Tag: Matthew Pennycook

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2026 Speech to UKREiiF 2026

    Matthew Pennycook – 2026 Speech to UKREiiF 2026

    The speech made by Matthew Pennycook, the Housing Minister, in Leeds on 19 May 2026.

    [This is the version issued by the Ministry of Housing with two small sections of political content redacted]

    Thank you for that kind introduction and good morning, ladies and gentlemen – it is a pleasure to join you here in Leeds.

    Since its launch four years ago, UKREiiF has gone from strength to strength.

    It is now a catalyst for significant investment and growth, generating economic activity in every part of the country including this growing and fast, dynamic city, and the wider West Yorkshire region.

    As a domestic forum for discussion, networking and deal making between investors, developers and local authorities looking to shape the future of our towns, cities and regions, it is now unrivalled.

    And for those looking to attract global capital, and, dare I say it, government ministers whose diaries don’t always lend themselves to intense four-day events in the Mediterranean, it arguably now surpasses its overseas rivals.

    I want to thank everyone involved in organising this annual event, including the City Council and various partners, for all they have done to make it the success that it is.

    I’m here at UKREiiF today to discuss what more can be done to secure investment; drive regeneration; and accelerate development in every part of the country.

    To exchange views about how together, we can tackle the housing crisis, support economic growth and ensure that the real estate, property and infrastructure sectors flourish.

    And I come with a simple message: this [Political content removed] government arrived in office with a bold and comprehensive plan to build the homes and infrastructure the country needs.

    We are faithfully executing that plan.

    It is beginning to bear fruit.

    And while the headwinds are undoubtedly growing stronger, we are going to stay the course and finish the job.

    Uninformed critics will no doubt decry my reference to stronger headwinds as an attempt to deflect blame for early falls in housing delivery that I can assure all of you were fully expected and anticipated in opposition.

    But everyone in this room will know that the very real challenges that the sector has experienced over recent years – rising interest rates, significant increases in building materials costs, and dampened buyer demand – have been exacerbated by the global turbulence of recent months.

    I want you to know that the Secretary of State and I are acutely aware of the more uncertain environment in which you are now operating.

    We also appreciate that your present challenges follow a series of housing market downturns, the scars of which your cash reserves, supply chains and project pipelines still bear.

    Where compatible with our objectives as a government, we remain committed to doing everything we can to reduce development risks and associated transaction costs so that you can get on and build.

    But it is only together that we can successfully navigate these tumultuous times, working in partnership to create a housing system that is more resilient to economic shocks of the kind produced by the conflict in the Gulf.

    The case for fundamentally transforming the housing system that we inherited is unarguable.

    By any metric, it has been an abject failure.

    As I’ve argued many times, in many different parts of the country: the crisis of housing availability, affordability and quality that that system has produced is blighting lives and hampering economic growth and productivity.

    That is why, as a government, we set ourselves the task of reforming this failing system root and branch.

    Over recent days, I’ve listened with some amusement to colleagues claim that we arrived in government underprepared and lacking clarity of vision and direction.

    When it comes to housing and planning, nothing could be further from the truth.

    We used every waking moment in opposition to develop a bold and comprehensive plan – one that over the past twenty-two and a half months has allowed us to undertake the most rapid, holistic and radical overhaul of the housing and planning system in decades.

    Within six months of taking office, you will know that we published a revised National Planning Policy Framework.

    Through it, we restored and raised mandatory housing targets; strengthened brownfield land policy; and introduced a modernised, strategic approach to Green Belt land designation and release.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility have estimated that these changes alone will boost GDP by £6.8 billion by 2029/30 and will lead to the highest level of housebuilding in 40 years.

    In December last year, we built on those initial revisions, publishing for consultation a wholly restructured Framework.

    This modified NPPF incorporates new clear and rules-based national policies for both plan and decision-making and includes new policies such as a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development and a “default yes” for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations.

    In the same month, our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act received Royal Assent.

    This Act is already enabling us to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, not least by allowing the dismissal of legal challenges to DCOs that are ‘totally without merit’.  

    Once we have switched on the Act in its entirety, including overhauling the consenting process for critical infrastructure; our new Nature Restoration Fund; new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning; and the modernisation of planning committees, we estimate that this single piece of legislation could boost GDP by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade.

    Having received the final report of the independent New Towns Taskforce in September last year, we launched a public consultation in March on our proposed New Towns Programme.

    The large-scale new communities that this will create will make a significant contribution to meeting housing need across England and support economic growth by releasing the productive potential of our constrained towns and cities.

    The programme is an integral part of our plans to boost innovation, quality and competition in housebuilding.

    Given the critical importance of boosting the supply of social and affordable housing for meeting housing need, sustaining the wider development pipeline and supporting timely build out, we have delivered the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation through our £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme and we’ve given Registered Providers the regulatory certainty and stability they need to quickly ramp up investment in existing and new stock.

    And that is not all.

