Middle East: Economic Update

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

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yet to engage with the new fuel finder service, and can she comment on the widespread reports of technical glitches and out-of-date price information?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—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

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

For every single year of the last Conservative Government, we froze fuel duty, and we did so to stand up for hard-working families. Given that petrol prices are surging at the pumps, why has the right hon. Lady chosen now to put up fuel duty?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the plans that we inherited from the previous Government would have seen fuel duty go up just a few months after the general election. We did not think that was the right approach, so we reversed the Conservative plans that we inherited to freeze fuel duty and to keep the 5p discount introduced during the pandemic. In April this year, under the plans that I inherited, fuel duty would have gone up again, but we do not think that is the right thing to do. Therefore, in a staggered approach from the autumn this year, the 5p cut introduced during the pandemic will begin to be unwound. At the same time, we have just introduced the cheaper fuel finder, which yesterday showed the divergence in prices paid by customers on petrol forecourts. Some paid 130p a litre and others 180p per litre, so it is really important that people use that cheaper fuel finder to shop around. I shall be meeting petrol retailers later this week to make it clear that we will not accept price gouging.

[Sir Mel Stride]

Given the rapidly rising cost of oil and gas, why does the right hon. Lady believe that it is better to import it than to extract it from the North sea?

[Rachel Reeves]

The price of oil and gas is particularly volatile at the moment, given the conflict in the middle east. My understanding, as we came into the Chamber today, was that prices of oil were down by something like 25% on the day. The most important thing that all of us can do to deal with what is happening to prices at the moment is to support de-escalation. That is the Labour party’s policy, but I am not sure what the policy of the Conservative party is. None the less, that is the best way to get down both the price of petrol at the pumps and of heating oil. The North sea will play an important part of our energy mix for many years to come, which is why I met North sea oil and gas companies just last week to talk about what more they can do and how we can help.

Middle East: Economic Update

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement and add the Opposition’s firm support for our armed forces.

As the Chancellor has made clear, these are very serious and concerning times, and developments in the middle east are already having profound consequences for our economy. Oil prices have surged above $100 a barrel for the first time since the 2022 energy crisis. That alone is enough to have huge knock-on effects for households and businesses: families filling up their car will already have noticed petrol prices increasing, and fixed-price energy tariffs have either been increased or pulled from the market. We are already seeing British households worse off as a result of this conflict.

I am grateful to the Chancellor for updating the House on her meetings with other G7 Finance Ministers, and I welcome her commitment to supporting action to ease pressure on global supply by using strategic oil reserves. That, however, will go only so far.

As the Chancellor has said, the longer this conflict continues, the more likely it is that we will see a sustained period of higher prices. That, in turn, will have implications for interest rates and our cost of borrowing. The longer that lasts, the more likely it is that higher inflationary expectations will become anchored. If that happens, monetary policy will need to adjust accordingly, which may mean higher mortgages for homeowners who have only just begun to see some relief.

Gilt markets have already been responding to these events, which could mean that the forecasts we were given just last week from the Office for Budget Responsibility end up looking very different. We must continue to monitor developments closely.

Where the Opposition clearly differ from the right hon. Lady is in her approach to the economy in the run-up to this crisis, as her gross mismanagement has left us far more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case. She refers to inflation, which was bang on target when we left office; thanks to her choices, though, it rose back up to almost 4% last year—the highest in the G7—and remains elevated, which is far from ideal given the threat of a significant further spike in energy prices. Extraordinarily, the Chancellor has just now reconfirmed that the Government will press ahead with a rise in fuel duty later this year.

Borrowing is running higher than was forecast when the Government took office—we are spending well over £100 billion a year on debt interest alone. This leaves us far more vulnerable to rising borrowing costs. The Government are also continuing to impose ruinously high taxes on our oil and gas sector and choosing to rely on imports instead of maximising our own domestic energy supply. That is proving to be an incredibly short-sighted approach. However, as the right hon. Lady has just told us, there will be no change in direction. That is the wrong choice. More broadly, of course, business confidence has hit record lows, and unemployment has risen back to pandemic levels. Our economy is weaker as a direct result of this Chancellor.

Last week, at the spring statement, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to change course; instead, we got no action at all, just breathtaking self-congratulation and denial. She had a vital opportunity to come to the House with a plan to get the economy growing, but she did not do so—not least because this weak Government have caved in to their own Back Benchers, who prefer higher welfare spending to fixing our economy.

Today, let me reiterate our offer to support the Government if—even at this late stage, and particularly given the gravity of the current global outlook—they do the right thing by showing some backbone and coming forward with a proper plan to cut welfare spending and strengthen our economy so that we can properly support hard-working families through this difficult time. That is the very least that the British people deserve.

Finally, let me ask the right hon. Lady the following questions. Will she urgently reconsider her decision to implement the first increase in fuel duty in 15 years? Likewise, will she urgently reconsider her decision to continue with the crippling taxes being imposed on North sea oil and gas producers? On the Fingleton review on nuclear, can she clarify whether the Government are accepting all the recommendations, as Ministers previously committed to accepting?

Will the right hon. Lady give further details on what additional economic action is under consideration internationally if the conflict continues? What measures are the Government considering to support households in the event of a sustained period of higher prices, and what action is being considered as part of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s work to support those reliant on heating oil?

Are the Government tracking the Iranian regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems are not facilitating funds that are being used to support repression? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that there is sufficient resource available in the special reserve so that our brave servicemen and women have the support that they deserve?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for his questions. The Government believe that the best way that we can protect families and businesses from this conflict is through de-escalation. We heard nothing in the shadow Chancellor’s response about what the Conservatives’ view is on de-escalation. We believe that it is important that we get back to the negotiating table and do not escalate this conflict, but I am not sure that that is the view of the Conservatives.

We know that commitment to greater energy security can help guard against shocks. After inaction and delay from the Conservatives while they were in government for 14 years, this Labour Government are committed to investing in and building new nuclear. That is why we are backing Sizewell C and small modular reactors— neither of which were funded by the previous Government, but both of which were funded at the spending review, because this Government are backing Britain’s energy security. This Labour Government are backing the industries of the future, such as carbon capture and storage—not funded by the Conservatives, but funded in the spending review, because we back Britain’s energy security. Through the National Wealth Fund, we are investing in floating offshore wind and our docks—not funded by the Conservatives, but funded in the spending review, because we back Britain’s energy security.

In 14 years the Tories did nothing. They failed when we needed new nuclear. They stood by and allowed the loss of gas storage facilities at Rough. They failed to fix the broken planning system to enable us to build renewables, and they had an effective moratorium on onshore wind, which is the cheapest form of energy. We are taking a different approach in the interests of our economy and energy security.

On energy bills, I urge the shadow Chancellor not to scaremonger. The £150 cut to energy bills that I announced in the Budget will continue, as has been confirmed by Ofgem. We removed the failed energy company obligation scheme, and we removed a number of levies from bills. On heating oil, those conversations will happen this week, and we are working closely with MPs and colleagues in Northern Ireland to make sure that things are working well. The Minister for Energy at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero met the heating oil sector on Friday and spoke this morning to the Competition and Markets Authority. There is not currently a problem with supply, but if Members have individual issues around supply, they should make sure that they get in contact with DESNZ.

