UK Export Finance: Mandate
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Government are taking decisive action to strengthen the UK’s economic security and deliver growth in an increasingly contested and uncertain global economy.
As the UK’s export credit agency, UK Export Finance drives growth by helping businesses across the country win contracts overseas, expand into new markets, and sustain high-value jobs. It plays a central role in mobilising capital in support of the Government’s economic objectives. UKEF’s 2025-26 impact report shows that last year UKEF provided £11 billion of support, which supported up to 85,000 jobs across the UK. Over the last 5 years, UKEF has supported 330,000 UK jobs, unlocking £23 billion of GDP growth.
Export credit agencies in peer and competitor countries are moving quickly to support a broader range of trade and investment activity, providing their firms with a wider and deeper range of financing to compete internationally. UKEF must be similarly equipped to match this ambition. However, its current statutory framework is primarily focused on supporting exports and does not provide sufficient flexibility to support the full range of modern trade, investment and supply chain activity.
As part of its modern industrial strategy, the Government committed to reviewing UKEF’s mandate, with a view to establishing a wider trade and investment remit to drive growth across the eight growth sectors. Delivering this commitment is a key part of the Government plan for growth.
I am therefore announcing the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to modernise the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 and expand UKEF’s statutory powers, enabling it to operate as a more flexible, globally deployable financing instrument in support of UK prosperity.
The Government’s ambition is for UKEF to be able to support a broader range of international trade and investment activities, in order to support the UK economy, strengthen vulnerable supply chains and secure the UK’s economic resilience. The ambition includes:
Supporting UK firms who trade, invest and operate overseas;
Strengthening the UK’s economic security, including by facilitating the supply of critical goods into the UK;
Building investment partnerships overseas to mobilise finance flows into the UK.
These measures will enable UKEF to deploy its finance more strategically, so that it can build economic partnerships globally, support UK firms in internationalising, and strengthen supply chains in support of the UK’s economic security.
These changes will build on UKEF’s existing capabilities and expertise, while maintaining its robust control framework, which includes Treasury consent and parliamentary oversight.
[HCWS206]
British Industry Supercharger: Ceramics
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
It is a real pleasure to be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has made an outstanding case. I can reassure him that when we make decisions, they go beyond the sheer economics of investment, and into considerations about communities and sectors. The societal impact, should more ceramics companies fail in the cities that he and his colleagues represent, was very much in my mind. People of my age and generation remember very well that de-industrialisation was an active decision made by the Government in the 1980s in parts of the country, particularly the north-east, east midlands and elsewhere. It left a scarring impact that has crossed generations. I would not allow that to happen again on my watch.
My hon. Friend makes his case very eloquently. Going up to Emma Bridgewater the day after I announced the package was a very memorable occasion. It shows his graciousness that he would say that my handiwork on that day was anything other than basic. His contribution shows the importance of the ceramics industry to many communities around the country, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent and other manufacturing heartlands. Ceramics is a sector with a proud history and heritage, a highly skilled workforce and an important role in local economies and the wider economy and supply chains around the country.
Peter Kyle
I will, in just a moment. My hon. Friend was not here to hear his colleagues’ contributions earlier. He will regret that, because they were Churchillian.
The Government recognise the importance of and understand the challenges that the sector has faced in recent years. The British industry supercharger was designed to support the industries most prone to carbon leakage due to high electricity costs faced by UK businesses. The supercharger supports the most electricity and trade-intensive industries by reducing their policy and network costs. Some electricity-intensive ceramics firms do receive the supercharger, and they make up around 10% of the industry.
Dave Robertson
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for not quite being able to get here for the kick-off. The Secretary of State talks about the importance of the ceramics industry, both in economic and heritage terms. Does he agree that ceramics firms offer us a huge amount of soft power around the world? The “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” and the “Made in England” marks are so important, and in my constituency, we have Armitage Shanks, a name known all around the world for the products that it provides. Does he agree with that point?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. Of course, he is completely correct. The impact that these brands have around the world has not been made recently, and is not to be taken lightly; it has come on the back of generations of extraordinarily hard work, precision and success. That is why the industry has the global recognition that it does. We celebrate the success of the past, and the impact and importance the industry has for communities, but I recognise the contribution that it should and will make in the future as well.
The businesses I mentioned will have benefited from the recent uplift to the network charging compensation scheme, which now saves eligible ceramics businesses 90% on their electricity network charges. However, the reality is that much of the sector is gas-intensive, rather than electricity-intensive, and UK gas prices are more internationally competitive than electricity prices, notwithstanding the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made.
The Department for Business and Trade intends to review eligibility for the supercharger this year, and I encourage—in fact, I implore—the ceramics sector to engage with that process. Any changes to eligibility will be subject to consultation and ministerial approval, and the Government must always bear in mind the cost of potential changes and who would pay for them. The Government are also taking wider action to support over 10,000 manufacturing businesses in the industrial strategy growth sectors, and in foundational industries that provide key inputs for those sectors, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Some advanced and technical ceramics will be eligible to receive that support from 2027, and it will reduce their electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour. Members should not forget the announcement I made earlier this year: qualifying businesses may get a bonus covering the costs of this year, too.
The Government recognise that ceramics manufacturers are still under pressure, and I have been saddened to learn of the closure of, and job losses at, iconic ceramic manufacturers in recent years, most notably at Denby Pottery. Unfortunately, manufacturing ceased there, as administrators were unable to find a buyer for the business. Officials in my Department are working with the administrators as they take their statutory process forward, and I pass on my very sincere and heartfelt sympathies to all the workers, families and local communities that have been impacted by the closure. Our priority now is to support those who have been affected. We are working across Government and with local partners and relevant agencies to ensure that support is in place for workers who have been made redundant, and for those in the wider area impacted by Denby’s administration. That includes ensuring a joined-up, local response, and ensuring that employees can access the help and assistance that is and should be available to them.
It is clear that the ceramics industry faces significant challenges, but despite those, the industry has great potential to be forward-facing as we transition towards a decarbonised economy. To unlock the industry’s potential and help support ceramics firms, the Government have recently announced a £120 million ceramics industry support scheme. That is a substantial intervention, focused on the needs of the ceramics sector. The scheme will back capital investment, and energy efficiency and decarbonisation projects, as well as providing operational support for successful applicants to the fund who require additional help to manage any increased ongoing costs. Ceramics are crucial for our modern way of living, from house building to smartphone screens, from plates to planes, and from engines to mugs and space shuttles, as well as all the other products that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned.
This funding will support the industry right across the United Kingdom, including in my hon. Friend’s home city of Stoke-on-Trent. The scheme will help to modernise an industry with a proud heritage, and the Government are working closely with the industry on its design. Officials in the Department for Business and Trade are engaging broadly, including with the sector’s main trade association, Ceramics UK, and individual businesses, to ensure that the scheme truly helps the sector in the long term and secures its long-term competitiveness. We want a thriving ceramics industry that continues to provide skilled employment, supports local communities, drives innovation and remains globally competitive.
Adam Jogee
Before the Secretary of State concludes, I thank him for his engagement, his respect towards me, as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and my Staffordshire colleagues, and for his support on this important issue. We would not have that £120 million package without his tenacity, and his encouragement to our colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury. For that, we are very grateful.
Peter Kyle
That was a very gracious intervention—I am glad I took it. I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency in the run-up to the general election, and I saw how much hard work and dedication he put into his campaign; I have also seen the clear-sighted representation, and heard the voice, that he has provided since coming to this place.
Announcing these schemes is never easy. When we are minded to provide support, is difficult to go through the process without setting hares running or setting expectations too high. When there is ambiguity in the process, we appreciate, when we get to the other side, just how sincere everyone is at moments like this. In this Government and in me, hon. Members have a Government and a Secretary of State who strive, and put great store by the heritage and importance of certain businesses and sectors—not just the economic wellbeing of communities, but the social and cultural wellbeing of communities. Those are all interlinked, and we fail to recognise that at our peril.
The ceramics industry deserves support, and this Government have demonstrated that through the £120 million package. We have chosen to deliver support through the ceramics industry support scheme to enable the industry to modernise, decarbonise and optimise, protecting the long-term competitiveness of the sector in the most efficient way. I thank all my parliamentary colleagues who advocated for that support. The Department, other Ministers and I look forward to continuing to work with Members as we develop the scheme and get it ready for deployment.
Despite a difficult business environment, the ceramics sector continues to demonstrate resilience and innovation, and I remain confident in the future of this important industry. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central once again for securing this debate, and other Members for their interventions.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Strong delivery of the 10-year modern industrial strategy is ongoing, including the investment in the British industrial competitiveness scheme—the long-term industrial intervention to address energy costs. We also have the advanced manufacturing sector plan, which includes sector specific cross-cutting measures to support manufacturers right across the United Kingdom.
Dr Ahmed
The Secretary of State will know very well that Glasgow South West is home to a storied, nationally significant collection of advanced manufacturing, from Type 26 frigate construction at BAE Systems, to small satellites at Craft Prospect, to the maritime supply chain at the Malin Group. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with businesses in Glasgow and Glasgow South West specifically about how we can grow this advanced manufacturing base, so that Glasgow can play its full part in Britain’s reindustrialisation?
