Tag: Peter Kyle

  • Peter Kyle – 2025 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    Peter Kyle – 2025 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    The speech made by Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, in Munich on 14 February 2025.

    Innovation is defined by its ability to surprise.

    Only a few years ago, GPT-2 meant nothing to the public.

    For many of us, AI felt like a distant possibility at best.

    Something that would never – could never – live up to the hype.

    And yet, overnight, ChatGPT became a household name.

    It unleashed an unprecedented wave of technological change.

    And the pace of progress shows no signs of slowing down.

    With DeepSeek, we’ve just seen once again just how sudden, how unpredictable, innovation can be.

    The AI revolution is happening.

    Ignoring it is simply not an option.

    In the UK, we reject the doomsayers and the pessimists.

    Because we are optimistic about the extraordinary potential of this technology.

    And hopeful for the radical, far-reaching change it will bring.

    We launched the AI Opportunities Action Plan to put us on the front foot.

    Working in collaboration with our international partners, we’re going to create one of the biggest clusters of AI innovation in the world and deliver a new era of prosperity and wealth creation for our country.

    This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

    If we can seize it, we will close the door on a decade of slow growth and stagnant productivity.

    Of taxes that are just too high.

    We will deliver new jobs that put more money in working people’s pockets.

    And we will drive forward a digital revolution inside government to make our state smaller, smarter, and more efficient.

    But none of that is possible unless we can mitigate its risks that AI presents.

    After all, businesses will only use these technologies if they can trust them.

    Security and innovation go hand in hand.

    AI is a powerful tool and powerful tools can be misused.

    State-sponsored hackers are using AI to write malicious code and identify system vulnerabilities, increasing the sophistication and efficiency of their attacks.

    Criminals are using AI deepfakes to assist in fraud, breaching security by impersonating officials.

    Last year, attackers used live deepfake technology during a video call to mimic bank officials.

    They stole $25 million.

    And now we are seeing instances of people using AI to assist them in planning violent and harmful acts.

    These aren’t distant possibilities.

    They are real, tangible harms, happening right now.

    The implications for our people could be pervasive and profound.

    In the UK, we have built the largest team in a government dedicated to understanding AI capabilities and risks in the world.

    That work is rooted in the strength of our partnerships with the companies who are right at the frontier of AI.

    Working with those companies, the government can conduct scientifically informed tests to understand new AI capabilities and the risks they pose.

    Make no mistake, I’m talking about risks to our people, their way of life, and the sovereignty and stability which underpins it.

    That is why today, I am renaming our AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute.

    This change brings us into line with what most people would expect an Institute like this to be doing.

    They are not looking into freedom of speech.

    They are not deciding what counts as bias or discrimination.

    They are not politicians – nor should they be.

    They are scientists – scientists who are squarely focused on rigorous research into the most serious emerging risks.

    They are researching AI’s potential to assist with the development of chemical and biological weapons.

    They are building on the expertise of our National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) to understand how this technology could be used to help malicious actors commit cyber-attacks.

    They want to understand how AI could undermine human control.

    Our research shows that those risks are clear:

    There has been a clear upward trend in AI system capabilities most relevant to national security in the past 18 months.

    • For the first time last year, AI models demonstrated PhD-level performance on chemistry and biology question sets.
    • The safeguards designed to prevent these models doing harm are not currently sufficient.
    • Every model tested by the Institute is vulnerable to safeguard evasion attacks.
    • And it is almost certain that these capabilities will continue to improve, while novel risks will emerge from systems acting as autonomous agents to complete tasks with only limited human instruction.

    The more we understand these risks, the better we can work with companies to address them.

    And the faster we can keep our nation safe, the faster our people can embrace the potential of AI to create wealth and improve their lives.

    There are certain security risks which require immediate action.

    That is why the Security Institute will collaborate with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology organisation, to assess the dual-use scientific capabilities of frontier AI.

    Today, we are also launching a criminal misuse team in the Security Institute, who will partner directly with the Home Office to conduct research on a range of crime and security issues which threaten to harm our citizens.

    Earlier this month, the UK set out plans to make it illegal to own AI tools optimised to make images of child sexual abuse.

    Reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material found online by the Internet Watch Foundation have quadrupled in a single year.

    The Security Institute will work with the Home Office to explore what more we can do to prevent abusers using AI to commit their sickening crimes.

    A security risk is a security risk, no matter where it comes from.

    US companies have shown the lead in taking security risks seriously.

    But we need to scrutinise all models regardless of their jurisdiction of origin.

    So I’ve instructed the Security Institute to take a leading role in testing AI models wherever they come from, open or closed.

    While we can’t discuss these results publicly, we will share them with our allies.

    We are alive to the security risks of today.

    But we need to focus on tomorrow, too, and the day after that.

    We are now seeing the glimmers of AI agents that can act autonomously, of their own accord.

    The 2025 International AI Safety Report, led by Yoshua Bengio, warns us that – without the checks and balances of people directing them – we must consider the possibility that risks won’t just come from malicious actors misusing AI models, but from the models themselves.

    We don’t yet know the full extent of these risks.

    However, as we deploy AI across our economy, our society, and the critical infrastructure that keeps our nation secure, we cannot afford to ignore them.

    Because losing oversight and control of advanced AI systems, particularly Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), would be catastrophic.