The shadow Chancellor asked about fuel duty. Fuel duty would have risen by 8p if I had used the plans that I inherited from the Conservatives. We have had two Budgets in which the freeze on fuel duty was extended, and both times it was voted against by all Opposition parties. It is a little rich for the Tories now to say that they want to reduce fuel duty when they voted against Budgets that froze it.

On the energy profits levy, the shadow Chancellor must have a short memory, because he was in the Cabinet that introduced the energy profits levy. It was introduced for a reason. Windfall profits were being made by the energy companies and there was a need to help consumers with bills, which is exactly what we have done.

On the public finances, I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman listened to my statement last week or my statement today. The deficit has reduced from 5.3% to 4.2% of GDP. This is the first time in six years that the budget deficit has been less than 5% of GDP. In fact, in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in office, borrowing was higher than the G7 average; it is now lower than the G7 average, and it is coming down in every year of this Parliament. On inflation, I will not take any lessons from the party whose policy took inflation to more than 11%.

The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Work and Pensions Secretary, says that we should be spending less on welfare. Well, it would have been nice if he had done something about it when he was in charge. We are reforming the welfare system, which the Conservatives broke.

On Fingleton, we commissioned the Fingleton review because we are determined to build nuclear power, unlike the Conservative party. On oil reserves, we have reserves equivalent to 90 days of oil imports. As the G7 confirmed today, we will be making further announcements on that. On gas reserves, it was the Conservative party that closed the storage facilities at Rough. National Gas has confirmed today that our gas reserves are at a comparable level to last year and the year before that. The numbers that are being reported are utterly misleading, because gas comes from a number of sources—interconnectors, liquid natural gas and our storage facilities—so I would really rather the Conservative party did not scaremonger when people want certainty.

On money laundering, of course we have the very strictest rules. On the special reserve for defence, of course we will ensure that the Ministry of Defence has all the money it needs to provide support for our armed forces.

Spring Forecast

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

Our borrowing is even higher than Greece’s. Indeed, if debt were a Department, it would be the third largest spending Department in Whitehall. That is money not going on the people’s priorities, but simply being flushed down the drain. The right hon. Lady puts great store in the latest forecasts on debt and says that it is coming down, compared with the forecasts back in the autumn, but if we strip away her dodgy definition of debt, we can see that it will be going up in just about every year of the forecast period.

The right hon. Lady has the audacity to praise her own performance. She points to growth, but does she not know that, only last month, the Bank of England downgraded growth for both this year and next year? A moment ago, she said that the Government had beaten the forecasts for growth from last year. The forecast at the beginning of last year was for 2% growth, but the growth outcome at the end of last year was 1.3%. By my mathematics, that is not an improvement. It should be of considerable concern to the entire House that the right hon. Lady clearly thinks that it is.

The right hon. Lady points to interest rates coming down, but does she not know that her ruinous inflationary policies have seen interest rates higher for longer, meaning more expensive mortgages for hundreds of thousands of people across our country? She was slightly coy about unemployment—because, of course, we know that it now stands at a five-year high. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has risen, and this Government are no exception.

The right hon. Lady is fond of saying that she is simply asking people to pay a little more tax. Well, I do not remember the taxman phoning me up and asking me if I would awfully mind paying a little more tax. And what does it mean? It means workers struggling, employers laying off staff, and tens of thousands of the most talented people in our country going to other places, where they believe the opportunities are greater. That is what a little more tax means. And what has that tax done? It has destroyed and deeply damaged entire sectors of our economy. Hospitality has seen almost 100,000 job losses since this Government came to office, and that has particularly impacted our youngest people.

Youth unemployment is the highest in Europe for the first time in a quarter of a century. The dreams, aspirations and hopes of young people—of all those bright young faces—have been smashed on the altar of the right hon. Lady’s incompetence. What is her message to young people today? Her message today has been that her so-called plan is working, but what is the reality? Inflation? Up. Borrowing? Up. Spending? Up. Tax? Up. Welfare? Up. Unemployment? Up. All this speaks to the weakness and chaos of this Government. Is it any wonder that her so-called plan is not working? Our energy costs are among the highest in the world, and yet she is doubling down on net zero. Given where we are, the first thing that the right hon. Lady should do is get rid of those taxes on North sea oil and allow us to start exploiting those opportunities.

We have a welfare bill that is spiralling ever upwards, but what does the right hon. Lady do? She removes the two-child benefit cap. We have taxes heading to the highest level in history because of her choices, destroying the futures of men, women and children right up and down our country—and there is no contrition, no apology and no plan to do anything about it.

It does not have to be this way. At our conference, we set out how we can control public spending with £47 billion of savings, especially on the welfare bill, with some £23 billion of savings. We are a party that believes in work, rather than benefits. We are a party that will do something about it. We are a party of work; Labour is the party of “Benefits Street”. We will bring taxes down to kick-start the economy, abolish stamp duty, scrap business rates for businesses on our high streets, and give our young people a £5,000 tax cut. We have a cheap power plan. We will fix student loans and invest in apprenticeships. Though our golden rule, we will get on top of the deficit and, by doing that, grow the economy.

That is our plan. What is the right hon. Lady’s plan? The truth is that she has no plan, or, as her Health Secretary said, there is

“no growth strategy at all”.

Even if she did have a plan, she would be too weak to deliver it, given the psychodramas swirling around No. 10, the almost daily scandals visiting the door of the Prime Minister, the sight of a person once at the highest level in the diplomatic service being carted away in a car by the police, and Back Benchers calling the shots. The Chancellor’s credibility has gone. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff has gone. His Cabinet Secretary has gone. But somehow the Chancellor hangs on.

Through the chaotic fog, the drums are drawing ever closer. The British people deserve so much better. So, for the hard-working people in our country crushed by taxes, for those denied employment, for the farmers and the family business owners who have suffered in fear for too long, for every hollowed-out high street, for every young person robbed of their future, for every elderly person struggling to survive and for the generations yet to come, we say: go!

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that the OBR did not publish the forecast until I sat down, but I still think the shadow Chancellor could have done a little bit better than that. To be honest, I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition was going to respond today; after that performance, I expect she does, too! [Hon. Members: “More!”] Don’t worry; I’ve got more.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives set out their economic policy at their conference a few weeks ago. Well, they had 14 years to set out their economic policy, and it is because of their economic policy that they are now sitting on the Opposition Benches. Today’s performance is yet another reminder of how irrelevant the Conservative party now is. I hate to break it to the shadow Chancellor, but people stopped listening to the Conservatives a long while ago. And we can see why: because whether it is in office or in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and his leader have been wrong about the economy time and time again. They opposed economic responsibility and backed Liz Truss—wrong. They opposed closer ties to Europe and backed Brexit—wrong. They opposed cuts in child poverty and want to repeat austerity: wrong values, wrong economics—they are just plain wrong.

