Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Peter Kyle and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for that constructive intervention. I am certainly in favour of looking at mechanisms for when we discover absurdities in the regulatory system. We know how long it takes to get legislation through the House or even introduced to the House as there are so many priorities, so we need to be able to act in the interim. We should look at that, and the House should give those powers where needed in such circumstances. Of course, national security is the No. 1 priority of any Government at any moment in time—it certainly should be.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I will make some progress.

We also need a tax growth test, with outside experts reviewing all investment, hiring, innovation, revenue and incentives from HM Treasury and judging those against a growth test. That does not mean we would not still redistribute, invest and use tax in ways that are not always conducive to growth, but we do need to know in aggregate form exactly how the incentive landscape and the policy landscape in HMT align with the need for growth.

I am pleased that the Chancellor has made a lot of statements and some good progress on procurement. We should really be using that far more effectively to champion British innovation and support British scale-up companies. In procuring products and services, they have access to over £400 billion of spending, which eclipses investment we can make through Innovate UK, the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund or UK Research and Innovation.

I could not understand this as Secretary of State, and I still cannot when looking on. We went through a period, with my encouragement, of taking equity stakes in scale-up companies as part of our scale-up plan. There was all the due diligence that goes into making those decisions and which lead to the British Business Bank, through the independent and thorough work of its investment committee, taking an equity stake. Yet once that is done, there is no preferential access to any other part of Government. That should change.

The Regulatory Innovation Office should be upscaled and there should be local rewards for businesses that are growing fast. I have spoken—I will not speak in any more detail—about my frustration that this economy and the continent of Europe have never produced a $1 trillion company. Some of the wealth from those companies, when it is fairly distributed among their workforces and the communities in which they are sited, is an astonishing vehicle for levelling up. We need to ensure that we understand the reasons why our economy seems to have some kind of glass ceiling. It is a continental European challenge. Taiwan can produce a $1 trillion company that produces the wealth and power that goes alongside it, but there is nothing that Taiwan has that we do not have here in Britain.

Social justice and growth are intertwined. I started by saying that we are on a motorway going in the right direction, but at 30 mph. Fairly distributed growth delivers security, freedom and prosperity. If that is what the destination looks like, why would we not we put our foot down and try and get there faster?

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Andrew Murrison

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman would think that British steel would be more expensive as a result, but let us take one step back: if we did not protect, there would be no steel sector to export in the first place. That is why I took the decision to invest, to modernise and to protect where needed. If this Government had continued on the same trajectory that we inherited from the previous Government, I would fear for any steelworks at all being capable to export, let alone producing domestic supply as well. This is the future that we are now creating.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to make some progress because the debate has been cut short. I have taken a few interventions and I am sure I will find time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later in my opening remarks, but first let me make a bit of progress.

I have pledged to ensure that Britain retains its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. It is a commitment that I have made to hon. Members in this House and it is my commitment to the steel communities of this country. This House acted last year to support British Steel, which is one of the country’s most vital steel firms. We recalled Parliament to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 so that the company’s blast furnaces could remain lit and its workforce could remain protected. I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his leadership during that time, and I am grateful to the House for supporting that vital piece of legislation.

When we intervened then, we were certain that there was a future for British Steel. Our determination now is that the future may best be served by full public ownership in the national interest, not because of ideology, but because of practical pragmatism. Public ownership would allow us to explore future opportunities for the company and to retain its vital resource as a critical piece of our national infrastructure—one that is essential to our economic resilience. I want British Steel to play its part in driving up our domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used in this country is made in this country.

[Dr Murrison]

In keeping open the options that the Secretary of State hints at, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? At least for the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for virgin steel for certain defence applications.

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. This Government are determined to make, produce and use more steel from the British sector in lots of different areas of the economy, and we want to ensure that we are using Government spending and procurement in driving up steel production in the UK.

I had the privilege to visit the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset. It is in a different sector, but it is using 231 tonnes of British steel in its production. That is using an amount of Government investment as well, so it has Government investment and private sector investment and is using British steel. That shows that when we align our priorities, we can drive up demand for British steel.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Andrew Murrison

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis, such as during covid, and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards. Covid shone a light on the challenges that can be faced in the workforce. In those times, we needed to see the best from everyone. The majority of businesses supported their employees through that time of challenge. We want to ensure that the floor is high enough, and that the standards for every workforce are those that were set by the best, not by those who fell short of what we expect in Britain in the 2020s.

Today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to this legislation. I will ask hon. Members to endorse Government amendments that seek to clarify and strengthen a number of measures, and to reject the amendments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who joined forces to undermine the progress that we are attempting to make. I make an exception of those in the other place who had the sincere aim of scrutinising, and who ensured that the Bill was steered through the legislative process there with a steady hand.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In opposition, those now in government probably rightly criticised the Conservative Government for introducing Henry VIII powers, yet the Bill is absolutely riddled with them. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Attorney General that such powers strike at the heart of the rule of law?

[Peter Kyle]

I agree that such powers need to be used wisely. The House will notice that many clauses provide for guidance in primary legislation during the implementation phase, and consultation with the businesses affected. Members will have their voice heard, as will businesses and workers affected by the Bill. During the passage of the Bill through both Houses, there have been improvements to the legislation, and I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their tireless work.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Andrew Murrison

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We are not talking about whether we want to move forward or not; the important thing is that we move forward in the right way.

Investigations are absolutely central to families being able to move forward and to the ability to deliver justice. The hon. Gentleman will notice from the Bill, which I am sure he has read in great detail, that the word “investigations” is mostly replaced by “review”. The emphasis that has proven successful in the past—from the Stormont agreement right through to the ongoing Kenova investigations—has provided, in limited circumstances, the kind of reconciliation, truth and justice that victims have requested. That is where we believe the future should be.

Currently, there are 32 files with the prosecution service of Northern Ireland as a result of the Kenova investigations. Not one has been picked up, because the prosecution service does not have the resources. There has been progress, and I am sure that the justice that we are talking about could be dispensed if the prosecution service of Northern Ireland had the right resources.

[Dr Murrison]

I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s line of reasoning at all, but on immunity, does he not accept that that ship sailed in 1998—a concept, of course, that his party needs to take quite a lot of responsibility for? He says that justice is being denied, and I have some sympathy with that, but does he accept that as a result there has been 20 years-plus of peace in Northern Ireland?

[Peter Kyle]

Since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement there have been long periods in which politics has been functional, and there has been huge progress that had been inconceivable before. Its achievement was totemic. As I have already said in this speech, the commitments and aspirations in the Good Friday agreement with regard to victims have not been realised and we need to make effort. We are losing the generation affected by these issues, as has been said. We need to get on with this, but we need to get it right.