    It must be avoided at all costs.

    I want to be clear exactly what this testing is, and what it’s not.

    It’s not a barrier to market access. Not a blocker to innovation.

    It is urgent scientific work to understand serious risks to our country.

    Governments are not passive bystanders in the AI revolution.

    We have agency in how AI shapes our society.

    And we have a responsibility to use that agency to defend our democratic way of life.

    Only countries with a deep and knowing understanding of this technology will be able to build the capacity they need to deliver for their citizens in the twenty-first century.

    But success is not a given.

    It depends on the democratic world rallying together to maintain our leadership in AI.

    Together, we can protect our fundamental values – freedom, openness, and opportunity.

    If we do that, we won’t just keep our people safe.

    We will ensure that they are first to benefit from the new era of wealth and prosperity which AI will bring.

  • Peter Kyle – 2024 Speech at Labour Party Conference

    Peter Kyle – 2024 Speech at Labour Party Conference

    The speech made by Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, on 23 September 2024.

    Let me start by introducing the team: Chris Bryant, Maggie Jones, Feryal Clark, Callum Anderson, and for his first Labour Party Conference – Patrick Vallance.

    For 14 years, our country paid the price of a ConservativeGovernment.

    Growth stalled; opportunities shrank; public services atrophied; inequalities deepened.

    Of course, the Tories talked a good game about growth, but it was all mouth and no trousers.

    Well, it was in Boris’s case – in Rishi’s it was all mouth and shorttrousers!

    All across government we are clearing up their mess – in my department I’ve found projects worth millions announced by my predecessors, without a single penny put behind them.

    Talk is cheap. And it was a cheap Tory trick.

    But empty promises cost – they waste everyone’s time and effort, sap people’s energy and enthusiasm, and squander the opportunities for Britain to get ahead.

    The Conservatives liked to wrap themselves up in our country’s flag, but time and time again, one failed Prime Minister after another, they never lived up to the values it represents.

    That’s why Britain was crying out for change.

    Once again, it falls to Labour in government, to repair the damage done under the Conservatives.

    Just like Attlee and Wilson, Blair and Brown before them, Keir, Angela and Rachel are tasked with putting our divided, damaged, disunited Kingdom back together.

    So, change begins.

    Change requires us to put wealth creation and economic growth, at the core of our national endeavour.

    Because growing the economy is the route to better lives and life chances for working people.

    My predecessor, when she wasn’t libelling people and passing on the legal bills to the taxpayer, said that her number one priority was driving woke out of science.

    Well, conference, our number one mission is to be the partner scientists need to tackle disease, climate change and economic growth.

    It’s a massive task:

    From Artificial Intelligence to human life sciences;

    From addressing digital exclusion to widening full fibre internet connectivity;

    From promoting the employment opportunities, from new data-driven technologies to protecting children against potential online harms;

    From creating the digital centre of government, to spreading digital technologies across the NHS and public services.

    We have even got responsibility for Britain’s space programme – so for us it really is to infinity and beyond!

    But the scope of these responsibilities is dwarfed by the pace of technological change.

    Think about it, a little girl born today in Liverpool Women’s Hospital will live longer and healthier because of medicines discovered and developed, using Artificial Intelligence.

    Her life story will be told through a new generation of smartphone technology.

    Her memories will be made and recorded on new platforms, as she grows from teenager to adulthood.

    She is part of the new digital generation, and this latest revolution began before she was even born and will continue throughout and beyond her life.

    Her education and career prospects, her life’s journey, will be created and curated by a series of discoveries, as yet unknown.

    But there is nothing inevitable about her story; about who benefits, how, and by how much, from this revolution.

    That is a choice.

    For progressives, our choice is to drive this change, whilst harnessing its immense power for the good of all.

    Failing to prepare for this change, is simply preparing to fail.

    Britain’s businesses and British workers cannot be left to sink or swim in the technological tsunami that is engulfing the world.

    I totally understand the concerns people have about the impact of these changes on their jobs, children, communities, and the whole of society.

    Our task is to recognise these concerns: mitigate where possible; upskill where necessary; reskill where appropriate; and regulate when essential.

    Every Industrial Revolution challenges the traditional structures of the society it impacts.

    In the 1860s and 70s, MPs’ concerns about the speed of locomotives, meant they introduced a 2 mile an hour speed limit, and someone to walk in front waving a red flag;

    In 1896 the National Anti-Vaccination League opposed the introduction of vaccines for public health;

    In the early 20th Century, the Horse Association of America opposed the introduction of the tractor.

    Some opposed the development of nuclear energy in the 1960s, as they do with solar and wind power today.

    Some of these concerns might seem silly now but, they were real and substantial then.

    If those generations had decided that the price of progress was too high, society would have remained poorer, slower, dirtier and sicker.

    Today we need to harness these opportunities, they need not be a threat, any more than the train or the tractor.

    From vaccines to clean power, resisting the opportunity cost of conservatism is the real price of progress.

    The challenge is to harness technology for good, to make change work for the good of all. That’s why we are fully implementing the Online Safety Act, to improve online safety for everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

    It’s why we are making the AI Safety Institute a statutory body, alongside identifying and realising the massive opportunities of AI for pupils and teachers, workers and students, scientists and researchers, NHS staff and patients too.