After last year’s Budget, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader predicted with characteristic foresight that borrowing would increase every year. She was wrong: borrowing is now coming down faster. That is faster than under the Tories—well, that is not difficult, because under them it went up—it is faster than forecast in the autumn and it is faster than in any other G7 economy. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition told us that energy bills would rise. She was wrong; they are coming down by £117 next month. She also told us that there would be no more Tory defections to Reform. How is that one going?

Let me let me return to the substance of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks—although I have had to reduce this section somewhat! He mentioned student loans, but he neglected to mention that he was in the Government who tripled university tuition fees, froze thresholds and oversaw higher interest rates, which led to the problems we are in today. On special educational needs, the Conservatives left a system in utter crisis, as every parent, every child and every school will tell you, so we will take no lessons from them. But in terms of where the money is coming from, that is set out today in the documents. Of course, the shadow Chancellor does not know that because he did not even bother listening to my statement.

The shadow Chancellor mentioned defence, but he neglected to mention that it was his Government who left office without any plan to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is this Government, with me as Chancellor, who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war.

The shadow Chancellor mentioned the welfare bill. I have to say that that was a little bit rich, because he neglected to mention that the welfare bill rose twice as fast in the last Parliament and that he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His Government broke the welfare system, and it is this Government who are fixing it.

The shadow Chancellor mentioned youth unemployment. As I said, there is more that needs to be done, after the Conservatives increased the number of young people not in education, employment or training by 113,000 and slashed the number of young people starting apprenticeships by 40%. We will take no lessons from them. They are the arsonists, not the fire brigade, and if they cannot be honest about the mess they made, no wonder they cannot recognise that we are fixing it.

Today’s forecast shows that debt is down, borrowing is down, inflation is down, and interest rates are down from 5.25%, where the Conservatives left them, to 3.75% today. And what about investment, living standards and growth? They are all up. Let me break it to the shadow Chancellor and to his leader: there is no blank page for the Tory party—no year zero. They gave us chaos and instability; Labour is fixing it. They gave us austerity; Labour is investing in Britain. They gave us 14 years of barely managed decline, and we are reversing it. We know that if they ever get the chance, they will do all of the same again: more chaos, more kids in poverty, and more and deeper cuts. It would be terrifying if there was any prospect at all that they would ever win an election again.

The Leader of the Opposition can keep turning up every week, but it is a total waste of time. Her party is the past and not the future. I do not know what is more pathetic: the culprits who jumped ship and joined Reform and its Russian mates, or the culprits who stayed in the Conservative party and pretended that the last 14 years never happened. Either way, the choices are clear: investment with Labour or austerity with the Conservatives; stability with Labour, or more chaos with the Conservatives—wrong leader, wrong choices, wrong plan. Only Labour has the right plan for our economy and for our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

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

Mr Speaker, I begin by associating Conservative Members with the Chancellor’s comments about your leg—we wish it well.

We are waiting with interest to hear the details of the latest U-turn on business rates this afternoon, but if the briefing is to be believed, it will be far too little, too late. The Chancellor simply does not understand the desperate situation so many of our pubs are in. Many pubs are asking why the Chancellor chose to spend billions more on the benefits bill instead of providing proper, permanent business rates support.

[Rachel Reeves]

Under the previous Government—when the right hon. Gentleman was in government—7,000 pubs closed. We have permanently lowered the tax rate that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses pay. When I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, we faced a situation in which all of the covid support was going to disappear overnight. We have put £4.3 billion of taxpayers’ money into supporting our retail and hospitality sector, including pubs, but we recognise the distinct problems that pubs face. That is why, unlike the previous Conservative Government, we are setting out more support.

[Sir Mel Stride]

They just do not get it. Of course, it is not just pubs; the whole high street—shops, restaurants and hotels—is seeing massive increases in business rates, some well over 100%. Where is the help for those businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

Some of the numbers that are bandied around by the right hon. Gentleman do not reflect the reality, because they do not reflect the £4.3 billion of transitional support that we have put in to taper those increases in business rates. I do not think anyone in this House seriously believes that temporary support during the pandemic should continue infinitely. That would not be the right thing, and it would not be affordable for other taxpayers. That is why we are gradually tapering the support, with a £4.3 billion support package in the Budget and some more targeted support for pubs later today. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he could have taken action when he was in government. Instead, there was a cliff edge, with no support for pubs or any other sector of the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

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

The process surrounding the Budget was utterly chaotic. We had months of damaging speculation, fuelled by briefings and leaks from the Treasury itself. They included briefings on 14 November that moved markets and gave the appearance, at least, of being deliberately inaccurate, which is why we need the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate. May I ask the Chancellor a simple question? Did she at any point authorise or allow confidential details of the Budget or the forecast to be briefed to the press—yes or no?

[Rachel Reeves]

No.

[Sir Mel Stride]

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own guidance states:

“The interim rounds are transmitted to the Chancellor in confidence”.

Yet the Chancellor repeatedly stated before the Budget that the OBR had downgraded its productivity forecast. In her statement in Downing Street on 4 November, she said in relation to the OBR’s forecast that

“it is already clear that the productivity performance…is weaker than previously thought.”

Why did the Chancellor breach the confidentiality of the OBR?

[Rachel Reeves]

In its spring statement, the OBR was clear that productivity was coming in lower than forecast, and it was clear that it was reviewing that over the summer. The numbers that the OBR has since published showed that in the final pre-measures forecast the fiscal headroom was just over £4 billion. I was clear in my speech on 4 November that I did not want to reduce the headroom; I wanted to increase it. I increased it to bring back the stability that is much needed in our economy after 14 years of Conservative government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The winter fuel payment U-turn will cost £1.25 billion, and the welfare reform U-turn will cost £2.5 billion, all adding to Labour’s unfunded black hole. This is from a Chancellor who said that she would never make a spending commitment without explaining where the money was coming from—yet another U-turn. The Chancellor has also said that her fiscal rules are iron-clad and non-negotiable. Can she reconfirm that commitment now, or are we heading for yet another U-turn?

[Rachel Reeves]

I would take that a bit more seriously if the Conservatives were not voting against the welfare reforms this evening, and if they had not committed to fully reversing the winter fuel changes, which would cost a further £400 million that they cannot explain. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, because he always offers a useful lesson in what not to do. Even George Osborne now says that the shadow Chancellor has “no credible economic plan”. I will give the shadow Chancellor this: he knows a thing or two about welfare spending, because under his watch, the UK became the only country in the G7 with an unemployment rate stuck below pre-pandemic levels. Under his watch, the cost of working-age inactivity rose by £15.7 billion a year.

[Sir Mel Stride]

The House will note that the right hon. Lady did not categorically rule out the possibility of changing the fiscal rules in the autumn. Given that, will she at least confirm that she stands by her commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT in the autumn? Is it a yes, or is it another potential U-turn?

[Rachel Reeves]

We made a commitment in our manifesto not to increase the key taxes that working people pay, and we stick by those commitments because, unlike the Conservative party, we stick by our manifesto.

Spending Review 2025

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This spending review is not worth the paper it is written on, because the Chancellor has completely lost control. This is the “spend now, tax later” review, because the right hon. Lady knows that she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits.

