Middle East: Economic Update

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.

The right hon. Lady comes to the House with an economy in tatters. She would have us believe that she has delivered the stability and resilience that can weather the storm ahead, but she has done nothing of the kind. When she came to office, she ramped up borrowing and spending and hiked taxes to record levels. She was warned at the time, by the Office for Budget Responsibility and others, that her policies would mean higher inflation, higher borrowing costs and higher interest rates, and that she would destroy jobs. All of that has come to pass. Her mismanagement and foolish choices have given us the highest inflation in the G7, the highest borrowing costs in any major advanced economy—with gilt yields higher than those of Greece and Morocco—fragile fiscal headroom, the highest unemployment since the pandemic and rising, and GDP per capita falling. Under this Government we are getting poorer, and our economy is increasingly fragile and far from secure and resilient.

Despite what the right hon. Lady has said about tiebacks, nothing exemplifies this Government’s economic folly more than their approach to oil and gas. The utterly misguided net zero obsessions of the Energy Secretary have led to the absurdity of reduced extraction, while we see jobs destroyed, tax revenues forgone, and energy security smashed. The greatest tragedy of all is that in Jackdaw and Rosebank we have fields ready to go. In just months, they could be pumping vital relief to millions. Jackdaw alone has enough gas to supply more than 1.5 million homes, yet the right hon. Lady has nothing to say on that matter. Less oil and gas extraction means greater dependency and less security: this road leads to ruin. On energy, on the cost of living, on jobs, on growth, on public finances, on every measure that matters, the Chancellor has left us weak, weak, weak, and in the face of this energy shock, millions are about to suffer as a result.

With respect to her statement, may I ask the right hon. Lady the following questions? How many fuel retailers have yet to engage with the new fuel finder service, and can she comment on the widespread reports of technical glitches and out-of-date price information? She mentioned the small modular reactor planned for Wylfa, but given the need, can she explain why she has chosen not to go ahead with the large-scale nuclear site that was signed off by the last Conservative Government? On the specific subject of energy cost support, may I ask what fiscal capacity she believes she has to support those in need, and what plan she has to ensure that any targeted approach truly reaches all of them?

In her statement, the Chancellor criticised the last Conservative Government’s support package for not being targeted, but what she failed to mention was the fact that the present Prime Minister was then urging for support to be universal. Indeed, he said at that time that Labour’s approach would ensure

“that no household would pay a penny more on their bills.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 404.]

We have had no consistency from the right hon. Lady. How is she going to ensure that support for people depending on heating oil reaches those who need it most? Of course, that support, under this Government, will be funded through the taxes of hard-working people. Indeed, the reduction to energy bills this April is simply being taken from bills and dumped on to the shoulders of hard-pressed taxpayers.

It does not need to be this way. Is not the critical question this: where is the control of public spending? Where is the renewed resolve to grasp the welfare bill to get people off benefits and into work? I will tell you, Mr Speaker: it is nowhere, because the right hon. Lady is a captive of her own Back Benchers and has brought our economy one step from its knees. She knows it, the country knows it, and now we must all brace ourselves for what is to come—not from a position of strength, as the right hon. Lady is so desperate to have us believe, but from a position of weakness of her own making.

[Rachel Reeves]

That statement revealed only that the shadow Chancellor is utterly out of his depth. In the past 20 months, we have had six cuts in interest rates. We have more than doubled the fiscal headroom compared with the headroom that I inherited from the Conservative party. For the first time in six years, our deficit is less than 5% of GDP, and wages have increased by more than inflation in every single month that I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer. Compare that with the record of the previous Conservative Government, who oversaw the only Parliament on record in which people were poorer at the end of it than they were at the beginning. I prefer my record to their record any day of the week.

The shadow Chancellor says that we should act. Well, we have acted, but what he fails to mention is that his party supported our being involved in this conflict. Whereas we have called for de-escalation, the Leader of the Opposition said that we should be a participant in this conflict. The damage that that would have done to our economy would have been immense, yet the Conservatives make no apology for that.

The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday about the Prime Minister:

“If he’s creating a support package, that’s going to be done with taxpayers’ money.”

She thinks that we should be doing things that are not going to cost taxpayers money. The shadow Chancellor says that we should do more and put in more money, but the Leader of the Opposition says that we should not do anything. Where does the Conservative party now sit on the £53 million of support that we gave on heating oil? That was using taxpayers’ money to support those who needed it most. It was the right thing to do, but now the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that it was the wrong thing to do.

The shadow Chancellor asked a few specific questions. On the cheaper fuel finder that we have introduced, more than 90% of retailers have signed up to it, and of that 90%, all of them are updating their prices regularly. Along with the Competition and Markets Authority, we are chasing down the final few that have not submitted their prices.

On small modular reactors, the Conservatives say they supported it. They had 14 years, and they put not a single penny into it. The same is true of Sizewell C. They cannot say that we should spend less money and at the same time say that we should support Sizewell C and small modular reactors, because everything has to be paid for.

On fiscal capacity, we have more than doubled the headroom compared with what I inherited from the Conservatives. It was less than £10 billion when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is now nearly £24 billion because of the actions that I have taken. The shadow Chancellor says that we have not built contingency, but the exact opposite is the case.

The shadow Chancellor asks about Rosebank and Jackdaw. It was because of the failure to do the work properly that they were challenged in the courts. One month after the previous Government left office—because they were kicked out—the courts came back and said that we had to reconsider scope 3 emissions. The energy companies Shell and Equinor resubmitted their plans at the end of last year. [Interruption.] The regulators—