    It’s why we are working to make Britain the most attractive place to invest, start-up and grow businesses in science and technology.

    Because that’s the most sustainable route to wealth creation, opportunity generation, secure employment and economic growth.

    And it’s why we are determined to tackle digital exclusion.

    The opportunities of this technological revolution must be available to everyone.

    It must be more fairly shared between men and women, regardless of age, ethnicity, ability and social class, and across all regions and nations of our country.

    Securing these advances for all, is a modern progressive project that can, over time, make our communities cleaner, greener, safer and fairer too.

    Our task is to lay the foundations for the security, prosperity and opportunity of the digital generation.

    To make Britain the best place to live and work, for people to build their homes and families, the very best that Britain can be;

    Where no-one goes to bed hungry because our economy grows too slowly;

    Where no-one is denied the treatment and care they need, because the technology they rely on is outdated or inadequate;

    Where our country’s reputation is no longer shaped by the shame of food banks, but by the potential of state-of-the-art databanks, AI and supercomputer technologies.

    That is the modern Britain of hope and optimism, of ambition and fulfilment, of discovery and diversity, of opportunity and security that we seek to build.

    For that little girl in that Liverpool maternity unit, and for all of Britain’s digital generation, that change starts right now, right here, with this Labour government.

  • Peter Kyle – 2024 Speech at the Science and Engineering Conference

    Peter Kyle – 2024 Speech at the Science and Engineering Conference

    The speech made by Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on 11 September 2024.

    Good afternoon.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here.

    Thank you for having me along. It really does mean the world to connect with people on the front line of R&D.

    Something you notice quite quickly when you get appointed to this job, is you do feel quite distant from the front line of some of things you’re making big decisions about, so it’s great to be here to connect with as many people as possible.

    Since I’ve got this job, people have constantly been asking me how it connects to people’s lives and is science really relevant to the daily lives and lived experiences of people.

    It is quite surprising for me to hear that question put in so many different ways.

    But the answer for me has never changed because anyone who has stepped foot into a secondary school classroom can see in a heartbeat how important science is to energising and inspiring young people.

    Anyone who has felt the sheer excitement of students setting up an experiment for the first time can see how important science is to inspiring young people.

    And they’ll tell you: not connecting with people’s lives just isn’t true.

    Because if you accept the idea that the only people interested in science are the professionals.

    The people with PhDs and post-docs.

    Then you’ve lost the argument about science before it has even started.

    Our challenge is not about persuading people to care about science.

    It is about what happens to science if you are forced to make difficult decisions.

    If you inherited – for example – a state with broken public finances and broken public services.

    How many of those young people would say that science should be first priority?

    And that’s the challenge we’ve got to overcome.

    We can’t just tell them that it is interesting or important.

    They already know that.

    We must show them why it matters so much for the things that they care about most.

    That is what our missions collectively is to achieve.

    They set out a clear plan for tackling the country’s greatest challenges together.

    A plan with R&D at its foundation.

    We know that the young people in that classroom want to live fulfilling and happy lives.

    So we must show them we can use science to build an NHS fit for the future.

    An NHS where doctors can use quantum scanners to detect diseases invisible to the human eye, giving them back precious years with their grandparents.

    Those young people care about achieving their own potential.

    So we must show them that technology such as AI can break down the barriers to opportunity.

    Helping teachers use AI to plan lessons that help every pupil go as far as their talents will take them.

    They care about the future of their planet, too.

    So we must show them that innovation can transform the way we generate clean energy and combat climate change.

    The success of our missions will be measured by the meaningful difference we make to everyday people’s lives.

    And every one of them will depend on growth.

    Because, more than anything else, it is growth that will shape those young people’s future.

    It is growth that determines whether they can get a good job in the place they grow up.

    Whether we can fix our hospitals and schools.

    Today, a decade of lost growth means that British people are earning less than a tenner more each week than they did in 2008.

    Taxes are at a seventy-year high.

    National debt is the highest its been since the 1960s.

    Stagnant growth and productivity has come at a profound cost to our country, our communities and individuals.

    A cost that is felt in our public services and in working people’s pockets.

    We are faced with a systemic problem and challenge.

    A problem the same old sticking plasters cannot fix.

    So we have got to do things differently.

    And science, it must be part of the solution as it has done every single time our country has moved forward.

    Because long-term, sustainable economic growth is impossible without innovation.

    You simply cannot make people better off without investment in R&D.

    A couple of months ago, I went to Glasgow to see what success could look like.

    There, I met some of the extraordinary people working in the city’s space sector.

    Some of them will have grown up as the children of shipbuilders, in a place that once built a fifth of the world’s ships.

    Now, they are building more satellites than anywhere else in Europe.

    Satellites that could transform the way we understand climate change.

    Or provide Internet access to some of our most remote communities.

    Later this year, I am heading to South Wales.

    The collapse of heavy industry there hollowed out cities, towns, and villages.

    Hundreds of thousands were left unemployed.

    Unable to do the only job they – or their parents – had ever done, many of them never worked again.

    Now, the region is home to the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster.

    And those same cities, towns and villages are once again at the beating heart of the global economy.

    Home to people who are designing and making the chips that are powering the digital revolution and driving forward our net zero ambitions.

    Their children might one day do the same.