How can we possibly take this Chancellor seriously after the chaos of the last 12 months? We were assured at the election that Labour’s plans involved barely any additional spending or borrowing. Now the Chancellor parades her largesse, with hundreds of billions in additional spending over this Parliament. The initial profile for that spending was, of course, significantly front-loaded, but the Chancellor now expects us to believe that she will let spending rise by only 1.2% a year. There is no chance whatsoever of that happening, for the lesson of the last year has been that when the going gets tough, the right hon. Lady blinks.

She presented herself as the iron Chancellor, but what we have seen is the tinfoil Chancellor: flimsy and ready to fold in the face of the slightest pressure. She said she would not fiddle her fiscal rules; then she did. She said that she would not make any unfunded commitments; with the humiliation of the winter fuel U-turn, she just has. She looked business leaders in the eye and said no more taxes, but we all know what happened next, and we all know what is coming in the autumn. Her own Back Benchers, her Cabinet colleagues, Labour’s trade union paymasters and even the Prime Minister himself have all seen that she is weak, weak, weak. They can smell the blood. They will be back for more, and they will get it.

These spending plans are a fantasy, and is it not the truth that the Chancellor has to maintain this fiction because she has left herself no room for manoeuvre? She is constantly teetering on the edge of blowing her fiscal rules, which she has already changed to allow even more borrowing. The only way she can claim to be meeting her rules is by pretending that she can control spending over the coming years, but let us look at the record so far. Borrowing in the last financial year came out £11 billion above even the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March forecasts, and 70% higher than the plans she inherited from the Conservatives.

For someone so keen on borrowing, the Chancellor seems strangely reticent even to use the word. Indeed, Ministers bizarrely tell us that it is Labour’s fiscal rules themselves that have “generated investment”. The reality is a little more straightforward: they have loosened the fiscal rules so they can borrow more. They borrow and borrow and borrow, allowing the national debt to continue to rise higher every single year while Ministers pretend that it is not. There will be an eye-watering £200 billion of additional borrowing in this Parliament compared with the plans set out in the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more to be spent on debt interest alone. In fact, if the Chancellor had retained our fiscal rules—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but if she had retained our fiscal rules, as she said she would before the election, the OBR has confirmed that she would be breaking them right now.

Our country is now vulnerable to even the smallest changes in the bond markets. Should we face a sudden external shock, we have no fiscal firepower left with which to respond, all thanks to the right hon. Lady’s choices. So can I ask the Chancellor: will she be open about what she has done? Will she admit that she has made a conscious choice to borrow more and to accept higher debts? Does she accept that this means interest rates and mortgages will be higher than they would otherwise have been, as the OBR itself has said? Given that she continues to claim that she has brought stability to the public finances, can I ask her what on earth her definition of “stability” is?

The Chancellor must be delighted that she does not have to face a new OBR forecast today, because if she did, she would have to set out how she would fund her humiliating U-turn on winter fuel payments, having already blown the savings on buying off her trade union paymasters last year. She said this week that there was still

“work to do to ensure the sums always add up”.

From the person in charge of the nation’s finances, that is hardly reassuring. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for a decade to know that that pitiful utterance is unlikely to soothe the markets.

So can the Chancellor confirm categorically that there will be no additional borrowing to pay for this chaotic reversal? And if that is the case, can she explain how on earth it can be paid for without raising taxes? Can she explain why, last summer, apparently to avoid a run on the pound, this measure was so urgent that pensioners had to be left in the cold over the last winter? What exactly has changed? Because it certainly has not been made possible by an improvement in the economy or the public finances, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this week are both in a worse state now than when Labour came into office.

If we had an OBR forecast, we might also get some answers on how the Government intend to find £3.5 billion to abolish the two-child benefit cap, which we are led to believe is imminent—another addition to the ballooning welfare bill; another expensive surrender to the Labour left. And we would certainly get the OBR’s assessment of the economic outlook following the tariffs—changes that the right hon. Lady knew full well were coming. Meanwhile, her deluge of taxes and regulations has left business confidence at record lows, costing people their livelihoods. Only yesterday we saw the latest evidence of that. Figures for last month show that the number of people on payrolls fell by more than 100,000, after already falling by 55,000 in April. Unemployment is up by more than 10% since Labour came to office.

The right hon. Lady may trumpet extra spending today, but is it not the simple truth that she has trashed the economy and left no contingency in the face of a highly volatile global outlook? Is it not the reality that the Chancellor knows she will have to come back in the autumn with more tax rises to fund these plans? Or can she assure us right now that this is not the case—yes or no? We know that the Deputy Prime Minister has helpfully provided her with an entire brochure of tax rises that she will no doubt be perusing over the summer—the Corbynist catalogue. Can the Chancellor confirm that, as promised, the income tax thresholds will not be frozen at the Budget, a move she herself said would hurt working people?

What about the uncertainties in the departmental spending plan that the Chancellor has set out today? Can she assure us that these plans will not be topped up and that no backroom deals have been cut with disgruntled Cabinet Ministers? Can she assure us that the capital allocations announced today will actually be spent on capital and will not be diverted in-year, as she has done in the past, to day-to-day budgets to play more games with her fiscal rules?

The Chancellor has had to impose a settlement on the Home Secretary because this spending review will not deliver for our hard-working police officers across the country. Instead, the Home Office budget gets squandered on asylum costs because this Government simply do not have a plan on illegal migration. As the Defence Secretary has admitted, the Government have “lost control” of our borders. Small boat crossings are up by 42% on the same point last year.

On energy, at a time when businesses up and down the country are struggling with high energy costs, the Chancellor has chosen today to fund the Energy Secretary’s vanity projects such as GB Energy. And although we welcome the announcements on expanding nuclear capacity, the scale of ambition is a downgrade on the commitments made previously by the Conservatives.

Labour barely mentioned farming in its manifesto, and now we know why. It is not enough to have hit the farmers of our country with a family farm tax; today, what we see in black and white is a choice to make further cuts to the vital grants on which many farmers rely. This is a huge betrayal of our farming communities, and something that many Labour MPs in rural areas will have to go back to their constituencies later this week to explain.

On defence, we will always welcome any additional investment in our armed forces and capabilities, though I note nothing was said about when 3% will be achieved. All we heard was that intelligence services spending was to be included in defence spending to flatter the numbers. We left Labour a fully funded plan that they dithered over for a year, but now what we get is the Chancellor’s own black hole on defence spending and the lack of a timeline on when we will achieve 3%. Instead, we get a £30 billion bill for the Chagos surrender—money that should have gone to our brave armed forces rather than, as is being reported, funding lower taxation in Mauritius. The first tax cuts for which this Chancellor has been responsible are in Mauritius.

We would have made different choices. We would not have killed growth with huge tax rises and new regulations. We would not have talked down our economy and the great businesses up and down our country. We would be focusing on efficiency and productivity in the public sector, not handing out pay rises with no strings attached. We would be getting a grip on welfare. Labour cancelled our plans for fundamental reform to health and disability benefits that would have seen 450,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits—that is a disgrace. Instead of proper reforms to PIP, the Government’s own plans are a rushed cost-cutting exercise—so rushed they even had to change them after they were announced. Their own Back Benches are in full revolt. Yet again, the Government talk tough, but there is no substance.