Peter Kyle
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the extraordinary achievements of our country that have stemmed from his constituency. As he knows, on the Clyde they have adapted from manufacturing the Dreadnought through to the frigates that he mentioned. We are in another era of change, and the Government are on their side in this latest transformation. They will have access to a range of sector-focused interventions from the industrial plan, as well as support for access to finance, innovation and tech adaptation. He will also be aware that the Glasgow city region will receive £50 million through the local innovation partnerships fund—a fund that I launched when I was in my previous job at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am pleased to see it being put to good use in his constituency.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The largest employer in Woking is McLaren. It sells around half of its cars to the US, which, needless to say, has not been easy since Donald Trump took office. What are the Secretary of State and his Department doing to work with the US to lower trade barriers, so that we can continue to have high-quality advanced manufacturing jobs in Woking?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Member for championing what is an extraordinary company. I met the chief executive of McLaren just in the last week, and I will be meeting him again in the next couple of weeks. This is a Government who are on its side—of course, we got tariffs reduced to 10% for 100,000 cars. I have spoken to my counterpart in the United States, the Commerce Secretary, numerous times about the fantastic cars produced in our country, both the high-volume mainstream products and these high-value precision products that do our country proud. I can tell the hon. Member that the deal we have struck with America does those businesses proud too.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
This week, our hard-pressed automotive industry has sounded the alarm: under the zero emission vehicle rules, British car makers are being fined for making precisely the type of cars people want to buy. That is costing them £5 billion a year, denying consumer choice, damaging British jobs and putting automotive firms at risk. Like me, the Secretary of State met with car makers earlier this week, so will he listen to them, adopt the Conservative policy of scrapping these rules and support our great British automotive industry?
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for the hon. Member’s question because he raises important points. First, we are a listening Government, which is why we have acted to tackle the energy costs faced by the automotive sector—of course, we inherited those energy costs from the Tory Government. The BICS will lower the cost of producing cars in this country.
The hon. Member mentioned the ZEV mandate. I am listening very closely to him on that. In general terms, when it comes to environmental regulations across the piece, it is really important that we deliver net zero targets and get to that destination. We need to be creative in how we get to that destination, and I speak in general terms. He spoke to the automotive sector earlier this week, as I did. I was very honest about these issues. He should have been honest, too: his party brought in the rules in the first place—he should have apologised for them if he does not like them.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
We are investing £2.5 billion over the next three years in tackling the issues around youth unemployment. That will include new initiatives, such as a further 19 technical excellence colleges to provide high-quality training for jobs in key sectors.
Mr Mohindra
I recently met people from Mission Employable, an incredible charity based in Chorleywood, which offers supported internships for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It was deeply concerning to hear that in England only 6% of adults with learning disabilities are in paid work. Will the Secretary of State outline how he is working with other Departments to ensure that the youth jobs grant does not disincentive employers in hiring people from supported internship backgrounds who are not claiming universal credit?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue. It sounds as if the charity that he references is doing incredibly important work locally. We want to support that work. It is a shame that in the years running up to coming into office, apprenticeship starts had fallen by 40%. We are reinvesting in apprenticeship starts and ensuring that they are available to everyone, from every background and with every ability.
John Cooper
While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.
John Cooper
I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?
Peter Kyle
I am glad to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s childhood experiences. In retirement, perhaps we will see him in the musical “Mama Mia!”. My first job was on a battery chicken farm collecting eggs, so I hope that I can take a different path when I move away from the current profession. I assure him that not only are we are investing £2.5 billion but we are working across Departments to ensure that 400,000 students in disadvantaged schools will take up AI and tech skills through the tech first programme. These are the kinds of initiatives that we are wrapping around young people so that they get support for the age in which we are living. Extending the hours for 13-year-olds is not a serious solution to the challenges we face, but that is the only answer that we have heard from Members on the Conservative Benches in recent times.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Small and medium-sized enterprises are often best placed to kick-start a young person’s career, but when I met a group of small business owners at the Crown pub in Granborough, many told me that the up-front costs of training and supervision often act as a barrier to taking on young people. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what support the Government are providing to incentivise small and microbusinesses in helping to give opportunities to young people?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have created a specific fund to support SMEs and young people to start up businesses. It is incredibly important that people from all backgrounds get to explore their entrepreneurial talents, and that is exactly what this Government are doing to make that happen.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
We are investing £720 million in the greater Lincolnshire investment fund over the next 30 years as part of our devolved funding and support for areas just like my hon. Friend’s.
Melanie Onn
News of apprenticeship incentives, the youth jobs grant and the jobs guarantee will provide a welcome boost for my brilliant young people in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but they and other jobseekers will want to know what permanent jobs they can move into. We have huge opportunities and experience in new clean energy and the supply chain. What action is the Secretary of State taking to expand existing businesses and attract new investment in this sector to deliver jobs for my hard-working constituents?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is right that her constituents are hard-working and they deserve to have a Government on their side: in this Government, they have that. We have invested £140 million in a pilot with the mayoral strategic authorities that will benefit her area. That will connect 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training to local apprenticeship opportunities in her area. We are also investing £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy over the next three years. NEETs rose by 250,000 under the Tories and we are doing everything we can to get that down, including in her area by providing specialist advice via the Business Lincolnshire growth hub.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I am grateful for the opportunity to say that one year ago we published our industrial strategy. Since publication, work driven by the industrial strategy has secured around £360 billion of private investment into the eight industrial strategy sectors and £33 billion-worth of export announcements, supporting up to 120,000 jobs. We are backing winners and giving our sectors with the highest potential everything they need to succeed, and in year two we will go further. We will be cutting energy costs for 10,000-plus manufacturing firms, working with businesses to create jobs for those eight sectors—the IS-8—to secure the workforce of the future, and cutting regulatory burdens to unlock investment. In just under two weeks, on 15 July, our trade deal with India will enter into force. India has never implemented a deal of this size, which could boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion every year in the long run. That is just the start. We will continue to drive delivery to secure investment and good high-paying jobs into year two and beyond.
Mr Mohindra
Micklefield Hall in Sarratt is a great example of a small business that has survived covid, only to be repeatedly hit by this Labour Government. Its representatives have contacted me to say that they are keen to borrow money for long-term investment, but fearful of yet more taxes on business. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to small businesses that want to invest for future growth, such as Micklefield Hall?
Peter Kyle
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman again in the same session—I suggest that he buy a lottery ticket tonight, because he is certainly having a lot of success in the draw. I can assure him that we are investing in small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have funding targeted at helping young people to start their own businesses. He lists some of the perceived challenges in the economy at the minute. Do not forget that youth unemployment went up by 250,000 in the years leading up to the general election without all the things that the Conservatives keep mentioning we are doing, such as giving rights and delivering investment into the economy.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I pay tribute to the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he advocates for. Businesses around the country are paying the price of, and having to adapt to the challenges posed by, the Iran war. It is a good job that we have a Prime Minister who kept us out of the war—those on the Conservative Benches would have plunged us into it and made things even more difficult for businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. On his specific question, I can tell him that we are engaging regularly with refiners, importers and distributors to ensure that any emerging risks are identified and managed properly.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
There is a bit of an end-of-term feel in the House at the moment. I heard the Secretary of State set out his answer to his essay question, but I point out that UK business confidence is at a four-year low, unemployment is up, millionaires are fleeing, and the Department’s own figures show inward investment falling by 26% this year to the lowest level in over a decade. I would say that is a failing mark. What does the Secretary of State plan to do differently when the new headteacher arrives?
Peter Kyle
I always look forward to the hon. Lady’s questions. The fundamentals of running our economy are going in the right direction. Growth is up, and inflation is down. These are things that the Conservatives never achieved when they were in government, but we have achieved them in two years. We have got more growth into our economy in the last two years than they achieved in multiple years leading up to the election.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I did not hear a plan for improvement in that answer. I am afraid the mark is “must do better”.
Let us turn to another bit of the Secretary of State’s coursework in this failing end-of-term report. Will he agree today to compensate all the Horizon victims, and to get Fujitsu to pay towards it, by the end of the year?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has met victims regularly. We are accelerating the compensation and the justice from what we inherited, because it was going too slow to deliver the justice that people required. When it comes to Horizon, we will deliver the justice and compensation that people require.
On the plan, our industrial strategy is crowding £360 billion of private investment into key sectors of our economy. We are lowering energy prices for manufacturers. Through plan after plan after plan, we are delivering the change that business is calling for and needs.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
In Aberdeen South, there is a jobs emergency, with 1,000 jobs a month being lost from the oil and gas sector. So will the Government ditch their damaging policies that are destroying the oil and gas industry and destroying jobs in Aberdeen South?