    If I wanted to show people why science matters, I would point to places like that across our country.

    Places where R&D is providing good jobs in industries built to last.

    And giving communities their future back.

    The success of Glasgow and South Wales is testament to the power of partnership.

    Between the public and the private.

    World-leading universities working with bold, dynamic businesses.

    Too often, though, government has been missing in action.

    Some of the people I spoke to in Glasgow told me that the relationship with the state has felt less like a partnership – and more like a one-way street.

    Ever-shifting funding settlements have made it impossible to plan into the future and give the stability they need.

    A maze of unwieldy regulation has held business back, preventing them from developing products that could change people’s lives for the better.

    Universities have been treated like political footballs, rather than celebrated as a public good that they are.

    That is bad for innovation. It is bad for growth. And it is bad for working people.

    So it’s time to turn the page.

    In our national missions, I see an opportunity to build a long-term, strategic partnership in which we can both invest.

    A partnership anchored in stability – and in a belief that science and technology can benefit every single one of us, wherever we live in the country.

    It begins in the places where research happens: in labs and lecture halls across the country.

    Sometimes, life-changing discoveries can take decades to develop.

    Earlier this week, I spoke at the Terrence Higgins Trust.

    In 1982, Terrence Higgins became of the first people in the UK to die of an AIDS-related illness.

    It was almost thirty years before the treatment now used to prevent HIV infection became available to the public.

    For thirty years, scientists worked tirelessly to find a cure, often without the support they deserved – or, worse – in the face of outright opposition to even working on those solutions.

    If we want to see more breakthroughs like this.

    Breakthroughs that can bring back hope to millions.

    Then we need a coherent, clear-sighted approach.

    An approach grounded not in short-term decisions, but in a realistic, hopeful vision of a future where science makes life in Britain better.

    That is why we are introducing 10-year budgets for certain R&D activities.

    By giving researchers the long-term funding, they need to remain right at the heart of the cutting edge, we will end the uncertainty that undermines innovation.

    We will restore strength and stability to the relationship between industry and our research institutions.

    And we will give businesses in Britain the confidence to invest wholesomely in R&D.

    Above all, our approach will be determined by a relentless focus on delivery.

    We have already commissioned our AI Action Plan which will set out how we can make the very best use of artificial intelligence to grow the economy and improve public services, and the relationship between citizens and the public services that they depend on.

    And we have unlocked new investment in essential R&D infrastructure like the UK Biobank, the world’s leading biomedical database.

    That funding that will supporting scientists who are trying to find cures to devastating diseases like Parkinson’s, dementia and cancer.

    We know that discoveries this could take decades.

    But once they happen, it shouldn’t take decades for people to benefit.

    Because every day of dither or delay is another day that someone misses out.

    On the job that could change their life.

    Or the treatment that could save their life.

    The Regulatory Innovation Office will cut the time it takes for businesses to bring new ideas onto the market and into our lives.

    And Skills England will give them access to a home-grown workforce with the talent to take on the challenges of tomorrow.

    By fixing the foundations of our broken skills system, it will give every young person – no matter where they live – the opportunity to get on life.

    This week, hundreds of thousands of those young people will step into a science lab for the very first time.

    Each of them will have come home full of stories, of what they have done that day.

    The excitement of that first experiment.

    Or the disaster of an attempting a discovery gone wrong.

    As they get older, many of them will hold onto that kernel of inspiration.

    But they will begin to wonder – what does science do for me?

    When I can’t get a good job in my town.

    And my parents have been waiting weeks to see the doctor.

    Science means something different to all of us.

    Whether we are investing in new products in the lab.

    Or putting them to use on the factory floor.

    Our challenge remains the same.

    Not simply to tell people about the power of innovation.

    But to show them, by putting that power to use for the public good.

    In our missions, we have the promise of a partnership with a purpose.

    A partnership with people at its heart.

    Now, we must get on with the job and deliver for them.

    Thank you very much.

  • Peter Kyle – 2024 Speech at the Farnborough International Air Show

    Peter Kyle – 2024 Speech at the Farnborough International Air Show

    The speech made by Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, at Farnborough International Air Show on 22 July 2024.

    Good morning.

    It’s great to be here.

    Thank you, Paul, for the kind introduction, and thank you all for being here this morning and crowding around, it’s great to see you all.

    This is my first speech as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

    And I would like to start by telling you why I have chosen Farnborough to make my first speech.

    The first reason is one that I have got from meeting so many people who are working, innovating and driving the space sector.

    The second, personal reason – when I was appointed into the Shadow Secretary of State role by Keir Starmer, now the Prime Minister, back in September, I was keen as possible to get up and meet people who are working in the space sector. And something I’ve noticed straight away, whether it was in aviation, aeronautics, or in space, everyone single person I have met is dedicated to the sector in which you are working, that you go way beyond what I have seen in many other sectors. In innovations in other sectors, I think people, they test, they try, they try and find investment, but when it’s [inaudible] they don’t come together after a certain period, they move on and find another approach.

    But the sheer doggedness, the sheer passion, that I have seen in every single company, every single university research lab, and every aspect of space, it is a sector like no other.

    It is a sector who are so incredibly passionate about the sector, about their innovations, about their contribution to it but also passionate about the possibilities that space has. It’s infectious.

    And I have been infected by their enthusiasm and drive.