The right hon. Lady has no grip. She has no clue. The markets and the public see a Chancellor completely out of her depth. Having blown her headroom and more from her Budget in the autumn, she was forced into an emergency Budget in March to scrabble around to try to repair the damage. Today she comes before us again with yet another fantastical tale that she knows will have completely fallen apart come the autumn. We are not left with stronger foundations, as she would have us believe, but rather another dose of that hallmark for which her actions have made her so renowned: uncertainty and failure.

So there the right hon. Lady sits, powerless to resist her disillusioned MPs and her panicking Prime Minister, like a cork on the tide, the drumbeat for U-turns pounding in her ears. Yet her tone today suggests that all is well; the sunlit uplands await. What a hopeless conceit—a masterclass in delusion. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, growth is marked down, business and households are hurting, investors are fleeing in their droves, the bond market vigilantes circle—and here we have the Chancellor who refuses to listen, not only tinfoil, but tin-eared, too.

Let me be clear: it is working people and businesses who will pay the price come the autumn, with yet more taxes to pay for her weakness and her failures. We cannot afford this spending review, and for many, the growing conclusion is that we cannot afford this Chancellor.

[Rachel Reeves]

I will address the shadow Chancellor’s specific points in a moment, but I want to start by acknowledging the progress he has made. After all, it has been quite a week for him. Last Thursday, he gave a speech saying that it will “take time” for his party to win back trust on the economy. Today he showed us how far he and his party have to go to achieve that. I want to give him some credit for last week’s analysis. He said that

“the Conservative Party was seen to have failed”,

and he is right. He said that the last Conservative Government

“put at risk the very stability which Conservatives had always said must be carefully protected”,

and I agree with him. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

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

Only last week the right hon. Lady was trumpeting that the economy had turned a corner, but, as she has just said, it is barely a month since her disastrous jobs tax started to bite. May I ask her precisely which business confidence survey—just one—she can point to which supports her assertion that everything is coming up roses?

[Rachel Reeves]

According to PwC’s global CEO survey—that is just one of the surveys—Britain is the second-best place in the world in which to invest, and that is what this Government are doing. The shadow Chancellor simply is not serious, and his party is becoming completely irrelevant. He talks about jobs; 200,000 jobs have been created since the general election. He talks about economic growth; the UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He talks about business; we have secured three trade agreements which are backed by British businesses and British trade unions, and the Conservative party opposes every single one of them. No wonder even George Osborne has said that the shadow Chancellor has “no credible economic plan”. While the Conservative party plummets into irrelevance, this Labour Government will deliver in the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Chancellor explain what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury meant last week when she said that there will be no tax rises on individuals at the autumn Budget? Will the Chancellor similarly confirm that there will be no tax increases on businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

In our manifesto, we set out that we would not increase taxes on working people—that is, the income tax, national insurance or VAT that they pay. That is why we also reversed the previous Government’s decision to increase fuel duty, which would have had a disastrous effect on working people in our country. We will set out all other tax policy at the Budget.

[Sir Mel Stride]

What many up and down the country are asking is why that manifesto pledge not to impose taxes on working people was broken. Last week the Pensions Minister confirmed to the House that the Government would never interfere with the fiduciary duty of pension trustees to get the best return for their members, but when the Chancellor was questioned on that topic by Bloomberg the very same day, she said:

“I am never going to say never”.

This is chaos. The Government cannot even speak with one voice. It is clear that the right hon. Lady and the Pensions Minister cannot both be right, so will she now put the record straight?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have secured an agreement with the biggest pension companies to invest on a voluntary basis in UK unlisted equities and infrastructure, which is something the Conservatives never achieved. We are getting investment into British infrastructure and British businesses because that is the way to grow the economy and support working people.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for advance notice of her comments.

This is a time of great concern for millions of people up and down our country, for businesses, and, as an open-trading nation, for our economy at large. Free trade has been the bedrock of prosperity for our country, and for many countries around the world, for decades. It has raised billions of people out of poverty. Tariffs are the enemy of free trade, and we on the Conservative Benches will do whatever we can to assist the Government in getting those tariffs down.

Having said that, of course we will never cease to be an effective Opposition who vigorously hold the Government to account—not least on the disastrous decisions that they have already taken in respect of our economy. We will be responsible when it comes to these matters, particularly where market sensitivities are engaged.

I want to ask the right hon. Lady the following questions. First, could she provide further details of the US negotiations and specifically whether further meetings with Scott Bessent and others have been arranged that involve her? Secondly, which areas beyond tariffs are being discussed in those negotiations? Thirdly, which sectors beyond cars and life sciences are being considered for potential Government support? Finally, could she update the House on what options there are for protecting sectors of the economy that might be affected by the dumping of goods as a consequence of trade diversion?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response and for his offer to work constructively. I know from my time as shadow Chancellor that those moments when we can work constructively together in the national interest, whether in response to covid or in supporting Ukraine against the aggression of Russia, are when this House is at its best.

The shadow Chancellor asked for further details in a number of areas. Discussions are ongoing across a range of Government Departments, including the Treasury, with the United States, and I will be meeting US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shortly. Beyond tariffs, we are discussing a range of different areas, but the focus is on reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, with a particular focus on those sectors that are subject to the higher tariffs.

Although the 10% tariffs are lower than those for many other countries around the world, and we welcome that, the additional tariffs on cars, on steel and potentially on life sciences pose a real challenge to our country, because those are some of our biggest export markets. That is why we made the announcements yesterday, and in those sectors—automotives, life sciences and steel—we will continue to take the action that is necessary, working in partnership with business and trade unions, to make sure we are addressing those issues. We are also using institutions such as the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund and UK Export Finance to help businesses through these times.

The shadow Chancellor also mentioned concerns around dumping. We are working with colleagues around the world to understand those implications, but our first priority is not to create more trade barriers but to reduce the ones that exist today.

Spring Statement

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

May I just point out that all the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom disappeared, not just some of it? In fact, she went underwater to the tune of £4.1 billion. Reeling from one fiscal event to the next is not a way to run the public finances, and breaking your fiscal rules to the extent that the right hon. Lady has in just six months is a public humiliation.

May I now focus briefly on defence spending? We on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Government will reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027, as we pressed them to do, and we note the stepping stone along the way that the right hon. Lady has just announced, but we should go further than that. The 3% target should be brought forward to this Parliament. So may I ask the right hon. Lady: given the geopolitical tensions that she has raised, what provision she has made in her headroom, in her fiscal plans, for increasing defence spending more quickly in this Parliament, if that proves necessary? May I also ask her this: would she scrap the absurd Chagos deal, and put that money behind our armed forces?

The economy is in a perilous state, but there was a different way. There were different choices on taxing and spending and borrowing, and on productivity, and on welfare. Let me just say a few words about welfare. It was the privilege of my life to serve as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and when it came to welfare reform, with that privilege came a deep responsibility: the responsibility for welfare reform to be properly thought through, with a very clear plan—[Interruption]—I know that Labour Members do not like it, because it is an alien idea to their party—so that we could be fair to the taxpayer, but equally fair to the many people up and down the country, some of whom are highly vulnerable. That was an approach, on our watch, that led to £5 million of savings across the forecast period, and 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits as a direct consequence.

