Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Peter Kyle

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome the team to their significant roles for the United Kingdom.

This week, the other place voted for five reasonable amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, representing a meaningful compromise with cross-party support to mitigate some of the worst of the damage caused by the Bill. As the Office for Budget Responsibility now scores the impact of that legislation, this is one of the last chances to avoid the costs, taxes and spending cuts that will result from it. Will the Secretary of State now put country before party, do the right thing by British business and accept those compromise amendments?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s warm words. He shadowed me when I first went into my role at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; he was then moved here before me, so I have followed him to this role. I watch with trepidation the next reshuffle on his Benches.

The shadow Secretary of State mentions the workers’ rights Bill, which is still between the two Houses; I hope we will be reconciled as soon as possible so that it can get Royal Assent and benefit workers and businesses right across the nation. Once the Bill passes, we will, of course, undertake a period of implementation. My predecessor and the previous Deputy Prime Minister, who championed this legislation, were clear from the outset that the Bill will modernise the British workplace so that it is beneficial for businesses and for the people who work in them.

The modern economy has changed; it is different from 20 years ago. The Conservatives had the time to modernise the economy and the relationships within workplaces, and they chose not to take that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I don’t want to do this, but this is topicals, and all these Members need to get in. We did not get through the list already. You have to help me to help them.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will save time, Mr Speaker, by not mentioning the 13 leading business organisations that have all called for certainty now—not well-intentioned future consultations on implementation, but certainty now, because jobs and the economy are bleeding out. The Secretary of State will know that even the Resolution Foundation—that wonderful finishing school for aspiring Labour Ministers—said this week that some of the measures in the Bill should not be proceeded with.

[Peter Kyle]

Again, the Conservatives had 14 years in which the economy was changing. They had the chance to tackle zero-hours contracts, and what did they do? Nothing. They had the chance to tackle fire and rehire, and they did nothing. They had the chance to tackle the challenges of being an app-based employee, and they chose to do nothing. We are acting to modernise the economy and the relationship out there between businesses and workers because that is what is needed. It is what workers and businesses need, and it is what this Government are delivering.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Peter Kyle

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Did the Secretary of State fully disclose to the Civil Service Commission the Labour links of one of the most senior civil service appointments, or the £66,000 donation he received?

[Peter Kyle]

Every donation that was made to this party in opposition has been declared in the appropriate ways. I am proud to be part of a party that raises standards in public life rather than votes to lower them. [Interruption.] I am also proud to be part of a party that comes into government and attracts talent to working for it, whereas when the Conservatives see talent, they libel it.

[Andrew Griffith]

Thanks to Whitehall Watch, we have a copy of the form. It is clear the Secretary of State failed to mention the conflicts of interest, as required by the ministerial code. In the words of the Prime Minister’s favourite pop star, some would say he is “Guilty as Sin”. Will he refer himself to the adviser on standards, or do we have to wait for the Prime Minister to finish organising VIP motorcades and do it for him?

[Peter Kyle]

There we have it—a party that attacks civil servants and the world’s greatest talent gravitating towards this party and this Government, to work for them. When he sees talent in Government, he libels it and saddles the taxpayer with the bill. This Government attract talent and I am proud of that.

Technology in Public Services

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Peter Kyle

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I could not be happier to debate that topic, but I am very conscious of the number of Members who, I was told, are trying to make their maiden speeches, and I think it is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every intervention we take at this stage potentially jeopardises their chance of doing so. In short, however, there is a very fine place for solar: it is on the roofs of warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and new homes, where appropriate, but it is not on productive farmland.

In government, we significantly increased spending on public sector research—by 29%, to £20 billion in the current financial year—and our recent manifesto pledged to increase that by a further 10% over the life of this Parliament. May I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will wind up the debate, if they can pledge to match that ambition to a sector that is desperate to see such certainty of funding?