    The second reason is something that is personal, and quite interesting for me today because so many people have already said to me ‘Is this your first Farnborough?’.

    This is my fourth Farnborough and the other 3 have always been out there, not on the Monday, but the other days of the week where the public are invited and I’ve sat with my dad and my partner at the time. My partner worked for a commercial airliner and my dad was a Royal Navy aircraft mechanic in the 1960s where he worked in [inaudible] fighter jets of the day.

    So my entire upbringing has been with my dad telling stories on the deck; battling in the most extreme circumstances, keeping our aircraft of the day, fighter jets, in the sky, and when they crash landed, picking up the pieces, and trying to repair some of the aircraft of the day in extreme circumstances.

    Coming here with my dad and my partner for 3 Farnborough’s, sitting out there with one yabbering in my ear with every single detail of civil aviation and the other one being able to tell me the things in the sky by the sound of the engine, gives you an insight into the kind of family life and background I had running up to this moment in time.

    But now we are here, and that spirit of innovation I told you about that I detected from people who are driving from the centre, and that was represented by people around me and in my personal life, I think we bring into the mission-led approach, this government.

    None of the 5 missions of this government, that are going to drive the national renewal over a decade, that we have come into power on, can happen if we stick to the tried and tested.

    To find the bold solutions to the problems that have dogged our country for decades, and the solutions we will face in the decades to come, we must do things differently.

    In other words, we need to innovate.

    I am sure that the irony of a minister standing here and talking to you about national missions, for those of you working in the space sector, will not be lost. I promise not to labour the analogy.

    But I do stand here today because there is no better example than the space sector that explains what we are trying to do as a government.

    Opportunity

    Today, the UK’s space sector is growing 4 times faster than the overall UK economy.

    Its workforce is twice as productive as the British average.

    To create opportunities for companies to start, scale and succeed in the UK, to create the good jobs that bring prosperity to communities up and down our country, these sectors need to learn from space and space needs to lead the way.

    Delivery

    If we want to deliver better public services and better lives for the people up and down our country, then the answer is simply the same.

    • Understanding the effects of our changing climate.
    • Providing rural communities with internet access.
    • Keeping our armed forces safe and aircraft in constant contact.

    These are not just opportunities, they are obligations and none of them can be fulfilled without space.

    Security

    The first obligation for any government, of course, is to keep our country safe.

    Today, space-based services like satellite communications and remote sensing are the cornerstones of our national security.

    Without them, the systems that keep Britain safe will grind to a halt.

    Secure financial transactions that rely on timestamps that are accurate to the millisecond.

    Emergency services that depend on precise GPS data to find the people who need their help.

    In an increasingly unstable world, space will matter more than ever.

    And, as orbits become more congested – and contested – we must work with our NATO allies to protect our people.

    Discovery

    So, to anyone who asks – does space matter?

    These are my 3 principles – security, delivery and opportunity – they provide the beginnings of the answer.

    And yet none of them can quite capture what is so unique about space.

    No metric of growth or productivity can distil what is so breath-taking about the images taken by the James Webb telescope.

    Or the pioneering spirit that will propel the Rosalind Franklin rover to Mars.

    And it would be just as hard to measure the sense of pride I feel knowing that it was the contributions of British scientists that made these missions possible.

    To that trio, then, I would add a fourth – discovery.

    New solutions to new problems

    Because the value of human knowledge is never solely defined by its ability to solve our current crises.

    The astronauts on board Apollo 7 could never have predicted the ways that companies like Space Forge in Cardiff could exploit the cold and uncontaminated properties of microgravity to find new cures to Alzheimer’s and cancer, to 3D print organs for transplant patients or manufacture the semiconductors that will power the digital revolution that is unfolding today.

    The century to come will bring new problems.

    And as we search for new solutions, we simply cannot predict the ways that each discovery in space might matter.

    We can only prepare by supporting the scientists and businesses with the boldness and brilliance to make them better.

    Later today [22 July 2023], I’ll be meeting one of those people – I’ve already met Rosemary Coogan, who became our third ever astronaut earlier this year.

    A strategic partnership with business

    Looking ahead, I will be guided by these 4 principles – discovery and delivery, security and opportunity.

    But I cannot chart a course for success in space alone.

    No mission can succeed without a strong team, united around a common goal.

    Working closely with our international partners, including the European Space Agency, I want to forge a strategic partnership with businesses, researchers, and investors.

    A meaningful relationship anchored not in the short-term solutions and shorter funding cycles, but in certainty and stability. Because businesses don’t want a new strategy every 6 months. I’ve heard this repeatedly day in, day out.

    They need a clear signal from a government that isn’t afraid to make hard choices about where to focus our efforts. Because we know that we cannot do everything.

    But that makes it all the more important to invest in those technologies where we really can lead the world. I know that this strategic partnership will take time to build. But that work starts here today.

    National Space Innovation Programme

    So, here in Farnborough, I am announcing £33 million in funding for innovative businesses from the UK Space Agency’s National Space Innovation Programme (NSIP).

    From the smallest start-ups to global giants, the recipients of the fund aren’t just creating cutting edge technologies, they want to use that technology to build a better future for Britain.

    In Cambridge, SuperSharp are designing a heat-detecting telescope to gather the data that we will need to tackle the climate crisis.

