“For too long, the value in our energy system has flowed to those at the top of the chain. Today’s move starts to turn that around”,

because we can take out of the system the volatility and the spikes, which are so damaging for both family finances and business finances. But the shadow Chancellor had nothing to say on that.

Fuel duty was never lower in 14 years under the Conservatives than it is today. Of course, we are keeping all scenarios under review, but it is quite clear that the best way to bring down fuel prices is to de-escalate this conflict, not ramp it up like the Conservatives want to do.

The shadow Chancellor has nothing to say on international co-operation, nothing to say on global negotiations to keep the strait of Hormuz open, nothing to say on reform of our energy market and nothing to say on investment in our infrastructure. Why? It is because he has no plan. Why? Because he does not have any ideas. Why? Because his party has no economic credibility. Labour has the right plan for our country. The Conservatives would take us right back to the bad days of high inflation, high interest rates and the mess they made of our economy.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The conflict in Iran is also a matter of energy security and the cost of energy. It is a reminder for the second time in four years of the dangers of being dependent on international fossil fuel markets and of the need to reduce our dependence. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a lot of evidence about the importance of decoupling the price of electricity from the price of gas, so may I encourage the Chancellor to bring forward measures that will reduce the amount of time that gas can continue to set the price of electricity? It is a pity that the Conservative party did not take that approach following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when it had the chance.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that question, and for his important work on this issue. There are two ways to reduce the number of days in which the gas price sets the electricity price. First is to invest more in home-grown renewables and in nuclear, so that more of the mix is made up of electricity. The second way is to delink gas and electricity prices, first by increasing the electricity generators levy to bring in money but also—this is crucial—by incentivising those companies that are currently getting the market price to go instead on to a contract for difference, which gives greater certainty for families, pensioners and businesses with their bills. That is exactly what we are doing.