    On arriving in office, we quickly established a New Homes Accelerator that has helped remove blockages and speed up the building of over 130,000 homes across England…

    We have created a new, permanent National Housing Bank backed by £16 billion of new financial capacity…

    We are putting in place a new plan-making system and taking concerted action to drive up local plan coverage…

    We are progressing a range of policy and regulatory easements to help small and medium sized housebuilders thrive and grow and thereby diversify our housebuilding market…

    We have allocated almost £100 million of investment to support local planning authorities with capacity and capability…

    We have invested over £600 million in training tens of thousands of new construction workers.

    We’re reforming the Building Safety Regulator established by the previous government to improve its operations and processes.

    I could easily go on ladies and gentlemen.

    My point in reeling off this long list is a simple one: no government in living memory has done more to tackle the country’s housing and infrastructure deficit than the one I am proud to be a member of.

    While much has been done, there obviously remains much more to do as we strive to hit our incredibly stretching target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.

    We do need to finalise a range of legislative and policy measures.

    We have to publish a final, revised NPPF, and we will do so this summer.

    We have to bring into force our new National Scheme of Delegation, and we will lay the required regulations in the coming weeks.

    We have to consult on the first of our Environmental Delivery Plans concerning nutrient pollution and we will do so in the coming months.

    We must reform the role of statutory consultees in the planning system, and we will announce the outcome of our consultation on this matter before the summer recess.

    Yet, the focus of my Department has now turned very firmly towards ensuring the new system delivers.

    Among other things that means a renewed emphasis on removing ‘grit’ from the planning process to ensure that the application journey is as fast and easy as possible, and it also means a greater focus on what more we can do to support consented sites that are struggling.

    Our New Homes Accelerator will play a crucial role in this effort.

    It has already unblocked and accelerated the delivery of scores of large sites that were encountering significant delays or obstacles – providing planning advice, technical assistance, and brokering across government, including with stat cons.

    To take just two examples:

    At Hampden Fields in Buckinghamshire, engagement with the Environment Agency through the NHA enabled all flood risk activity permits to be promptly issued and the first homes are now being occupied.

    At Langley in the West Midlands, the NHA provided funding for technical support for site design that will enable the project to deliver homes more efficiently.

    Across the country, the NHA is currently supporting 28 sites, and we’ve expanded the scope of the sites that it can now support.

    New sites, like Northwest Sittingbourne in Kent and Benthall Grange in Shropshire, are continuously being added and the NHA online portals remain permanently open for any projects that might require support.

    Homes England, as the government’s principal housing delivery arm, also has a critical role to play in accelerating development and ramping up housing supply.

    Under the leadership of Pat Ritchie and Amy Rees, it is delivering.

    In the last financial year, the Agency supported the completion of over 40,000 homes and leveraged £22.6 billion of private sector investment.

    Under its new regional operating model, it is working more closely than ever with local leaders to support housing delivery including Richard and our partners in the West Midlands who will launch the Birmingham East Mayoral Development Corporation at this event later this morning.

    The Agency is also integral to the delivery of important initiatives such as our Small Sites Aggregator and building on the pilots in Bristol, Lewisham, and Sheffield, I am pleased today to confirm its national rollout.

    The initiative will unlock dormant, unviable small brownfield sites and through the forging of new partnerships between the public and private sector will attract investment to use them to build 10,000 social rent homes a year.

    And to further support communities build new homes and drive innovation, I can announce today that we are working with 23 ambitious local authorities to co-develop a pattern book of standard house designs which we intend to publish by the end of the year.

    These designs will help unlock economies of scale to support investment in MMC, remove barriers for SME developers, and help local authorities deliver homes on small sites they own.

    Ladies and gentlemen let me finish by saying this…

    As a government, we have been clear that we refuse to accept the stagnation and decline that we were bequeathed.

    As a country we enjoy world leading expertise in engineering, construction, planning, design, finance and project management.

    We have a well known tendency to downplay our strengths but the quality of some of our placemaking is second to none.

    We have it in our power, in other words, to lead the world when it comes to urban development and regeneration.

    And yet our full potential remains unfulfilled.

    When it comes to housing and infrastructure, unlike [Political content removed], we have been prepared to will the means as well as the ends and to bear the opprobrium of those content with a failing status quo.

    But getting Britain building again is not in the gift of ministers alone. Much as I wish it were otherwise.

    It requires every part of industry to play its part.

    Now we know things are incredibly tough right now.

    We want you to be frank with us about the challenges you face, and what might be done to help you overcome them.

    If you share our objectives, we want to support you in any way we can. 

    But we also need your help because it is only together that we can ensure that our country enjoys high and sustainable rates of housebuilding and world class infrastructure provision in the years ahead.

    And I very much look forward to continuing to work with you all in pursuit of that aim.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2025 Statement on Reforming Local Plan Making

    Matthew Pennycook – 2025 Statement on Reforming Local Plan Making

    The statement made by Matthew Pennycook, the Minister for Housing and Planning, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2025.