    In Hereford, ETL Systems are building ground equipment that links satellites to 5G and 6G mobile networks, transforming connectivity.

    In Harwell, Orbit Fab and Lunasa are working on refuelling and docking technologies that will extend the lifespan of satellites and preserve our space environment for future generations.

    Later this week, I’ll be travelling up to Glasgow to meet one of the winners myself.

    Spire Global are developing technology to supply unique weather forecasting data to global weather prediction centres.

    And their success in Scotland embodies the phenomenal potential of our science and tech economy.

    Once the shipbuilding capital of the world, Glasgow now makes more satellites than anywhere in Europe.

    Someday soon, the phrase ‘Clyde Built’ – used in previous generations to describe the incredible ships built on the banks of the Clyde – will be used for small satellites, too.

    Travel fifty miles East through the Central Belt, and you will find a unique combination of world-class universities and innovation centres that are cementing Edinburgh’s reputation as a ‘space data capital.’

    Fly north to the Shetland Islands, as I soon will do, and before long you’ll get to SaxaVord. In Autumn, that space port will host the first ever vertical satellite launch in Europe, putting Britain on the map in an increasingly competitive global market.

    Conclusion

    In all of these places, a better future for Britain is coming into view.

    Here in Farnborough, you can see that future very clearly indeed.

    People with decades of experience in aerospace and oil and gas are using their expertise to build the industries of tomorrow and create prosperity for their communities.

    Talented researchers in world-leading universities are developing technologies to tackle some of our toughest problems.

    Innovative start-ups and spinouts are taking those solutions out of the lab and into our lives.

    I will be a champion for those people. Those researchers. And those businesses too. Because we have an extraordinary opportunity here.

    Together, we can grow our economy and create good jobs for the future for our people.

    We can deliver the public services they deserve.

    And we can protect our country in an increasingly volatile world.

    If change is our mission.

    Then this is right here is where we start.

    Thank you.

  • Peter Kyle – 2023 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

    Peter Kyle – 2023 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

    The speech made by Peter Kyle, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2023.

    The Bill has managed to unite all Northern Ireland parties in opposition to it. The word “reconciliation” may be in its title, but victims say that it is traumatising. Both the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Northern Ireland have criticised it. The Labour party has voted against it at every stage. That is because it benefits terrorists more than their victims.

    Anyone doubting that should read the BBC front page today, and the story about Louie Johnston, who was just seven years old when his Royal Ulster Constabulary officer father David Johnston was shot by the IRA. Louie has asked MPs to show empathy with his family today and not force through this Bill.

    Lords amendment 44 addresses the flaw at the centre of this Bill, by removing the immunity clause. The Government must not put immunity back in. It is not a wrecking amendment, as the independent commission would have a better chance of winning people over without it.

    I listened with interest to the Secretary of State’s recent speech to the Institute for Government. He told a story about meeting three RUC widows, and how all three wanted different things in relation to their husband’s death. He said that, if he were a member of the public, he would side with the widow who wanted justice above all else. He suggested that conditional immunity in exchange for information would satisfy two of the three widows, and he said this is progress on legacy.

    James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)

    I was intrigued to hear the Leader of the Opposition publicly state last week that, if he were to become Prime Minister, he would repeal this Act. This surprised me for a variety of reasons, and I wonder if the shadow Minister might indulge me for a second. Am I right in thinking that public protestation means Labour has no intention of drawing a line under legacy issues in Northern Ireland and moving on? And does it mean that Labour has no wish to stop vexatious complaints being made against British servicemen?

    Peter Kyle

    Labour believes in a more consensual way forward. We believe that, in the past, there has been agreement that drew more consensus. This Government published a Bill that had broad agreement in Northern Ireland and was deemed human rights compliant, yet they jettisoned the Bill after gaining all that consensus and chose a different way forward. We believe the way forward lies in the origins of that draft legislation, and we believe there is a way forward that takes into account the learning since.

    The hon. Gentleman mentions vexatious litigation against former servicepeople in the Northern Ireland context. Perhaps he could give an example of vexatious litigation where someone is currently being prosecuted or pursued as a result?

    Ian Paisley

    Officer B.

    The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)

    Dennis Hutchings.

    Peter Kyle

    Okay. I will move on.

    The Secretary of State has clearly been trying to do his best with a Bill he inherited from one of his predecessors, but this Bill will slam shut the doors to justice. It is now well over a year since the Bill was published. In that time, Ministers have had ample opportunity to consult. The Secretary of State outlined dozens of meetings, and he has had the chance to consult and listen to victims, their representatives and local Northern Irish politicians. That is ample opportunity to win the people over to the Government’s approach, yet nobody has been won over—no politician, no victim, no international partner, no one.

    Immunity from prosecution for murder would work only if it had popular support in Northern Ireland. It does not. The Government have underestimated the strength of feeling among victims. I have been asked by some victims to put their views on the record. On 10 August 1996, John Molloy had nearly reached his home in north Belfast when he was confronted by a group of young men and women. John was Catholic. He was repeatedly stabbed in a frenzied attack and was left to bleed to death on the pavement. He was just 18 years old. John’s still-grieving parents, Pat and Linda, want to know how offering his killers immunity will aid them in reconciliation? We are trying to heal divisions but this Bill is damaging.