Peter Kyle
This Government are investing record amounts in the transition to renewable energy. We need to break the dependence on fossil fuels that our country has been forced into by the Conservative party. We will do so by creating wealth, jobs and businesses in the meantime.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s really important question. As I have said throughout this session, we are investing in young people and people in work, so they can adapt to the changes happening in the economy because of the transition to digital technology, particularly with AI. We are providing flexible support through bursaries for younger learners and learner support funding for adults. Do not forget the work that Business and Trade Ministers are doing jointly with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that people in the workplace are trained and have all the skills they need to thrive in the digital age.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I can provide all the reassurances my hon. Friend seeks. We are of course investing in the new technical colleges, as I have outlined. We are investing in young people so that they have the skills to transition from education into the workplace. We know that young people face challenges in this era because of not only the legacy of the last Government but the transition towards an AI future, which is disrupting the workforce. We are focused on training people, and we are working very closely with Alan Milburn, who brought consensus to the diagnosis of the challenges facing young people, and I hope will now bring consensus across the House to how we grab this issue once and for all.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
In early 2025, Rutland police caught a local shop owner red-handed with a carload of illegal fake cigarettes. Since then, I have reported this to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and trading standards, and nothing has happened. Will the Minister please haul in trading standards, because this individual runs two shops in my constituency, which are both still open, attracting in children and encouraging the sale of vapes? That is wrong, and such shops are clearly part of the black economy.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am already working with DSIT on these issues, but because of my hon. Friend’s informed question and the imploration for me to do more I will double down on that. He is giving real voice to an incredibly important part of the defence technology sector which we need to foster. The defence investment plan invests much more in drone technology. We will be investing more than £5 billion in drones over the next four years, and that his constituency will be playing a very key role in that.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed question. I, too, celebrate this important appointment and the Office for Investment is doing great work. The criteria for success that I see are how Britain can get more scale-up investment into companies, so they do not have to go elsewhere around the world to find the capital they need to grow, and how more people can start, build and scale right here in the UK. I often ask myself why the continent of Europe does not have a single trillion-dollar company. The Office for Investment, working with the Government, can start to answer that question.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last night this House debated the extended producer responsibility, which is seeing breweries, pubs and other businesses pay twice to recycle glass bottles. What meetings has the Department for Business and Trade had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the economically damaging nature of this tax? If it has not raised concerns, will it?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are having conversations with DEFRA over these issues. We want to ensure that regulation is right. We need to incentivise the right behaviour and the circular economy, but we need to do so in a responsible way. We are always engaged with the sectors that are impacted, not just because of regulatory measures but because of external measures facing our economy.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s critical minerals strategy was a fantastic achievement, with clear targets, and it will kick-start a nascent industry. To take the next step to get the sector up on its feet and to a more competitive place, will the Minister support a Government price certainty mechanism for lithium?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited Envirovent, a manufacturer and supplier of sustainable ventilation products just outside Harrogate. It was recognised in The Sunday Times’ best places to work 2026 and recently produced its three-millionth ventilation fan unit. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Envirovent on those achievements, and perhaps visit to see the fantastic work it does for the people of Harrogate and North Yorkshire?
Peter Kyle
I certainly join the hon. Member in celebrating the success of that business—and businesses across the country that are doing such great work for the people who work in them and our overall economy. I would like to hear more about the business, and if I get the opportunity, visiting would be a pleasure.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I know the Secretary of State will join me in wishing the United States a very happy 250th birthday on Saturday. It was John Pym and Members of this House four centuries ago who helped found the American economy, and I know the whole House will wish the young republic well. But it is the Republic of France that I want to ask the Secretary of State about.
Today, I am publishing correspondence between the Committee and the Port of Dover, warning that we will have, without doubt, a critical incident at the border unless France is persuaded to suspend the entry and exit system. The modelling has been done, and we know the chaos that will follow, so what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that we avoid this peril?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s advocacy, and I share in his birthday message to the people of the United States of America. The Department for Transport is engaged with the Port of Dover, and thanks to the functional and productive relations we have with the EU, we are working with it on those issues to ensure that the worst-case scenario my right hon. Friend outlines does not come to pass,
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State is aware of the importance of Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, which is a key part of this nation’s defence efforts. I have good news for him: we are about to break ground on the Golden Valley development, bringing 12,000 jobs in cyber and tech to my town, as well as much-needed new homes. Would the Secretary of State and his colleagues like to come and visit this success story in due course, not for the ground breaking next week, but in the future? It will be popular with the incoming Prime Minister.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Member’s enthusiasm is infectious. He came to meet me when I was Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to talk about the Golden Valley, and we spoke about our shared ambition in that area for the clustering of expertise that having GCHQ and others brings to the community he represents. I share in the hon. Member’s celebration and hope that I get to visit at some point soon.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The owner of Palace Cycles recently told me that while explaining to a customer that he would not service the illegally modified e-bike that had been brought into his shop, the bike shot across the shop of its own accord. When will the Government regulate to ban the sale of dodgy, illegal, unsafe e-bikes and the kits that create them?
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Peter Kyle ExcerptsTuesday 9th June 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 9 June 2026 - (9 Jun 2026)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government believe in Britain’s steel future. This Bill will help to transform that belief into a reality. It will ensure that the long-term vision for our UK steel sector is realised, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and to support this Government’s economic growth plans. This Bill provides powers for the Government to bring steel companies into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met.
In many ways, the progress of this Bill has shown the House at its very best, with passion, insight and determination to take action in the national interest. We had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with Members from all parts of the House recognising the importance of passing this legislation. Let me begin by thanking Members for their time and their thoughts. I express my gratitude to those who have contributed to the passage of this Bill so far, especially those who have taken a particular interest in ensuring that we get the details of this vital piece of legislation right.
I also take a moment to recognise those working in and supporting our steelmaking communities. Every day, they make a vital contribution to our country’s economic security. During the passage of this Bill, we have heard much about the specific situation at British Steel Ltd, and in particular about its current ownership status.
Let me be frank with the House: our decision to proceed with this Bill—to take these powers now—has absolutely nothing to do with the national origin of the current owners, Jingye. We have always been and remain country-agnostic about the current ownership. We simply believe that the British public interest should be paramount in determinations about future ownership. We continue to welcome international investment into the UK, including from China. We remain committed to our legal and international obligations to overseas business and foreign investors. We are fully compliant with our treaty undertakings to protect overseas investors and businesses operating in the United Kingdom.
While this Government need to take steps to secure UK Steel’s capability, we are committed to doing so in a manner that respects the rights of businesses. When and where the Government exercise the transfer powers in the Bill, an independent valuer will be appointed to determine what compensation, if any, is payable. The Bill requires a clear public interest test and provides for a compensation scheme where that might be relevant. The Government fully respect the rights of businesses and investors subject to this Bill. We will continue at all times to act fairly, regardless of the nationality or background of those businesses.
I place on record my thanks to parliamentary counsel and officials in my Department for their hard work on drafting and guiding the passage of this Bill. I also thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and all of the House and its authorities for making the passage of this legislation possible. Let me also, on a personal note, pay tribute to the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). A lifetime of dedication to the steel sector has brought valuable insight, passion and creative parliamentarian work to the Bill, which has enriched the debate in this place.
The House has sent a clear message about the importance of decisive action to safeguard the future of the steel industry. Since I became Secretary of State, I have championed an activist, interventionist industrial policy—activist, because the years of standing back and watching British industry decline are over; interventionist, because we, like other Governments around the world both right and left, from the United States to France and Germany, step in to invest, modernise and protect our industries. Our policy is both activist and interventionist, because purpose without action is merely rhetoric, and acting without purpose is performative, not strategic. The Bill is action with a purpose, and the purpose is clear: to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s steel.
I am encouraged to witness the strength of support in the Chamber for this activist, interventionist Bill. As it moves to the other place, let me reiterate my commitment to continued engagement with parliamentarians as it completes its passage and we ensure that the Government’s vision for Britain’s steel sector becomes a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.
Peter Kyle
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her passionate speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) for her heartfelt speech just now. Those are the kinds of contributions that give heart and soul to what we are trying to achieve, and that give voice to the communities affected. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his contribution. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Fastest Growing Firms: Government Support Package
Peter Kyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Government are today announcing an ambitious new package to provide support for the UK’s high potential scale-ups to grow and stay in the UK.
Scale-ups contribute £2.2 trillion to the UK economy and employ 3.9 million people, despite making up just 0.8% of businesses, yet not enough scale into global leaders.
This Government have taken steps to address the scaling gap through recent measures including the modern industrial strategy, the plan for SMEs and the tax incentives and measures announced in 2025’s autumn Budget.
Now we are going even further, in a sustained cross-Government effort to close the scale-up gap and make the UK the first choice for our top scaling talent as we strive to produce the UK’s first trillion dollar firm.
For high growth, strategically important scale-ups with the potential to be the UK’s first trillion-dollar company, the UK Government will act as the strategic partner, offering a concierge service that will act quickly and decisively to help these companies tackle barriers to growth, whether that is accessing talent or markets—either overseas or HMG procurement—or regulatory barriers.
To strengthen the UK’s pipeline of high growth firms, I have launched an external tender for an expert third party provider to run an 18-month pilot from autumn 2026. As set out in the industrial strategy, I want to broker new relationships with businesses and use the expertise and experience of those partnerships to our full advantage. This will establish tangible and robust 12-month intensive support for scale-up founders that are facing critical tipping points in their growth journey. Companies will receive tailored action plans with the focus of support on networking, markets, investment and talent.
Delivering the growth agenda in lockstep with industry is critical, and I am grateful for the input from my Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and industry experts as we have developed this offer for scale-ups. We will continue working closely with industry to identify where the UK can go further in boldly backing scale-ups. That is why today I have appointed Penny Verbe—who has founded and scaled global companies—as my scale-up adviser, to ensure our support reflects what businesses need and to champion the sector.
[HCWS95]
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
It is going to be a busy day for the Department for Business and Trade team. We are going to be spending a lot of time together today, Mr Speaker, and I very much look forward to it.