We would have gone further—much further—and we set out a clear plan in our manifesto to do exactly that, but those in the party opposite rushed their changes. They had no plan. There was not a single mention of the personal independence payment in the Labour party manifesto, and when they got into office, the Labour Government pussyfooted around and dithered. Why? Because it is deeply divisive within their rank and file. Then suddenly, when the Chancellor decided that she had run out of money, out went the word to find some savings in welfare, to scrabble around, to yank every lever possible.

Then there was the spectacle, frankly, of what the OBR has said about the simply shambolic changes that were announced only last week by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have gone from incompetence to chaos. There have been more changes to this policy than there were at the last minute to the right hon. Lady’s LinkedIn profile. The result is the worst of all worlds: a wholly inadequate level of savings on welfare, with welfare costs spiralling ever higher, and changes that are likely to harm many vulnerable people. May I ask the right hon. Lady: when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the House last week with these changes, she did not provide an impact assessment, but was this because the OBR had not signed off the numbers, was it because the Department did not have enough time to produce one, or was it only provided today, as many of us suspect, because this was thought to be a good time to bury bad news?

The forecast for growth is down, the forecasts for borrowing costs and inflation are up, and business confidence has been smashed into a million pieces. This Chancellor is constantly trying to blame forces beyond her control. The right response is not to duck responsibility, but to build a resilient economy. The right hon. Lady would have us believe that that is what she is doing, but how can we believe this Chancellor? How can we trust this Chancellor? She is the Chancellor who said she would not increase borrowing, but she did. She said she would not change her fiscal rules, but she did. She said she would not put up national insurance, but she did. She said she would not cut the winter fuel payment, but she did. She said she would not tax farmers, but she did, and she said she would not move to more than one fiscal event a year, and she just has. Now we are all paying the price of her broken promises. Today’s numbers confirm it. We are poorer and we are weaker. To govern is to choose, and this Chancellor has made all the wrong choices.

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that the shadow Chancellor has not been in his role for very long, but at least he is not misquoting Shakespeare today. If this was a Budget, it would be the Leader of the Opposition responding. I am glad that she is still in her place, but I know she will want to get back to her office for a lunchtime steak soon.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Budgets. Let me remind the Conservative party that the only emergency Budget we have seen in recent years was in response to their party’s disastrous mini-Budget—a mini-Budget that crashed the economy, sent mortgage bills spiralling and left a £22 billion black hole in our nation’s finances. Conservative Members may have forgotten about the damage that they did to our country, but the British people never will.

As always, the shadow Chancellor talked a lot, but he did not offer a single alternative. He says he opposes our tax rises, but he cannot tell us whether he would cut the NHS to reverse them. He says he wants economic growth, but Conservative Members abstained on the very planning reforms that the OBR has said will kick-start growth. Mr Speaker, you do not change the country by abstaining or by sitting on the fence; you change the country by leading and by taking action, and that is what this Government are doing. The shadow Chancellor says he wants businesses to trade, but he does not want us to talk to the second largest economy in the world or, indeed, our biggest trading partners in the European Union. He simply is not serious. Four months into the job, and he has got no clue.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about growth, but he does not say anything about the fact that the OBR has upgraded growth next year and every single year after. He talks about pensioners, but he forgets that it is his party’s policy to scrap the triple lock, which we are protecting and which will mean the state pension rising next month by over £400. He talks about wages, but he forgets the fact that we are boosting wages by boosting the national living wage from next month. The shadow Chancellor says nothing about living standards or this morning’s fall in inflation, because the last Parliament was the worst on record, and the OBR has today revised up its forecast for family finances. Working people are always better off with Labour.

The right hon. Gentleman is learning something, because at least this time he has asked a couple of questions, so let me respond to them. He asked what the markets should make of this. What the markets should see is that, when I have been tested with a deterioration in the headroom, we have restored that headroom in full. That is one of the choices that I made. He says that it is a sliver of a headroom. Well, it is 50% more headroom than I inherited from the Conservative party. When I was left with a sliver of headroom, I rebuilt it after the last Government eroded it. That is the difference that we have made. While they left the public finances and the public services in a mess, we wiped the slate clean, which means that we have the flexibility now to increase defence spending, as the leader of the Labour party has done. The Conservatives had 14 years to increase defence spending, and now they lately come to the party.

The shadow Chancellor mentions welfare reform and his time at the Department for Work and Pensions. What a legacy: one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 1,000 people a day going on to personal independence payments. The OBR says today that welfare spending as a share of GDP will now start falling—a far cry from what we had under the Conservative party. The shadow Chancellor speaks about employment. The OBR says that employment will increase, that wages will increase and that living standards will increase. What a change, after 14 years of the Conservative party.

The world is changing, and no one can be in any doubt about it, but the Conservative party is stuck in the past—divided, out of touch and carping from the sidelines. Conservative Members have no plan: no plan to kick-start growth, no plan to fix our public services and no plan to keep our country safe. The only plan for change they are working on is a plan to change their party leader, and we cannot blame them for that.

If the Opposition have no plan, let me remind them about ours. The minimum wage up, real wages up, house building up, NHS investment up, investment in our schools up, investment in our roads up, defence spending up—and every single one of those policies is opposed by the party opposite. They are opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the SNP, opposed by the Liberal Democrats and opposed by the Greens. It is the anti-growth coalition in action. They are the blockers. We are the builders—securing Britain’s future, protecting working people and delivering change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

How many jobs will the right hon. Lady destroy as a result of her jobs tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will have looked at the OBR forecast from the Budget last year, which forecasted that employment will rise in this Parliament, unemployment will fall and real household disposable income will increase. That is a far cry from the last Parliament, which was the worst on record for living standards.

[Mel Stride]

I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not reference the fact that the OBR also said that there would be 50,000 fewer jobs as a result of the NICs increase; indeed, Bloomberg put that figure at 130,000 jobs. It does not need to be that way. On 26 March, the right hon. Lady should come to this House with a spring statement containing a clear plan around welfare savings, which we had when we were in Government. Will she now confirm that she is prepared to do that with our support and put an end to the pernicious tax increase?

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman and his party had 14 years to reform the welfare system. They failed to do so, but this Government will. We are turning the British economy round after the disaster left to us by the previous Government: three cuts in interest rates since the general election, real wages rising at their fastest rate for three years, fuel duty frozen, the payslips of working people protected, and millions getting a pay rise through an increase in the national living wage. That is the change that this Government are delivering; that is the change that the Opposition are blocking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

A moment ago, the right hon. Lady spoke about the importance of spending money wisely, so in the light of the Treasury Committee’s conclusion that her new Office for Value for Money is a waste of money, does she agree that one of its early actions should be to abolish itself in order to save money?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to appoint Tom Hayhoe to run the Office for Value for Money—somebody who has a track record of delivering value for money for taxpayers. What the Government want to scrap is giving contracts to friends and donors, because that was a colossal waste of money instigated by the Conservative party.