    Take the case of Cecil Caldwell, a 37-year-old construction worker who was travelling in a minibus from Omagh, where he and his colleagues had been repairing an Army base. A roadside bomb was detonated, killing eight of the 14 people on the bus. As the dead and dying lay on the road, their pay packets were stolen. A simple, dignified monument was erected at the site, and it is regularly vandalised. Cecil’s wife, Jean, does not want this legislation. She has asked whether the Government have any idea of what victims have gone through. If the Bill is not an aid to victims such as her, what is the point?

    Clearly, the Government are also conflicted. In the other place, amendments were introduced to stop Gerry Adams receiving compensation, following a Supreme Court ruling in 2020. We support the upholding of the Carltona principle and that amendment. However, there is a disconnect between the horror the Government feel at the idea of giving Gerry Adams compensation and the potential implication of the immunity clause we are debating. I want to explore that in a hypothetical.

    Gerry Adams has, of course, always denied being a member of the IRA, but he is currently being sued in the High Court by victims of the IRA in a civil case. Not only will this Bill halt any similar cases, but the immunity provisions remain open to Gerry Adams if he were ever to need them. Immunity is worth a lot more than compensation. In this hypothetical, should Gerry Adams seek to avail himself of immunity, nothing in this Bill could prevent it, and the people supporting the Bill would be the very first ones on their feet screaming for emergency measures to prevent it from happening.

    Even if we choose to ignore the moral problems of this policy, there is also doubt about it on the Government’s own terms. Members need not take my word for it, because this is the view that Sir Declan Morgan gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last year. The House will know that Sir Declan has been named as the chief commissioner of the independent body. He said:

    “The only group who will go for immunity are those who have been the subject of investigations, brought in for questioning and it looks like there is a viable case. It seems to me like that is a vanishingly small number of people.

    Again, the question then arises of why you would put immunity in place for such a small number of people in the circumstances. You must be able to justify that. That presents a challenge.”

    I do not have reason to believe that Sir Declan’s views on the number of people who will go for immunity have changed since his appointment.

    Immunity cannot be justified when the rest of the Bill shuts processes down which have worked for some victims.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Peter Kyle

    Shadow Minister, for the time being.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    I was going to make that clear in my comments. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for what he is saying. I understand entirely what motivates my colleagues on the other side of the House who served in the armed forces; I had the honour of serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. But here is the problem for me: for all those whom we are seeking to protect from prosecution, there are countless others who put on a uniform of the Crown, in the armed forces and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and were murdered in cold blood by terrorists and whose families will not now have the opportunity of justice. I cannot look those people in the eye. Louie Johnston is one of my constituents, and the shadow Secretary of State referred to him. I recall having just been elected a Member of Parliament in 1997 and the news coming through about the murder of his father, Constable David Johnston, and of Constable John Graham in Lurgan. Louie was in my office recently and the current system is not delivering for him—we do need change. We need a system that can deliver, but surely it is the victims who should have the choice. Surely it should be down to the families to choose whether they want to pursue justice or information. When we deny them that route and we take away the access to justice, we diminish the prospect of achieving the second objective of this Bill, which is reconciliation.

    Peter Kyle

    The right hon. Member makes his point passionately, with great erudition and personal experience as the representative of the Lagan Valley. There is very little I can add to the insight that he has just given the House. We in this place have striven in recent years to give extra rights to victims. Indeed, the Victims and Prisoners Bill is passing through the House—I believe it has just passed Committee stage. In England and Wales, we are passing legislation that gives more rights to victims. Only in Northern Ireland are we doing something that disempowers victims and puts in place a set of institutions that will make it immeasurably more difficult for victims to get the reconciliation that they so desperately deserve, so I have complete sympathy with the right hon. Member.

    Let me address an intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who asked about the number of prosecutions currently under way regarding veterans and terrorists in the times of the troubles. To the best of my knowledge, two cases are outstanding and ongoing relating to veterans—soldier B and soldier F —but there are 32 case files currently with prosecutors in Northern Ireland relating to acts of terror. Those 32 cases are not being pushed forward because prosecutors lack the resources, which they have repeatedly asked Government for, to pursue those prosecutions. Those resources are not forthcoming, but there are a lot of cases that could be moved forward that we are not resourced to progress right now.

    Ian Paisley

    I thank the shadow Secretary of State for emphasising that point, because it highlights the folly of the decision taken by some people in this House to support this legislation because it will protect “our boys”. The fact of the matter is that the only ongoing cases that have any likely prospect of getting to trial are cases against “our boys”. None of the cases against terrorists will ever be able to get to court and, more importantly, the immunity provisions will exclude former security personnel from benefiting from them. Members should think again about why they are supporting those measures.

    Peter Kyle

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. These are very difficult issues and of course I understand why people want to speak in support of people who have served in our armed forces. I feel this intensely and strongly myself, coming from a family where one of my parents—my father—served in our armed forces.

    I will come to the issue again later in my speech, but I will go into it in some detail now. The only recent case against a member of our armed forces is that of David Holden, a member of the Grenadier Guards, and it is worth reflecting on the judge’s summing up in that particular case. Paragraph 105 of the judgment says:

    “Instead, according to his frankly incoherent evidence, he put his right hand on the pistol grip which somehow resulted in his finger slipping onto the trigger and doing so with the significant pressure required to fire the weapon. I do not believe that evidence. I conclude that it is a deliberately false account of what happened.”