We are improving how businesses find, log into and use digital Government services. Better digital services—increasingly joined-up services—can reduce administrative burdens and save businesses time and money. That is why we have pledged to reduce the administrative burdens on business by 25%, and digital will play a key role in that.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet research shows that the average small business cannot start its real work until 2.36 pm on a Wednesday because of the time lost to administrative tasks. My own experience is that business owners need to engage regularly with various departments and agencies for all manner of reasons, and proving their identity can be a time-consuming task, so will the Secretary of State consider introducing a unique business passport—effectively, a unique digital ID for businesses—to cut administrative burdens and free up small businesses to deliver growth?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend and I share a zeal for using digital to transform the relationship between Government and those who use services. When I was the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, I was very proud to work with the Government Digital Service team and see how they are transforming the ability of individuals to interact with Government. We need to have the same zeal for transforming how businesses interact with Government, and I can assure him that a programme of work is going on with my Department to make sure that that is the case.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Minister responsible for small business and economic transformation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), met Royal Mail’s chief executive on 12 May to discuss its service improvement plan. I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on these issues in her constituency vigorously and that has been heard loud and clear. Royal Mail has told my Department that Middleton delivery office in my hon. Friend’s constituency is fully staffed and delivers to most addresses six days a week. I know that she will be scrutinising that and might well have a bit more to say on that now.
Mrs Blundell
Last week, I held a meeting at the fantastic Burnside community centre in Langley with representatives from Royal Mail and constituents, including those who have had to deal with a substandard postal service resulting in crucial correspondence arriving weeks late, if at all. To many people in Heywood and Middleton North, that is a direct result of a national asset being sold off to a private company focused on profit rather than quality of service. If that level of service continues, what further options is the Secretary of State considering to hold Royal Mail to account, and where necessary will the Government step in and force the changes that my constituents need to see?
Peter Kyle
I said that my hon. Friend was a great advocate for her residents on this issue; she is proving so once again. I can reassure her that the Government have secured a commitment from Royal Mail’s owners to prevent the payment of dividends until service levels improve. That will be a tangible impact on the business unless service levels improve. I have also been involved in discussions with Royal Mail’s owners and the Communication Workers Union to get a deal that can start work on the universal service offering and modernisation reform package for the company, as well as one that tackles pay equalisation. They have reached a deal and it is now out to CWU members. I hope that that will be the foundation for real improvement into the long term. It shows this Government’s active industrial strategy that get things done.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Ensuring that business support takes account of rural needs is incredibly important for this Government. Around one in six people live in rural areas in England, with over 520,000 businesses contributing £259 billion to the English economy.
Tessa Munt
My constituent Jason runs The Cider Barn in the village of Draycott just outside Cheddar, a fantastic local venue that hosts live music and serves, unsurprisingly, really good local cider and ales. Jason was rocked by this year’s massive increase in business rates, which have jumped from £100 a month to £600 a month. I should not have to explain that that meant a significant rise in his operating costs. This kind of shock makes it so hard for micro and small businesses to survive, let alone to thrive. Given how important The Cider Barn is to the local community, what can the Minister say—and, importantly, do—to assure small businesses like Jason’s that they will be supported by this Government?
Peter Kyle
The fact that the hon. Lady’s constituent works in the hospitality sector and is located in a rural area means that he requires multiple types of support from this Government, which he is getting. We have permanently lowered the business rates multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion and benefits over 750,000 businesses. I imagine that his business will fall within the definition of a small business. Just this week, we have introduced legislation to tackle late payments for small businesses, which will inject another £11 billion into the economy. This Government are on the side of businesses, whether they are in urban or rural areas and whether they are large or small.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is describing businesses that are the lifeblood of the British economy, and the innovation that flows from them is vital. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ rural taskforce is taking a strategic view of the challenges faced by businesses in rural areas, and I imagine that the one that he mentions will be in scope. The business growth service also includes growth hubs across the UK, which are supporting businesses in rural areas so that they can get the growth they need into their businesses.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not ruining my moment to shine.
I told the House that I would be an activist, interventionist champion for business. I am very pleased to say that later today, the Chancellor will announce funding for two of our foundational sectors: ceramics and chemicals. She will set out more detail to the House shortly, but I can say that we are working with industry and experts to provide the targeted intervention that those sectors need. Today’s business tells the story: this Government stand with British business when it comes to creating the resilient and growing economy that this country deserves.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are—[Interruption.] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda.
Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?
Peter Kyle
It speaks for itself when the Opposition try to take credit for the Government’s achievements. It shows just how good this Government actually are. However, I am grateful for the hon. Member’s warm words about the GCC deal. A lot of work went into it, but of course when we came into office, we were practically on the starting line; we were so close to it at that moment.
I will be really up front about youth unemployment. This issue faces most communities in our country, and we should have much more cross-party support on it. In the interests of offering an olive branch, let me say that as someone who had a challenging pathway through education into employment, I recognise the issue. However, the Opposition must admit that, in the three years before they left office, youth unemployment went up by 250,000. Yes, we will work together, but it does—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, my words apply to you as well as to Back Benchers, because I am trying to help your Back Benchers get their questions in. We will now hear a very quick question from the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?
Peter Kyle
Dynamism is increasing in our economy, and that is why we have so much growth—growth that the Conservatives failed to deliver in their 14 years. As for young people, we have the youth guarantee, which includes a six-month funded programme placement that provides a rich environment for kids who were put out of work—a lot of the time, by the Conservatives when they were in government. It gets kids back into work, and does so sustainably.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
Just last year, I was in my hon. Friend’s neck of the woods for the investment summit, unleashing further billions into his part of the country. I know that the automotive sector is incredibly important to him, and we are pledged to getting back to the level of automotive output we had before the Tories halved it. When we get back to that point, he will see a flourishing, booming industry, with the jobs that follow.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
According to reports in both the Financial Times and The Times, the Government have asked supermarket retailers to reduce the price of essential food items, such as milk, bread and eggs. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the proposals as “completely preposterous”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that instead of trying to impose price controls on private businesses, his Department will look to reduce the cost of Government-imposed burdens on retailers, such as business rates, national insurance contributions and energy costs?
Peter Kyle
There will be no price cap and there will be no price controls, but I am not going to apologise for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the cost of living challenges that we inherited, along with an economy that was broken.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. Yes, I can say that Little Layton in his constituency is one of the 379 communities across the UK that will receive Pride in Place funding, just one of the cross-departmental packages of support that his constituency will benefit from. We will not forget. We will keep on supporting him all the way.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, come on! Tell me who you don’t want me to get in, because that is what happens when we do this.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. The UK Government have a support package for England, with £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers. The Barnett consequentials provide support for Scotland, but where the UK Government are supporting businesses, the SNP is choking off investment and risking jobs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Committee is meeting steel makers later today and will supply the Government with its advice from that, but I want to raise the automotive sector. We are not going to double automotive production in the way the Secretary of State wants unless we fundamentally reform the zero emission vehicle mandate. Auto makers are subsidising sales by £5 billion a year. They are transferring money to state-subsidised players, such as BYD, and battery costs have not fallen. Will the Secretary of State bring forward a whole-market review and reform the ZEV mandate for good?
Peter Kyle
My right hon. Friend, as always, gives great voice to the automotive sector. I have listened closely to the voices of the sector in relation to the ZEV mandate—it is important that we do that. It is also important that, when setting such targets, we take into account consumer demand. That is something I am very aware of and having conversations about with colleagues across Government.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Government have listened to my calls, and those of my neighbours in Stoke-on-Trent, to finally act to support the ceramics industry—calls so loud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has lost his voice. While we await the detail, will the Secretary of State come to North Staffordshire to meet the ceramics businesses that he and this Government are helping today?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The package that we are announcing today will be significant. I will not say any more, because the Chancellor will be making that announcement later. I can say, however, that the boldness of the package is a direct consequence of the voices that we have heard from MPs, including from my hon. Friend and others in Stoke—whether losing their voice or not. Those voices have been profoundly important to the scope, scale and boldness of what will be announced today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Hospitality businesses in North East Fife support the Lib Dem call for a VAT cut for hospitality, but the Government do not seem to be moving on it. Will the Minister consult with businesses on a lower national insurance contribution band for part-time workers? Part-time opportunities are so important to hospitality and for getting younger people into work.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Small businesses in Didcot’s Broadway are struggling with energy and staff costs, business rates and a rising tax burden, and the older town centre would benefit from investment and rejuvenation. For areas, such as Didcot, that did not receive Pride in Place funding, what suggestions does the Secretary of State have for funding or other forms of support?
Peter Kyle
What businesses in Didcot and right across the country need is a fast-growing economy, and that is what we are delivering.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
In my constituency we are seeing good growth in our large employers and a great skills pipeline coming through from our advanced technical college, but we need a little support for our SMEs. Will the Minister say what targeted support is available for SMEs in towns like Stafford?
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Peter Kyle ExcerptsThursday 21st May 2026
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
For generations, the steel industry has stood at the very heart of our national story. From the furnaces of Sheffield to the docks of Port Talbot, from Scunthorpe to Redcar, steel forged not only the railways, ships, bridges and factories that powered the industrial revolution, it built communities, livelihoods and a sense of pride in Britain. Steel made in Britain built our Navy, helped to defend our freedoms in times of war and laid the foundations for modern infrastructure right around the world. When people speak of the United Kingdom becoming a great industrial nation, they speak of the skill, resilience and determination of the steelworkers who helped to shape that destiny by the fruits of their labour.
