Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Debate between Mel Stride and Paula Barker

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

The current account went into a slight surplus just around 2015-16. [Interruption.] It did, actually. That was on the back of our inheriting a £160 billion deficit in 2010, which was over 10% of GDP—another example of the disasters of a Labour Government.

The Secretary of State rightly spoke of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it presents, but what we know of artificial intelligence is that it will have a profound and very uncertain effect on the labour market. We need a flexible skills offer to deal with that, and flexible labour markets, but through the Employment Rights Act, the Government are making the labour market more rigid, and that will hurt younger people in particular, who do not have a track record in employment, so do not be surprised if youth unemployment continues to hover around 16% or 17% as a consequence of the actions of this Government.

When it comes to leaning into these challenges, we know that there is no plan. This Government are not going to do anything. They are just involved in internecine introspection—a civil war, now—within the Labour party. They said that they would tread lightly on our lives; in fact, they are now stampeding all over them. The rivals to the Prime Minister will be looking to double-down on the ruinous policies that I have just set out.

We have seen the real effects of this in recent days. On Friday, after the former Member for Makerfield said that he would step down in order to ease the passage of Andy Burnham to this place, what happened to gilt yields? They spiked up 18 basis points. I have done a little bit of research, and I can tell the House that, if sustained through the forecast period, that would mean over £5 billion of additional debt servicing costs. That is about £300 for every working family in this country. That is the effect of Andy Burnham, and he has not even arrived here yet.

We are on the edge of a precipice economically, leaning into a very turbulent time. These are the policies of the madhouse, yet we are told not to worry. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I believe is an outrider for Andy Burnham, said of the bond markets that they would just have to “fall into line”. Andy Burnham himself said in the New Statesman:

“We’ve got to go beyond this thing”—

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I will in a moment.

[Paula Barker]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that if an hon. Member wishes to mention another hon. Member in the Chamber, they are supposed to give advance notice of that. I have received no such notice.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not the case. A Member should be informed if they are not here, but the hon. Lady is sitting here, quite rightly, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor is ready to give way immediately.

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am always ready to give way, Mr Speaker, and to take your direction.

[Paula Barker]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree that what I said might not have been the most eloquent of answers. However, I would say that people in this country are fed up of the bond markets dabbling in the democracy of our country.

[Sir Mel Stride]

That is a rather unfortunate example of doubling down or continuing to dig, if I may say so. Also, the hon. Lady’s comments pale in comparison with Andy Burnham’s comments in the New Statesman, where he said:

“We’ve got to go beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”.

He also suggested that defence spending should lie outside the fiscal rules, as if spending and borrowing to defend our country were a different form of borrowing from any other borrowing that this Government might entertain. He is not so much the king of the north; he is more like King Canute, sitting in his chair on the sand, dressed in his football kit, trying to push back the tide of the bond markets and saying things like, “You’ve got to fall in line” as the waters lap at his ankles and we all ultimately get swept away. It is ludicrous.

The King’s Speech included a holiday tax that will increase the cost of the most budget holidays in this country, clobbering people who have saved up hard and just want to make some memories with their children. We also have the nationalisation of steel, which seems to be just some kind of political sop to the left on the Labour Benches.

The Government are also going to put a stop to new oil and gas exploration. This is lunacy, when we are importing gas from Norway that is extracted from the same basin. We are also importing liquefied natural gas, formerly from Qatar and now predominantly from the United States, which has four times the carbon footprint compared with if we had extracted it ourselves using our own resources. All that energy security blown, all those jobs destroyed and all that tax revenue forgone, simply because of the ideological madness of the Labour party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mel Stride and Paula Barker

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I simply do not accept that that is a fair assessment of the very considerable time and effort that we are putting into taking this matter extremely seriously.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

7. If he will make an estimate of the number of in-work universal credit claimants that have had payments stopped due to errors made by his Department in the last 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mel Stride and Paula Barker

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

22. What steps his Department is taking to tackle in-work poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

In-work progression is the best way of improving the earnings potential of those who are in work, which is why we are bringing hundreds of thousands more people into the kind of support that will develop that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I do not think we should make any apology for having a system of benefits that is there whether someone is out of work or in work, and which encourages those who are in work to work longer hours if that is appropriate and to earn more through many of the kinds of provision that we provide through our jobcentres.

[Paula Barker]

Despite my question relating to in-work poverty, the Government often herald historically low unemployment rates to avoid their shame over falling living standards and endemic wage stagnation. Those on the Government Benches know they have failed British workers. Can the Secretary of State answer this, without blaming the war in Ukraine, covid or the last Labour Government? Do the Government now accept that there is an inextricable link between their failed economic policies and the fact that British workers in low and middle-income households are financially worse off since they came to power?

[Mel Stride]

It is not appropriate to dismiss completely the significant downside of covid—we spent £400 billion supporting the economy during that—the significant impact through energy price spikes of the war or the deleterious impact of the last Labour Government, to whom the hon. Lady refers. The simple fact is that since 2009-10, there are 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs, and 400,000 fewer children and 400,000 fewer pensioners in that position.