[Mel Stride]

The Chancellor’s answer was an answer, but I do not think that it connected in any way with my question. Could I perhaps ask her about national insurance hikes? A full two thirds of the revenues raised through Labour’s job tax is simply going on servicing the additional debt being run up by this profligate Government. Given that, does she really believe that the catastrophic effects of that tax on businesses right up and down the country are a price worth paying?

[Rachel Reeves]

We inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, and we set out the detail of that at the time of the Budget. It was essential to close that gap to bring stability back to the public finances. That required difficult decisions, but they were the right decisions to ensure that our country has the stability that it lacked for so many years and under so many different Prime Ministers and Chancellors under the Conservative party.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

It is good to see the Chancellor in her place, and I thank her for advance sight of her statement. I know that she has been away, so let me update her on the mess that she left behind. The pound has hit a 14-month low; Government borrowing costs are at a 27-year high; growth has been killed stone dead; inflation is rising, impacting millions; interest rates are staying higher for longer; and business confidence has fallen through the floor. The Labour party talked down the economy and crippled businesses with colossal taxes, breaking all their promises. This is a crisis made in Downing Street.

It should hardly surprise the Chancellor that international markets are uneasy. The UK’s long-term borrowing costs have risen to their highest in almost 30 years. But while the Government were losing control of the economy, where was the Chancellor? Her trip to China had not even begun when my urgent question was taken in the House last week. She was still in the country, but she sent the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather than facing up to her failures. May I ask her why she chose not to respond herself?

The Chancellor, of course, ducked the difficult questions by jetting off to Beijing. I believe that in Labour circles they are calling it the Peking duck, but whatever was on the menu in China, was it really worth the unedifying sight of an increasingly desperate politician scampering halfway around the world with a begging bowl? The Chancellor’s deal pales in comparison to Labour’s black hole, which opened up in the public finances while the right hon. Lady was absent from her station.

Let me give the House a sense of scale. The deal that the Chancellor has announced amounts to £120 million a year. The rise in our borrowing costs, due to her disastrous Budget, has added about £12 billion to our annual spending on debt interest alone: literally 100 times what she says she has brought back from Beijing. That is money that cannot now be spent on the public’s priorities. That £12 billion is enough to pay for 300,000 nurses or to cover Labour’s pernicious winter fuel payments cut for eight and a half years—and, of course, even before this latest market reaction, the Budget meant spending tens of billions more on servicing our debt. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, two thirds of the money raised from the Chancellor’s jobs tax will be swallowed up by additional debt interest. Forget those billions going towards better public services; they are going on paying the price of Labour’s mismanagement.

We on this side of the House know how this sorry story goes. We have seen it all before: socialist Governments who think that they can tax and spend their way to prosperity; Labour Governments who simply do not understand that if you tax the living daylights out of business, you will get stagnation. They do not understand because there is barely a shred of business experience on the Government Front Bench. May I ask the right hon. Lady which of her promises she will break if the OBR judges in March that she is now in breach of her own fiscal rules? Will she cancel promised spending, will she ramp up borrowing, or will she raise taxes yet again?

This whole sorry tale is nothing short of a Shakespearean tragedy being played out before our eyes. This is the Hamlet of our time. Labour promised the electorate much, while pouring the poison into their ear. And the end—you can feel the end; the Chancellor flailing, estranged, it seems, from those closest to her; those about her falling; the drums beating ever closer. To go, or not to go, that is now a question. The Prime Minister will be damned if he does, but he will surely be damned if he does not. The British people deserve better.

[Rachel Reeves]

The shadow Chancellor is simply not serious. I was on the Opposition side of the House for 14 years, and I think that after a statement one usually asks some questions.

We heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would not do, but we heard absolutely nothing about what he would do. Now we can see what happens when the Leader of the Opposition tells the shadow Cabinet that it should not have any policies. As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s economic strategy is to say that the UK should not engage with the second largest economy in the world, or indeed with our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partners in the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman’s economic strategy is to support higher spending but none of the right decisions that are required to deliver sound public finances, and his economic strategy is to ignore the mistakes of the past with no apology to the British people for his part in Liz Truss’s mini-Budget that crashed the economy. I appreciate that, having said that, I may now receive a “cease and desist” letter from her later.

One question that the shadow Chancellor did ask was: why did I go to China? I went to secure tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not worth it; let him say that to the representatives of HSBC, Standard Chartered, Prudential, Schroders and the London Stock Exchange who attended those meetings with me last week, all of whom have spoken of the difference that it will make.

I have been under no illusion about the scale of challenges that we face, after 14 years of stagnant economic growth, higher debt and economic uncertainty, and we have seen global economic uncertainty play out in the last week, but leadership is not about ducking these challenges; it is about rising to them. The economic headwinds we face are a reminder that we should—indeed, we must—go further and faster in our plan to kick-start economic growth, which plunged under the last Government, by bringing stability to the public finances after years of instability under the Conservative party, unlocking investment that plummeted under the previous Government and pushing ahead with essential reforms to our economy and public services. That is my message to the House today, because if we get it right, the prize on offer to us—to the British people—is immense: the opportunity to make working people better off by making Britain better off. That is the mandate this Government have, and that is what we will deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to appear opposite the right hon. Lady for the first time. I was tempted to ask her how things were going, but I did not want to start out by being unkind. I will instead ask this: when she recently pledged to the CBI that she would not raise taxes again, did she mean it?

[Rachel Reeves]

I welcome the right hon. Member to his place, and look forward to many exchanges with him across the Dispatch Box. At the Budget in October, as he knows, we had to fix a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Some of that black hole comes from the fact that we are the only G7 economy in which employment is lower than it was before the pandemic, when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so we had to raise taxes to fund our public services; but never again will we have to repeat a Budget like that one, because we have now wiped the slate clean and drawn a line under the mess created by the previous Government.

[Mel Stride]

I did not actually discern any answer to my question, so may I put it this way? No. 10 has stated that it is not prepared to stand by the Chancellor’s commitment on tax. Is that because No. 10 changed its mind, or because the right hon. Lady spoke without thinking?

[Rachel Reeves]

No Chancellor of the Exchequer would write five years’ worth of Budget in their first five months in post, but I can say that we will never have to deliver a Budget like that again. We took decisions in this Budget in order to wipe the slate clean after the mismanagement, decline and chaos of the previous Government. That required us to make difficult decisions, but we were right to make them, so that we can get going with our plans to achieve growth and reform public services, and deliver the NHS and schools that our country desperately needs.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am very happy to engage in detail with the hon. Gentleman on the specific point he raises, but as to the general point of removing the pensions lifetime allowance, Labour has to decide exactly what its policy is. The right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) tells us this afternoon that she is against the policy, but we know that it will mean that thousands upon thousands of additional highly skilled people working in the national health service will as a consequence stay in the national health service where we need them. The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is in his place on the Front Bench, made exactly the same point not that long ago—[Interruption] —saying that a failure to act could cost lives. I say to the right hon. Lady: what is it? Political opportunism, or standing shoulder to shoulder with our national health service and the millions of people up and down the country who depend on it?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) called for a targeted scheme for doctors. That would be at a fraction of the cost. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many doctors will benefit from this scheme?