The decline of the steel industry destroyed jobs, diminished skills and damaged communities, but it never, ever diluted the pride, resilience and determination of those working people. Today, this Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill repays, in part, the debt that we owe Britain’s steel communities. Steel is integral to the key growth-driving sectors of our industrial strategy: to advanced manufacturing and the car industry; to clean energy, in our wind turbines and our grid infrastructure; and to security and defence, in fighter jets, battleships and submarines. It is essential to this Government’s growth mission to create a strong, resilient economy delivering for working people. That is why Britain’s steel sector accounts for thousands of jobs, right across the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
For the reasons that the Secretary of State has mentioned, the nationalisation of the steel industry is a noble endeavour, with which many of us from across the House will agree, but there are people in Wales pointing to the fact that, despite there being legislation, Port Talbot has lost thousands of jobs. Does he recognise the feelings that remain in Wales because the option of nationalisation by this Government was not on the table at the time?
Peter Kyle
As the right hon. Lady knows, I have been to Port Talbot and I have launched a steel strategy since this Government came into office. The vast majority of the decline that she describes happened under the previous Administration. We are cleaning up the mess on a whole bunch of fronts and in different areas of our public life. This Government have invested £500 million into that plant, and we have launched a steel strategy that I believe will give it a fruitful and prosperous future. We are doing what it takes to be the partner needed in these times.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The nationalisation of the steel industry explicitly links our domestic and international policies. It demonstrates the need for us to go out and champion our steel sector by filling its order books, as we have been able to do because of the wonderful trade deal created with Nigeria, which is expanding its ports and railways, that has been achieved by this Government. That is the type of work that I am doing in southern Africa, and it is the type of work that we should all be going out to do on behalf of our country and our growth agenda.
Peter Kyle
The work that my hon. Friend is doing is incredibly important to fulfilling the mission, and the possibility that the British steel sector has in the 2020s and going forward. That is the purpose of having a strategy where we invest and modernise, and then at times we need to protect as well. These are the things that we are doing to deliver a long-term, sustainable and global future for Britain’s steel industry.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, if the Bill passes, how are the global competitors to British forged steel likely to react? Secondly, if our steel becomes more expensive than the global market norm, what choice will manufacturers in the UK be faced with about where to base their manufacturing?
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.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a “steel undertaking” includes those businesses that have the “manufacture or processing” of iron or steel as part of their operations. Is there any lower threshold to that? Is a business that has only 1% of its operations in iron or steel liable to nationalisation under the Bill?
Under clause 2, the Secretary of State is entitled to determine the public interest and can nationalise if it would support
“the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
I have the same question: is there any lower threshold? Would the interests of one town where a steel facility is located be sufficient to justify the nationalisation of an entire company?
Peter Kyle
The public value test is a high test, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is the case on seeing and reading the legislation, as he has done.
I have set the bar high enough that this power would be triggered only in extraordinary circumstances. These are things that we can test in Committee in the coming days—I believe that will be next week. [Interruption.] It will be in the next sitting week, when we return from recess. Do not worry; we are not recalling Parliament again. I will address this matter a bit more in my speech. This power will not be used routinely; it is a specific power, and the test for it will be high.
Peter Kyle
I will make some progress.
To that end, we began negotiations in good faith with Jingye, the owner of British Steel, to see if a commercial sale was viable, but that did not prove to be possible. We could not agree terms that would have safeguarded simultaneously the integrity of the business and the interests of the taxpayer. That is why the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to bring British Steel into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met at the time of that decision. That is why we need to pass the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill now, to give us the power to make that possible.
Let me be clear to the House. In answer to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the powers given to the Government by the legislation cannot be exercised without due caution and proper care. These powers are bold, but they are not boundless. They can be used only where there is a clear public interest and where they will be needed to safeguard British steelmaking capability. The Bill does not nationalise British Steel in and of itself, but it grants the Government powers to do so if considered necessary. That is the scope of the legislation we are debating today.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Secretary of State is being generous. I take him at his word as I do not think that he intends to use this legislation otherwise than appropriately. However, there is an important point to be made about the language in the Bill as it stands. As he knows, the public interest test is defined in certain ways in clause 2, which states that the test “is not limited to” the grounds listed, so there could be other grounds on which the public interest might be met. I have already pointed out one aspect in which the public interest test is relatively broad. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at the public interest test to make sure that we do not just rely on his word, which I do, but that we are confident that succeeding Secretaries of State cannot misuse this power to nationalise too broadly.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention. I knew when I was bringing these powers in and working through the legislation that they would be an important part of the Bill and rightly the subject of scrutiny. There will be significant time in Committee of the whole House for Members to scrutinise the legislation. We are modelling this Bill on the Banking Act 2009, which has worked effectively. In that circumstance, the powers were used during the financial crisis in extremis, and those powers, on which we are modelling this Bill, have not been used irresponsibly since. I have been clear about my expected use of these powers, and the bar set in the legislation meets my expectations, including limiting my ability to use these powers in ways that would cause concern for Members.
For too long, the steel sector in this country has been left to fend for itself, abandoned by Government, demoralised, starved of resources and the victim of international market distortions. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the past decade. Capabilities have been reduced, and communities have been let down. Previous Governments have been too reactive and not proactive. This Government will not repeat the errors of the past. We are building the future for British Steel. While the industry faces challenges today, we will do everything we can to help it modernise and grow. This legislation allows us to apply that policy to this industry. We recognise that securing the long-term future of the UK steel sector relies on public and private investment for modernisation, so that the UK can become a global leader in clean green steel, electric arc furnaces and decarbonised steel production.
We recognise that blast furnace production will need to continue in the immediate future and that a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. We need this legislation to raise resilience, to protect businesses up and down the country that depend on Britain’s steel, to defend the workforce at British Steel and to safeguard the communities built on British steel. The significance of steel is not simply a matter of history; it is a matter of our national future. In an uncertain world, the ability to make steel remains a strategic national asset. Steel is essential for our transport networks, our energy security, our housing and our transition to a greener economy. That is why supporting the British steel industry is about more than protecting jobs, important though they are. Supporting British Steel—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I will give way in just a moment. Supporting British Steel is about more than national pride, although we are proud of the steelworkers who help build it. Nationalising British Steel is about hope and faith in the future.
Warinder Juss
I did not mean to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I thought this was an appropriate time to intervene. As a member of the GMB trade union executive council, I was pleased to see my union welcome the Government’s move to nationalise British Steel, which it described as a
“decisive and timely intervention by the Government which will protect one of the UK’s most important industries.”
That sentiment has been echoed throughout the trade union movement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must engage with the trade unions throughout this process and utilise their expertise in this area to secure the long-term future of British Steel?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Workers in steel production facilities have played a really important role in shaping our policies, helping us constructively to find a way through. Members on both sides of the House were prodding me to release the steel strategy more swiftly, but there were so many moving parts at the time of developing it. There were global forces at work, different ownership models and different production facilities, with different challenges, in different parts of the steel community. I will say this again: the unions played a highly constructive role. I pay tribute to GMB, Community and others for helping us to design our policies and find a way through some really challenging strategic issues.
Together with our measures on automotives, digital technology, the life sciences, the defence industry, clean energy, ceramics and chemicals—on which we made announcements today—and advanced manufacturing, taking the power to make possible the nationalisation of British Steel heralds the new dawn of an age of British industrialisation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman will know that when I took the difficult decision to introduce measures, I did so for products that compete directly with the products that we are capable of making domestically. Speciality Steel UK is going through an administration process at the moment, but when that is complete and the company is up and running properly, I need to make sure that its products and services are protected and viable domestically. Given the world in which we are living, where national resilience is so important to our nation and the economy in a way that it simply has not been for decades, the decisions that I am making to ensure that British steel production is viable and sustainable are of paramount importance.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make a bit more progress.
While the Government are working alongside businesses to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s manufacturing base, the amendment would deny the Bill its Second Reading. The very people who did so much to damage the steel industry in government are now trying to do so again in opposition—then as tragedy, and now as farce. As such, the House should reject the amendment. Britain’s steel industry needs an activist, interventionist Government, and it needs determination, decisiveness and delivery. It does not need a Government who have their hands tied, their room for manoeuvre blocked and their ability to act denied. Britain must have a strong domestic steel industry—now and into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I do not support this Bill, and I believe that the reasoned amendment is the right way forward. I will set out clearly the devastating impact that the Bill is about to have, in real time, in my constituency.
We have a great local business called Amodil. It is a British family-run business that started with a couple of people in 1976 in Cleobury Mortimer, South Shropshire. I recently went to Cleobury to meet Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. The business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who at 75 still works in it today. It is the UK’s largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products, with more than 1,200 customers—about 20% of the UK market.
The people who run Amodil know what they are on about, and they were completely blindsided by the announcement on tariffs. They had not been told, and none of their customers or suppliers, or the people they were involved with, knew anything about it, so they came straight to me. I have written to the Minister multiple times and had one response. He needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation.
The big issue that Amodil faces is the tariffs on the stainless steel products it brings in that cannot be made in the UK in the required quantity or type. The Government want to protect the steel industry as an industry of vital strategic importance—I get that—and they want to protect jobs, but for the almost 1,000 jobs they will save, many thousands more will be lost, and I will say exactly where.