    Paragraph 120 says:

    “To summarise the conclusions above I find that it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that…the defendant lied repeatedly to the police.”

    If this case had come to light after the Bill had passed, prosecution would not have been possible. I do not believe for a second that this case and the person responsible—David Holden—reflect the values that we expect from those who serve in our armed forces, and that the vast majority of people who serve in our armed forces expect from their fellow members.

    After five years, the Bill provides a general amnesty for anyone and everyone, as the independent body will wind up. All other investigations, inquests and civil cases will be shut down. It is clear that the Government have chosen immunity to satisfy some on their own Benches. They say veterans face “a witch hunt” in Northern Ireland; that is the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). I do not believe that that is the way that we should frame or explain the reconciliation challenge of Northern Ireland. The vast majority of our soldiers served with distinction in the most difficult of circumstances. There can be no equivalence drawn between their actions and those of terrorists, but that is precisely what this Bill does. Where standards were not upheld, it is important that there is accountability. There have been a total of six military personnel charged with offences related to the troubles, two of which cases are currently ongoing. What has changed since this Bill’s inception is that there has now been a conviction of the former Grenadier Guardsman, David Holden, for the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie. We cannot ignore the fact that this Bill is designed to stop the outcome that the McAnespie family finally achieved.

    I also wish to put it on the record that veterans are victims too. The IRA shot Private Tony Harrison five times in the back while he was sitting on the sofa at his fiancée’s home in east Belfast in 1991. His family have been clear that they do not want immunity for his killers. I would be a lot more sympathetic with the Government if their approach had been to try to secure justice for more, not fewer, people.

    This Bill will affect the entire United Kingdom and our reputation abroad. The families of the 21 victims of the IRA Birmingham pub bombing have been clear that they do not want immunity to be on offer. In November, the chief constable of West Midlands police confirmed that files had been passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service. Immunity will be open to that suspect if this Bill passes before a decision is made. Voting down Lords amendment 44 could shut off justice for families who have waited 50 years, right at their moment of greatest hope. There is still time for the Government to pause and reconsider this approach, just as the Irish Government have formally requested. The 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement is the moment to reflect on the power of consensus. To pass this Bill with immunity would be to fly in the face of everything that we know about progress in Northern Ireland; it should not happen.

  • Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2015-10-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many local authorities have contacted his Department on the future of the Homelessness Prevention Grant in the last six months.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Homelessness prevention grant is part of our £500 million investment in local authority and voluntary sector homelessness services. It has helped local authorities to prevent 935,800 households from becoming homeless since 2010 and assisted 220,800 in 2014-15 alone.

    The Government does not evaluate the effectiveness of local authority grants including the Homelessness Prevention Grant. As democratically elected organisations, local authorities are independent from Central Government and are responsible for managing their budgets in line with local priorities. Since 2010, local councils have had more flexibility over how they spend the money they receive from central government. Together with the money raised through council tax and other local sources, they have considerable freedom to work with their residents to decide how best to spend available resources on local priorities.

    My Department regularly engages with a wide range of partners on homelessness prevention. We have received five written representations directly from local authorities on the future of the grant since April 2015.

  • Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what level of spending will be required from (a) the Government, (b) other public sector bodies and (c) private employers to create three million quality apprenticeships by 2020.

    Nick Boles

    The budget for apprenticeships in England is demand-led and the level of spending responds to local employer and learner demand. Apprenticeships are jobs with training – availability is determined by employers offering opportunities.

    The Government is introducing a UK-wide levy for all larger employers in the public and private sector to help fund the increase in quantity and quality of apprenticeship training. This levy will put employers in charge of how apprenticeship budgets are spent by creating a fund which they can use to pay for the cost of external training for their apprentices.

    Further details on the rate and scope of the levy will be set out by my Rt hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn Spending Review.

  • Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2015-11-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when he plans for the new business-led body to set standards for apprenticeships as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 to come into operation.

    Nick Boles

    It is our intention that the Institute for Apprenticeships will be fully operational by April 2017 and we expect it to begin operating in shadow form during 2016, taking on functions in a phased transition.

  • Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Kyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, with reference to paragraph 6.14 of English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision, what steps his Department will take to ensure employers are still encouraged to take on 16 to 18 apprentices following the introduction of the apprenticeship levy.

    Nick Boles

    We are working through the policy implications of the levy. Ministers and officials are conducting end to end meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of getting the detailed design of the levy right before its implementation in 2017.

    We want 16-18 year olds to play a key part in the success of apprenticeships. The lifetime benefits associated with the acquisition of apprenticeships are significant, and there is a high level of return to investment delivered by the apprenticeship programme. We will continue to encourage employers to take on 16-18 year olds as apprentices.

  • Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Peter Kyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Kyle on 2016-01-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the risk of employers waiting until the new digital voucher funding mechanism is in place before taking on new apprentices.

    Nick Boles

    The current apprenticeships funding mechanism is being reformed to deliver a high-quality, employer-led system. In the transition period, we will be continuing to use the current system (which has delivered strong apprenticeships growth) and work with employers to help them take on apprentices. We will monitor take-up prior to the levy introduction.