[Mel Stride]

I have made it very clear that thousands upon thousands will be affected. The right hon. Lady is adopting a completely perverse policy in view of the position taken by the shadow Health Secretary until quite recently, when political opportunism around this Budget reared its head. I say that we should stand up for the national health service and the millions of people who depend on it, and we should do what is right for them. That is the right thing to do.

This is also a Budget for parents, with a multibillion-pound extension to childcare support. I note and appreciate the right hon. Lady’s welcome for those proposals. They formed a major centrepiece of the Budget, and I am pleased that she has personally welcomed them.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend has invited me to go into some of the technical detail of what has been put before the House this afternoon. Let me direct him to my earlier remarks about the work that Stephen Nickell will be doing. It will be very detailed and very forensic, and will deal with all the assumptions, including the trading assumptions to which my hon. Friend has referred. Of course, that information will in time—in a short time—be available to the House.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

However people vote, they expect the Government to put our national interest first. The deal on which we will vote in 13 days’ time clearly does not do that, and we are now confronted with circumstances in which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are expecting us to vote for a deal that they know—and we all know—means that our economy will grow more slowly, and we will have a smaller economy with fewer jobs and less investment. No one voted for that in the referendum in June 2016, so can the Minister understand why so few MPs are going to vote for this deal in 13 days’ time?

[Mel Stride]

What the British people voted for in 2016 was this. They voted for a responsible Government to enter into robust negotiations with the European Union on behalf of the British people and secure a deal which safeguards our economy, the jobs and the economic future of all our constituents, but which also—critically— delivers on several other issues including an end to free movement, an end to the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, control of our borders, not sending vast sums of money to the European Union, maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, and ensuring that we are able to go out and strike trade deals around the world as a global country. That is what we are delivering on.

National Minimum Wage

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that, taking account of all the changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits since the Government came into office, the average worker is now £850 worse off. The hon. Gentleman points to one thing, but the VAT increase means that people are worse off, as do the tax credit changes. Overall, when all those things are added up, people are worse off, not better off. I hope that he will stay a little longer than his colleague to hear a bit more of the debate.

We know that we need to build on the success of the national minimum wage, because today we face a new challenge: getting our economy working for working people and tackling the worst excesses of insecurity and exploitation in our labour market.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), does the hon. Lady not accept that the pressure on living standards is a function not just of wages, but of the costs that average families face? Will she thank the Government, as I do, for having frozen council tax during the period we have been in office, unlike her party, which doubled it during its period in office?

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at what has happened to living standards, he will see that the average worker is £1,600 worse off than they were in 2010. I am surprised that he applauds what the Government are doing—I certainly do not—because workers in his constituency are worse off, not better off, after three and a half years of Conservative government.

Policy for Growth

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Mel Stride

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) for organising the debate. On the eve of the G20 summit in Seoul, it is especially timely, because growth is the missing plank in the Government’s policy. Yes, we need to bring down the budget deficit, but if we deny the need to grow the economy, we will fail to create the jobs that we need, and a rising dole queue means a bigger welfare bill with less tax coming in, as the shadow Chancellor has put it.

History has taught us that economic recovery following a large-scale financial crisis is tough and that the wrong economic policies from the Government can make things worse. The USA saw signs of positive growth in the 1930s, and fiscal stimulus was withdrawn. The result was the great depression. In the UK during the 1980s, the Government maintained that there was no alternative and raised interest rates to tackle inflation. The result was recession, massive social disruption, huge unemployment, rising public spending and communities that have only recently begun to recover.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Lady tell the House what the lesson was of 1976, when a former Labour Chancellor had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund, because once again a Labour Government had spent the economy out into the long grass?

[Rachel Reeves]

When the hon. Gentleman makes his speech, perhaps he will explain the exchange rate mechanism crisis.

In 1990 Japan had a debt to GDP ratio of 50%. The Government failed to take the swift action necessary to help the economy recover from recession and the result is that, 20 years later, debt in Japan stands at 190% of GDP. Those are the facts. Concentrate too much on one economic variable and we have an unbalanced economy that fails to achieve our economic objectives.

Despite these facts, the Government say again that there is no alternative. Let me offer an alternative programme for growth in which the Government act strategically on the side of business and industry. What would that mean in practice? First, there is a real and pressing need for the UK to be at the forefront of businesses for the future, especially low-carbon industries. To make the most of Britain’s potential requires a Government who support businesses. Instead, we had the tragedy of the cancellation of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters. That company is a UK success story. It is British-owned, high tech and high skill. The owners built the company up from scratch and it has become a leader in its field. The loan—I emphasise that it was a loan and not a grant—was signed off by civil servants in the Treasury and was a product of two years of careful negotiation. Lord Digby Jones said that the loan would have been paid back 100 times over in benefits to the economy. Before the election, the Deputy Prime Minister described the loan as

“just the sort of thing”

we should be doing, and I have to admit that, on this occasion, I agree with Nick. The loan would have created jobs in the low-carbon industry of the future and added greatly to Britain’s export capability. However, as we all know, the loan has been cancelled, so instead of exporting civil nuclear components, we are exporting jobs to Japan and South Korea. That is not a strategy for growth, but a strategy for undermining it.

The second part of a strategy for growth must include promoting bank lending. The Prime Minister met business people in Watford last week who talked to him about the reluctance of banks to lend and how it was stifling job creation, and the Prime Minister admitted that it was difficult to know which levers to pull to get banks to lend more. His confusion does not surprise me, because I have read the Government’s Green Paper on bank lending. I read it once and assumed that I had missed the section on the action the Government plan to take, so I read it again. But it was not me; it was the Green Paper—a very green paper indeed. There was nothing there! The Government are not taking action. The review of the structure of the banking sector is still a year away, and in the meantime businesses are being denied the chance to grow.

The third component of a growth strategy is investment in the skills of the future. As the Prime Minister has just led a delegation to China, it is timely to reflect that in China and India last year 8 million people graduated from university. In contrast, on investment in higher education, the Government have reduced the university teaching grant by 80% and are making students bear the full cost of a university education. This is no way to grow the British economy.

The fourth component in a strategy for growth must be investment in our regional economies. In my region of Yorkshire, we take huge pride in our industrial heritage, and we want to build a future we are proud of as well. However, while the Leeds local enterprise partnership has been given the chance to go ahead, I have not found a single business leader in Leeds who would not prefer to continue with our successful regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward. A quarter of Yorkshire will not even be covered by a local enterprise partnership, and in the north-east that rises to more than 70%. Support for RDAs is strong not just in Yorkshire. John Cridland, the policy director at the CBI, likened the Government’s regional and economic strategy to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Where does this leave us? Investment in Sheffield Forgemasters will not go ahead, the banks continue to rein in lending, university funding is cut to the bone, and powers are being taken away from our regions to determine their own economic future. We all agree that the budget deficit needs to be cut, but the Government must match their ambitions for cuts with an ambition for growth that British businesses and workers can be proud of. Britain could be a world leader in the jobs and technologies of the future, but only if the Government put in the policies to make this a reality.