The UK cannot meet domestic market demand, and a huge gap will be created. Businesses such as Amodil will be forced to import, and tariffs will drive up costs by 50%. There is not the cash across the industry to absorb those extra costs without mass redundancies. The costs will be passed on, meaning that manufacturers’ costs will go up. What will happen then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price, and those products are not subject to tariffs. That does not level the playing field for us.
The UK does not produce enough stainless steel of the right type or quality to meet demand. Amodil currently has 5,000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock, 2,000 tonnes of which cannot be, and is not, made in the UK. It could take up to 15 years to get some of the skills right. Large-diameter bars of a certain grade are not made in the UK and those bars are vital to key industries, such as aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automative, general engineering and many more. If the tariffs are put on these businesses—Amodil is the largest British business in the field in the UK and there are many others—they will be priced out of the industry. I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of this matter.
Peter Kyle
I will save the hon. Gentleman from driving home the point even more, because I understand the passion with which he speaks. With regard to Amodil, I will look into that company personally. The intention with the measures that I have brought in is to protect domestic production and the possibility of domestic production. It is not to prevent goods that we do not make here, and do not intend to have the capacity to make here, from suffering. If there is a specific issue, I will look into that, because I do not want negative impacts downstream when we do not have the capacity to produce here. The Trade Minister said earlier today that he would look into that as well. We, as a team, will look into these issues.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that. I will follow up personally with him and with Amodil to see if we can talk about a way forward. I said to Amodil, “I believe that this is an unintended consequence of what the Government are trying to do, and once I point this out clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it.” The long and the short of it— I will put my speech to one side—is that there is a certain size of rod that only the UK can make. I watched it at Amodil’s facility a few weeks ago. When it gets past that size, it is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries.
Looking at steel as a whole, this matter is just one part of the stainless steel industry. If the Secretary of State, or one of the Ministers, will sit with me and the team at Amodil, they will be able to see, within a matter of minutes, where the gap is and how to plug it. It is along the blanket grading for all the bars. I request a pause for, say, just six months—or if we can talk with Amodil in a matter of days—so we can sit down and look at this, because there is a massive knock-on impact that will seriously hurt the stainless steel industry, and one of the largest employers in my constituency will be massively hurt too.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It probably will not come as a surprise to Labour Members, but I fundamentally disagree with the last speaker, although I appreciated his passion. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is getting a bit excited; I will come to him in a minute on the issue of tariffs. I am proud that we are the only party in this House objecting to the Bill, and for the right reasons.
The Secretary of State repeatedly talks about making this country stronger, but I do not think this Bill does that by nationalising. I just do not think that Governments can run businesses. I certainly mean no disrespect to Ministers on the Front Bench, but they will create inefficiencies and push up prices, and the taxpayer will end up stomaching the cost. That does not make us stronger; it makes us weaker.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who spoke before me, said that we are still in the 1990s, but I think this Government are taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up costs and lumbering the taxpayer. A future Conservative Government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. No Labour Members can tell us where the nationalisation will stop. Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will the Government pick and choose?
In the limited time that I have, let me come on to the issue of tariffs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and all my hon. Friends who have raised this point, I have been visited by a constituent. His name was Peter Watson, of Davicon. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue, although that was only last week; I respect the fact that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does.
Davicon is the UK’s leading mezzanine manufacturer. The briefing that Peter put in front of me was a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. There is a reduction of almost 97% on merchant bars and an increase in quotas of 50%. For all the Secretary of State’s best intentions and whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is that industry and markets do not work to the whims of Government. They will not move quickly enough to do that, which will push up prices. In the briefing I saw, that would mean a doubling of the quota for per-tonnage steel by 1 July. That cost will have to be borne by industry and taxpayers. If we are talking about nuclear power plant creation or HS2, we know that those taxpayer-funded projects will have to bear those costs.
I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, and it is clear the Government recognise that an issue is coming down the tracks. I argue that that should have been anticipated before the tariffs came into place, but we are where we are. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would really welcome some serious action on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) made a really eloquent argument about a delay in the introduction. If that is not going to happen—
Saqib Bhatti
The Secretary of State is shaking his head. If that is not going to happen, let us look at the HS codes. He needs to recognise that there will be a serious impact on the steel industry and the peripheral industries that rely on steel manufacturing in this country.
Ceramics and Chemicals Industries
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
This statement provides an update on the Government’s support to ceramics and critical chemical producers, two of the foundational sectors underpinning our industrial strategy.
The Government are today announcing the launch of the ceramics industry support scheme of £120 million to support the transition of the ceramics sector to a more cost effective and less carbon intensive means of production. Supporting this transition continues to deliver on our mission to decarbonise the economy, helping businesses to invest and grow across the country.
The ceramics industry has a rich cultural heritage, notably in the Potteries in the Stoke-on-Trent area, and it remains a large source of employment in Staffordshire and neighbouring Derbyshire, as well as in areas across the UK from Devon to Dumfries.
However, in recent years the sector has faced a number of difficulties, including a challenging global trading environment, and the cost of reliance on volatile fossil fuels, which have seen costs increase significantly since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These challenges have led to a pattern of decline and resulted in the closure of historic sites such as Johnson Tiles, Moorcroft Pottery, the liquidation of Royal Stafford, loss of jobs at Armitage Shanks, and the recent administration at Denby pottery.
This Government are clear that industrial decarbonisation must not be achieved by deindustrialisation, and reducing operating costs for businesses will support a successful transition to more efficient and cost-effective forms of production. However, we recognise the challenges faced by ceramics producers, and that Government support will be necessary to help the sector.
That is why the ceramics industry support scheme is being introduced: £60 million of this funding will support capital investment from ceramics firms into more efficient and decarbonised means of production, including electrification of relevant processes. This will both attract business investment in efficient new technologies, and enhance our energy security by reducing our reliance on volatile fossil fuels. This fund will be delivered on a competitive basis, with successful companies demonstrating corresponding co-investment of their own. The expectation is that the package will support a small number of high capital projects, likely from larger companies, as well as smaller projects from established trading SMEs.
To ensure that all eligible companies are able to effectively take advantage of this support in practice and invest in the future of this industry, the ceramics industry support scheme will include an additional £60 million to support operational costs for firms that make successful capital bids but demonstrably need additional support to manage the transition.
We will continue to engage with the sector and explore both fiscal and non-fiscal policy options that can continue to support and sustain a modern, thriving ceramics sector. This includes ensuring that our trade remedies regime works appropriately to protect the sector from injury as a result of unfair foreign trading practices. I strongly encourage industry to engage the Trade Remedies Authority and share new evidence to make sure we have the right trade protections in place.
Secondly, the Government are also announcing today the development of a £350 million critical chemical resilience fund to support our chemicals industry. This fund will be available to the UK’s most strategically important chemical producers who underpin our most critical sectors and essential services.
The UK chemicals sector is crucial for UK manufacturing, with chemicals products embedded in the vast majority of manufactured goods. However, like the ceramics sector, the chemicals sector has also faced significant headwinds in recent years with reduced output and recent plant closures raising concerns about its long-term resilience. This Government recognise the scale and depth of those challenges, and we are standing firm, alongside industry, to provide robust support to ensure the sector has a prosperous future in this country.
We have already acted urgently to support and safeguard vital chemical production and jobs at INEOS in Grangemouth, and are restarting production at Ensus in order to protect supply of CO2.
Today we are taking further action. The fund will seek to address the most acute pressures by offering support to critical chemical companies in key clusters that need help to put themselves on a sustainable footing. This will ensure these companies can continue to supply our essential services, boost the resilience of our supply chains, and protect critical UK sectors like food production, water and healthcare.
This is just a first step, and we will work together with industry to ensure we continue to make the critical inputs our economy requires in the UK. The fund will be developed in collaboration with independent experts and industry representatives, and further details will be communicated in due course.
The Government will continue to work hand-in- hand with industry to ensure broader policy delivers decarbonisation and not deindustrialisation. We are committed to tackling unfair foreign trade practices, and Ministers will urgently convene the chemicals industry to explore potential trade defence action.
The Government are also committed to driving down regulatory costs faced by the industry. We have already cut back the need for UK businesses to buy expensive and unnecessary data, cutting transition costs while maintaining health and environmental protections. We will work with the industry to identify where the UK can go further to reduce regulatory costs and remove duplicative procedures for businesses.
This Government recognise the importance of the chemicals sector, its contribution to society and our economy, and the jobs and communities it supports. The fund supports the delivery of our industrial strategy, which identifies chemicals as a vital foundational sector that underpins the UK’s high-growth industries like defence and advanced manufacturing by producing the materials they all depend on and are essential to many supply chains. Chemicals are also essential to delivering our ambitions in our clean energy mission. Action today will ensure the sector can play its part in strengthening our industrial capability and boosting resilience for the UK’s future.
The Government will continue to work with the sector and experts as the ceramics industry support scheme and critical chemicals resilience fund are being developed, including on eligibility criteria and delivery mechanisms as they are progressed. Further detail will be published in due course, and we are aiming to open both funds to applications later this summer.
The support being announced today is in addition to our support for the chemicals sector through the industrial strategy. In particular, the targeted support to bring down energy costs, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, will benefit over 10,000 businesses, including many chemical companies, reducing electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour.