The Secretary of State has my sympathy. I cannot imagine how difficult his phone call with the University of Edinburgh, which had already invested £30 million in the exascale supercomputer, must have been. This was a national facility that would have enabled significant advances in AI, medical research, climate science and clean energy innovation. The investment was fully costed, amounting over many years to what the NHS burns through in three days. There seems to be confusion at the Treasury: just because semiconductors are becoming smaller in size, it does not mean that the Secretary of State’s Department must follow suit.

[Peter Kyle]

The shadow Secretary of State said that the exascale project was fully costed. Could he confirm that it was fully funded too?

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes. The exascale investment was being delivered through UK Research and Innovation, an enterprise that receives nearly £9 billion every single year and that, under our manifesto, would have had a growing level of investment across the entirety of the spending review. There were plans in place to deliver the investment, which is why Edinburgh was so confident that it would be delivered. It was a clear priority in our spending plans and communicated in writing by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to the chief executive of UKRI. Notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury seems to have got his tongue immediately upon taking office, a project that the Treasury never loved seems to have been mysteriously cancelled. The project was being delivered by UKRI, an organisation with significant financial resources that far exceeded the £1.3 billion cost of the supercomputer. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.

[Andrew Griffith]

The last Government did not do that; it was an independent institute that had multiple sources of funding. As the Secretary of State and his Ministers will discover, funding of that nature is competitive funding that is allotted by independent research councils. It would not have been within the gift of me or any other Minister to abrogate that competitive funding process.

Inevitably, there are projects that are funded and projects that are not funded, but the exascale computer was a very clear priority. It sat within the overall financial resources of UKRI and, under our Government, there was an expanding level of resource. People should have absolute confidence that the programme would have continued and been delivered in the context of the much larger amount of money that is spent through the Department, but by the Government as a whole. That was a good decision, and it would have had huge benefits to the UK. The chief executive of UKRI has talked at length about the benefits, and I think the Government are making the wrong decision. I urge the Secretary of State to go back, lock horns with the Treasury and seek to continue the project before it is too late, before contracts are cancelled and before technology is not procured.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that it was announced in the Budget, but it was contingent on a manifesto that had not even been written at the time of the Budget, in order to deliver the money promised in the Budget. He is an accountant by trade. Could he explain to the House why a Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up and making a commitment for which he has not one penny allocated until potentially winning a general election, which has not been called, is irresponsible?

[Andrew Griffith]

The Secretary of State will understand that at any point in time, a Department may go through a triennial spending review, although actually the triennial spending review had not fully happened. Governments also make forward-looking commitments and declarations of intent, and commission work, whether from arm’s length bodies such as UK Research and Investment or from officials in the Department, to deliver their priorities. I do not think that the Secretary of State disputes that this was a clear priority. Looking at the aggregated spend through UKRI and the different funding councils that were going to deliver the supercomputer project, including the Science and Technology Facilities Council, there is no question but that it would have been delivered. It was not contingent on growth; a Government of any persuasion, advised by their independent civil servants, would have delivered the programme through organisations such as UKRI. That is why Edinburgh University was so committed to it. It had been announced by the previous Government, and equipment was being procured.

As we seek to compete with modern states that are busily investing in exactly this sort of facility, it is important to recognise that it is wrong to simply recoil from the project. It is not something that the Treasury ever loved, and the Secretary of State has to push hard, as we did, but it is wrong to allow a step back on that brilliant project, which would unlock so many of the benefits that the Secretary of State talked about this evening. Again, I ask him to lock horns with the Treasury, and use every opportunity to see what can be done to revisit the decision. It is a very important project, and part of an ambition that I think we share for the future of this country.

In conclusion, the first duty of government should be to do no harm, and we cannot afford to get this agenda wrong. We will judge the Government by their actions. Where they are bold in order to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost to the taxpayer, they can count on our full support. We will help this progressive Secretary of State to face down the union luddites in his party. We on the Opposition Benches will support efforts to place the private sector at the heart of reform of the NHS, but the people of the UK cannot afford half-hearted efforts, the Treasury curtailing the departmental budget to pay for public sector pay rises elsewhere, or the abandonment of real ambition that can unlock the potential of technology to benefit this country for years to come.