This is a long-term industrial intervention designed to address persistent competitiveness challenges facing the chemicals sector. This will help chemical companies remain competitive and resilient through periods of volatility, supporting supply chain security through global supply shocks.
Time and again we have stepped in to support our resilience: from keeping the blast furnaces running at Scunthorpe and restarting production at Ensus to safeguard the UK’s supply of CO2, to this intervention today. This is the difference an active and strategic state makes.
Together, these measures demonstrate our continued commitment to heavy industry, which underpins our economy, industrial strategy growth sectors, and our national resilience.
[HCWS61]
Backing Business to Create Economic Growth
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Mr Speaker, I heard your call for decency and respect, and I hope those will be the watchwords for today’s debate.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is with her G7 colleagues today, so I am grateful for the opportunity to open the King’s Speech debate on backing British business to create economic growth. That is economic growth for a purpose: not simply to exceed the growth rate of other European members of the G7, which we achieved in the last year; not simply to have the highest growth rate in the G7, which we achieved in the last quarter; and not simply to deliver on the Government’s primary mission; but for the purpose of achieving greater social justice for all.
Economic growth is the surest path to higher living standards, improved public services and better quality of life for people up and down our country. We know that economic growth is the catalyst for new opportunities, the pathway to greater prosperity, and the vehicle for greater equality and security for working people. That is why it matters so much.
The growth figures published last week show that, despite the many international headwinds, the UK economy grew by 0.6% in the last quarter—the fastest growth among G7 countries. There is silence from the Opposition Benches. I would have thought that the party that champions Britain and calls for economic growth would be celebrating economic growth when they see it, but no: silence, silence, silence.
The situation is much better than the one we inherited, continuing to exceed the forecast of the doom-and-gloom mongers on the Opposition Benches and in the right-wing media, and even beating market expectations. When the Conservatives were in government, they and their strangely related first cousins, Reform, let down Britain’s economic future. Now, in opposition, they talk down Britain’s economic present. You can bet your bottom dollar that they will do so again today, ignoring the facts.
The facts are that the UK experienced the highest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 last year. Just today, the International Monetary Fund has upgraded the UK growth forecast, with the UK projected to have the fastest cumulative growth among European G7 economies over 2026 and 2027. None of this happened by accident, just like the damage done to the economy by the Tories did not happen by accident.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?
Peter Kyle
The whole purpose of the debate is to emphasise that economic growth matters. In the last full year in which the Conservatives were in office, economic growth stood at 0.4%. In the first full year of this Government, it was 1.4%. The hon. Lady should be apologising for the state in which she left the economy, leaving us to pick up the pieces.
This growth has been driven by an activist, interventionist Government who back British business—a Government who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and make the big calls when big times demand it. From Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands to Ineos in Scotland, Agratas in the south-west, Tata Steel in Wales, and Harland & Wolff across the United Kingdom, we step in to invest, modernise and protect British industry when necessary. We step back by reducing unnecessary regulation when that is possible, and step up to modernise our critical national economic infrastructure where that is vital: supporting the third runway at Heathrow that the Conservative party curtailed; expanding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor where the Conservative party hesitated; backing Northern Powerhouse Rail which the Conservative party cancelled. This Government have confirmed £45 billion of funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to upgrade lines east of the Pennines and to bring forward a brand-new route connecting Liverpool and Manchester.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
That was a great list, but what was missing from it was the oil and gas sector, and specifically the £17 billion of investment that was lost as a result of the Government not scrapping the energy profits levy and the £50 billion of investment lost because of their ban on new licences, and other hostile policies. Will the Secretary of State reflect on those, and on the damage that the Government are doing to growth not only in the north-east of Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole?
Peter Kyle
This Government have invested in industry up and down the country, from Agratas in the south-west, where we are investing in gigafactories, to Ineos in Scotland. We are investing in the industries that are keeping our country going, and we have put growth into the economy.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State was kind enough to mention Harland & Wolff. Successive Governments have introduced a number of support measures, and have ensured that that company can thrive by itself. However, in taking at face value what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that if this Government continue to refuse to designate Programme Euston a defence project and open it to international tender, not only will they not support British business and yards like Harland & Wolff, but the project will be delayed by three years? If the Secretary of State wants to inject business growth and economic growth, he should designate it a UK defence project, and keep the work and the investment in the UK.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the commitment that I personally have to Northern Ireland and its economic success. All the issues related to national resilience are things that we have to consider at this moment in time, unlike any other moment in time in peacetime. They are issues that I look at very closely, and in the days and weeks ahead I shall be talking a great deal more about how we can support industry and business across Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for what he is saying. I know he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland because he loves the country, and we appreciate that.
According to the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, more than half the enterprises trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland face severe friction, with more than a third halting trade entirely. Can the Secretary of State explain explicitly how the proposed regulating for growth Bill will help? I know he is committed to it, so let us hear what he has to say.
Peter Kyle
I have been aware of those issues from opposition into government. Of course, rebuilding the relationship with the European Union is also partly about smoothing that barrier across the Irish sea, and we will continue to do so.
We are building the critical national economic infrastructure that the Conservative party consistently failed to deliver, on runways, reservoirs and railways. Just as we are modernising Britain’s critical economic infrastructure, we are maximising Britain’s industrial strength by delivering our modern industrial strategy. Written for business with business, our strategy creates the right conditions for business to succeed. Since its publication, we have been tackling the high costs of energy. Our supercharger saves firms hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and our British industrial competitiveness scheme will help more than 10,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, saving them up to £40 per megawatt hour from next April. I am very aware of challenges faced by the ceramics sector; I will meet representatives of the sector tomorrow to discuss how the Government might be able to support it, and I hope to be able to say more about that very soon.
To cut the red tape that is holding back British businesses we are ending mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized companies and ending directors’ reports for businesses of all sizes, saving firms £230 million each and every year. We are stripping out unnecessary rules and regulations. Through the regulating for growth Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, we will create regulatory sandboxes—economic growth laboratories where innovators can trial cutting-edge technologies safely and speedily.
Whereas the Conservatives, with their destructive ideology of deliberate de-industrialisation—from monetarist Thatcherism to Brexit isolationism—drove British manufacturing businesses to the wall and destroyed the jobs that depend on them, this Government are determined to maximise the UK’s competitive advantage, not just through reindustrialisation, though that is necessary, but through new industrialisation in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, artificial intelligence and new technology. That is why we have rolled out new AI growth zones and confirmed the site of the UK’s first small modular reactor—a milestone in the journey to becoming a clean energy superpower.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but does he not accept that adding 330 pages-worth of regulation in the Employment Rights Act 2025, at a cost of a billion pounds to the economy, is having the opposite effect? Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 28% in just one year.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point out that, in my Department, the overall net regulatory burden is reducing, not expanding. I will not stand in front of the Tories and apologise for giving new rights to workers that are fit for the age we are living in. Over their entire 14 years in office the Tories failed to make sure that people have protections and rights at work that are fit for the age we are living in. We can move forward with growth in the economy that takes forward businesses and the people who work in them. That is to be celebrated, not condemned like the Tories are doing.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is, quite reasonably, setting out his assertions about where he wants the Government to go, but does he not see the irony? After all the events of last week, the cost of borrowing in the UK is higher than that of many of our competitors, and all business leaders say they feel the instability. The right hon. Gentleman’s words will not ring very true for people who seriously wonder about the Government’s future direction, with putative leadership contenders talking about fundamental changes in direction and different fiscal rules.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Member mentions irony; this is from the party that gave us the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which wreaked havoc on our economy. Mortgage rates went up for every mortgage holder across the country, with inflation peaking at 12%, yet the Conservatives talk about instability. The country still lives with the instability that they wreaked on it.
Our major expansion of DRIVE35 is channelling investment into batteries, electric motors and power electronics—part of the biggest Government investment in the British car industry since the second world war. “Invest”, “modernise” and “protect” are the watchwords for the new industrialisation of Britain through our biggest industries, our biggest sectors and our boldest companies.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but we have seen what that has led to in the finance sector, the banking sector and the water industry: consumers end up paying the price. The Secretary of State also talks about AI; speaking way back in 2014, Stephen Hawking cautioned:
“The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
Why do the Government believe that deregulating AI is going to assist their growth mission? It will put consumers’ lives and the human race at risk.
Peter Kyle
The Government are investing in AI infrastructure, but also making sure that the regulatory and legislative landscape is up to date for the time we are living in. The hon. Gentleman wants to turn the clock back. The world is awash with AI technology. We cannot stop it coming to our country, but we can shape how it interacts with our economy and its people. That is why we are investing in the training of 7.5 million people throughout the economy, including a million students, to make sure we can seize the opportunities that AI presents but also protect people from the potential damage it could cause.
Not only are we creating the conditions for new industrialisation, but we are ambitious for the success of Britain’s small businesses. Our “Backing your Business” plan is one of the most generous packages of support rolled out by any Government, with new hospitality zones and reduced red tape for bars and cafés. We have brought in an £11 billion lending package to help small firms to grow internationally and take advantage of the trade agreements we have negotiated with India, South Korea and the United States. This may trigger the Opposition, but we are also going to deepen Britain’s trading relationship with the European Union, Britain’s most significant international marketplace. That is what our European partnership Bill is all about.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I welcome the deepening of the relationship with the EU and the measures on late payments, but the elephant in the room is that while the jobs tax exists, and the Government do not make the most of business rate changes in retail, hospitality and leisure, the benefit to small businesses is more than outweighed by the extra difficulties they face. Does the Secretary of State accept that there need to be changes on that front, even if we have to wait until the Budget for them?
Peter Kyle
Once again, the Lib Dems condemn every fundraising measure we have brought in to invest in our public services and get our country back on its feet, but they never say how they will pay for the alternative. They never say how they will raise the money themselves. I am not going to apologise for any of the measures. I will come in a moment to the investment we have made in small businesses and in hospitality, and I will give way to the hon. Lady again if she wants me to at the time, but will she please say what the alternative is from her perspective? The Lib Dems want to spend all the money in the world but they do not want to tell people how it is.
The lending commitment we have secured with the UK’s five leading banks will support Britain’s small businesses to succeed and prosper. Our business rates support package, worth £4.3 billion, will protect ratepayers from large overnight increases in bills. We have introduced permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion a year and will benefit over three quarters of a million properties.
I know that many businesses, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, would like us to go further. I get that. They are impacted by changes in the shopping and social habits of their customers, as well as the financial and geopolitical pressures in the wider economy. We are absolutely aware of and attuned to that. However, the crocodile tears of the Conservatives about these industries are laughable and lamentable. Theirs is the party that urged us to join the costly military action in the Gulf, which will heap further pressure on hospitality and other sectors throughout the economy. It is not our war, but the Conservative party would make British businesses and consumers pay the price.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentions crocodile tears; what would he say to the hospitality businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the rise in national insurance contributions, the minimum wage rise and the business rates that he just talked so effusively about? What message would he give to them as they struggle to deal with the outcome of the Budget?
Peter Kyle
Unfortunately, none of the Conservative Members was listening to what I just said in outlining the measures we are taking, and the admission that we get it and we are listening. Fundamentally and foundationally, what those businesses need is what every business in this country needs, which is a growing economy. In the last year the Conservatives were in office, growth was 0.4%, but in the first year in office of this Government, it was 1.4%. That is what every business needs across the country, and when it comes to specific sectors at specific moments in time, we are watching and attuned, and I am acting where necessary. When the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) addresses the House, I am certain that on that and so much more he will display all the symptoms of the economic illiteracy and ideological incompetence that for too long have engulfed the Conservative party. By contrast, we are taking practical action to end these conditions.
We are bringing in new measures to tackle late payments. The small business protections (late payments) Bill will give the UK the strongest legal framework in the entire G7. Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion a year, forcing the closure of 38 businesses every single day. For 14 years it was the same under the Conservatives, and they did nothing. The Bill tackles the scourge of late payments, brings in stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner, sets out strict maximum payment terms of 60 days, and bans the deduction of retentions in construction contracts. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that tackling late payment is one of the biggest things the Government can do to help small businesses to grow. That is the difference that an activist, interventionist Labour Government can make.
Finally, let me turn to another example of the difference. The ghost of free market Thatcherism still haunts many of the industrial areas of this country. It can be seen in the scars of de-industrialisation still marking too many communities around our country. It is high time to exorcise the ghost of de-industrialisation. When I published the steel strategy last month, I told the House I would never hesitate to fight for British industry in defence of the national interest. The legislation we are bringing forward is proof positive of that commitment.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I should not call him that; he will be embarrassed. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point about the steel industry. Understandably, he has chosen to support one particular aspect of the industry, the steelmaker, but at the expense of and to the cost of every other part of the industry—the steel consumers. How will he balance that and what provision will he make for those who will see steel prices rises because of his intervention?
Peter Kyle
I have committed to invest in, modernise and protect the steel industry where I need to. Those are watchwords that I apply throughout the economy in highly volatile times. We are investing up to £2.5 billion to modernise and transform the steel sector, from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces—those are the kinds of transformations we need to make. If I had invested that money but not also protected our sector, that would be pouring vast amounts of public money straight down the drain. In certain circumstances I have had to step in and use measures to protect the domestic British industry. I am not introducing measures for any products that are not manufactured in the UK. I am doing so wisely; I am doing so to protect and ensure that we can build and retain a steel industry that is fit for the future and sustainable.
We will move forward and ensure that, in an era of global instability, we have the key aspects of our supply chain that we need for our resilience as a nation—yes, in defence; yes, in industry; and yes, in all the money we are investing in infrastructure. We must reserve those capabilities. I am listening and engaging with all parts of the steel sector, and the manufacturers and businesses that depend on it. I am listening closely to them. If there are any impacts, I will of course engage with them to understand and see how it will be possible, where necessary, to provide support.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
No, I am going to carry on. I appreciate Members’ kind offers to intervene again and again; I look forward to all their speeches.
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill will give us the authority to bring British Steel into public ownership, not as an ideological exercise but as a practical means of safeguarding the national interest. It will allow us to retain the Scunthorpe plant as a critical piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to British economic resilience. Britain has long been a proud steelmaking nation. Whatever I have to do to make it so, Britain will retain its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. That is my commitment to Members in this House and to the remaining steel communities of our country. The strength of that commitment can be measured in our determination to boost domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used here is made here.
Britain cannot make its way in the world as a services-only economy. We have to make our way—earn our way—to greater prosperity, equality, security and opportunity. We cannot do that by economic isolationism, neoliberalism, greater protectionism or a command economy. We cannot regulate our way to prosperity. We can achieve it only through practical and pragmatic policies that support British businesses to be profitable, to scale up, to create jobs and to grow. We have to end the outdated free-market ideologies, failed economic theories and siren voices that all but destroyed Britain’s manufacturing base and drove the British public towards Brexit. Britain’s future prosperity can be built only by business success. There is no other way, no shortcut, no easy option and no magic bullet—no matter how attractive and simplistic slogans and superficial soundbites may appear to some.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making a wonderful speech about the 1980s. While I agree with many of his points, the truth is that the country today has come a long way in all sorts of sectors, and I am proud to have done my bit to help that. On regulation, the Secretary of State agrees that leadership on regulating new industries, and having sandboxes and testbeds, is a great UK strength. He also wants us to get closer to the European market; is he worried that if we do, we may end up losing our competitive advantage in a number of areas where we could genuinely attract investment into new industries, such as agri-tech and gene editing?
Peter Kyle
To clarify, I am talking about how we recover from the scars of the 1980s, how we learn the lessons, and how we ensure that we never repeat mistakes that cause scars that endure for generations. To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, we will align with the European market only where that is in the national interest.
We cannot turn back the clock to build future success. The partnerships that this Government have built with businesses, local government and trade unions are delivering resilient growth and helping to build a stronger economy. They are building a fairer country, in which wages are up and public borrowing is down. There have been six interest rates cuts and 500,000 children are being lifted out of poverty. The FTSE 100 has reached historic highs, and the UK is raising more venture capital funding this year than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined.
This Government faced enormous challenges on taking office, and the conflict in the Gulf presents us with even greater challenges. Despite that, we are making progress. It will take time for the benefits of progress to be sufficiently seen and properly felt. The recent election results show that. The only sure route to proving the benefits of change is growing the economy, and the only certain way to grow the economy is through British business success. Our task is to create the right conditions for Britain’s businesses to invest, succeed, and win in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. We have made a start, and we will see this through to the finish.
Business and Trade
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
The Government do not create jobs; business does. With unemployment rising, this is the last chance to ask the Secretary of State a question ahead of the start of April when a tsunami of business rate rises will hit. Shops and restaurants will see a 50% increase on average and the business rates of hotels will double. He and I both represent wonderful Sussex constituencies full of hospitality, high street and tourism businesses, but young people need those jobs. For their sake and for others, will he finally postpone his business rate rise?
Peter Kyle
I enjoy these exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State. I note that Reform’s self-styled shadow Secretary of State—or, as I call him, the shadowy Secretary of State—is not in his place, despite being just next door in the Tea Room a few minutes ago. I think that speaks volumes.
The shadow Secretary of State knows that the private sector has created 380,000 jobs under this Government. We will continue to grow the economy and the number of people in work, and make sure that people benefit from all the rights we are delivering, which are pro-business and pro-worker. He spent 14 years letting down Britain. Now he has spent 18 months talking it down.
[Official Report, 12 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 489-490.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle):
Peter Kyle
The shadow Secretary of State knows that the private sector has created 386,000 jobs under this Government.
Dr Pinkerton
Yesterday I met representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, who relayed the profound concerns of the UK automative industry that it might be excluded from the European Union’s proposed industrial accelerator Act. Nissan and Honda have already broken cover to say that their futures may be uncertain unless they are included in the “made in Europe” rules. What is the Secretary of State doing, with his Front-Bench team and across Government, to ensure that the UK automotive sector is not placed at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of those measures?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Member’s question is incredibly important. He will know that my ministerial team and I have been very active on this issue. Just a couple of weeks ago in Brussels I raised it directly with Commissioners. He will also know that in the proposed Act, which has not yet been introduced, there are potential challenges for the automotive sector. We are working with our EU colleagues to make sure that voices of the business community are being heard loud and clear and that the automotive sector—in which 86% of the components assembled in this country come from EU countries—is respected, valued, and secure in the future.
[Official Report, 12 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 496.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade:
Peter Kyle
We are working with our EU colleagues to make sure that voices of the business community are being heard loud and clear and that the automotive sector—in which 75% of the components assembled in this country come from EU countries—is respected, valued, and secure in the future.