    Following my written statement concerning local plan making and guidance—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 62WS.]—I am today providing an update on the implementation of our reforms to the plan-making system in England.

    This Government were elected on a manifesto that included a clear commitment to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, and all areas are required to play their part. In order to deliver the homes and growth that the country needs, we expect all local planning authorities to make every effort to get up-to-date local plans in place as soon as possible.

    The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential. It is for these reasons that the level of up-to-date plan coverage we inherited is so problematic.

    As a Government, we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal local plan coverage. To that end, we have been clear that we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. That is why we introduced transitional arrangements for emerging plans in preparation as part of the changes we made to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and why we have recently awarded over £29 million in funding to 188 local planning authorities to support the rapid preparation of plans that reflect that updated framework.

    However, the current system is optimised neither for speed, nor for community participation. The Government are therefore clear that more fundamental reform to the system is needed, to ensure that local plans are faster to prepare and simpler for end users to access and understand.

    In February, we published the Government’s response to the previous Government’s consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms. I am today publishing more detailed information about the design of the legislation required to implement the new system; how we intend to roll it out across the country, and the resources that will be made available to support plan makers to that end.

    Designing and implementing new plan-making regulations

    We will shortly lay the regulations that will underpin our new approach to plan making. These will reflect our February 2025 response to the previous Government’s consultation on the new plan-making system, and their development has taken into account responses to that consultation, as well as feedback provided through extensive engagement with the sector.

    The regulations will set out a new process for producing plans, with clear steps that a local planning authority will need to take. This should support faster preparation of plans and more frequent updates, in line with our aim of universal coverage of up-to-date plans that reflect local needs.

    The Government are today publishing a summary of what we intend these regulations to contain. This will provide plan makers and other key stakeholders with the information they need to familiarise themselves with the new system in advance of it coming into force early next year.

    Rolling out the new plan-making system

    The Government are acutely aware that many local planning authorities are keen to start work on plans in the new system at the earliest opportunity, to give themselves the best possible chance of success and provide much-needed certainty for their communities.

    Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making waves. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the new year.

    While authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final backstop dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.

    We will provide a minimum of £14 million of funding this financial year to support local plan making. This is to help local planning authorities get ambitious plans in place as soon as possible and to support those starting work on a new plan early in the new plan-making system. Further details will be published shortly.

    Guidance and tools to support local authorities

    In February 2025 we launched a new home for local plan-making resources on gov.uk— https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan

    This is already supporting plan makers. Today we are going further by publishing, in draft, the first dedicated guidance and tools to support plan makers bringing forward a local plan in the new system.

    For this initial release we have prioritised resources that can best support plan makers in the earliest stages of plan-making, aiding their understanding of how the new system will work and what they could focus on now to get ready. Additional practical tools and templates have been provided by the Planning Advisory Service, which will further support plan makers with their preparations. These resources form part of a growing digital offer to support plan makers to deliver local plans faster. It will be followed by the timely release of tools and services both this year and beyond.

    Plan making in the current system

    The Government have been clear that they want local planning authorities to continue bringing forward plans as quickly as possible ahead of the new system coming into force. For plans progressing to adoption under the existing plan-making legal framework, we will be setting out in the aforementioned regulations that the final date for submission for examination will be 31 December 2026.

    As set out in the revised NPPF published on 12 December 2024, local plans that reached regulation 19 stage on or before 12 March and needed updating as they were meeting less than 80% of local housing need, are expected to be updated and submitted by 12 June 2026, unless updating the plan required the authority to return to regulation 18. If this was the case, authorities have until 31 December 2026 to reach submission.

    The Government are committed to taking tough action to ensure that local authorities have up-to-date local plans in place. While we hope the need will not arise, we have made it clear that we are willing to make full use of available intervention powers—including taking over a local authority’s plan making directly—if local plans are not progressed as required.

    Duty to co-operate

    The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the duty to co-operate that was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 through the Localism Act 2011 to help bridge the gap in cross-boundary co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities.

    The regulations for the new system will also save the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, and to help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to “save” the duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.

    Local planning authorities should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas, and we expect planning inspectors to continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on maintaining effective co-operation. I have written to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate to ask that these matters are made clear to local plan inspectors.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Matthew Pennycook – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Matthew Pennycook, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I also welcome the new Minister to her place and express a genuine hope that she improves on the 87-day average tenure of her four predecessors, not least because I have to meet the new Ministers once they are in post to decide how we might work together, which I certainly hope we can.

    I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate and thank all other Members who have participated. In her thoughtful opening remarks, the right hon. Lady made an impassioned case for protecting the green belt and for prioritising brownfield development, and that point has been echoed by many other Members this afternoon. I doubt any right hon. or hon. Member would disagree with the notion that the Government should be doing everything possible to incentivise and encourage good development on brownfield sites, and to prioritise such development over that on urban green space and greenfield, wherever possible. Of course, “brownfield first” is far from a new policy concept.

    As far back as 1995, the Major Government outlined proposals in their “Our Future Homes” White Paper to use the planning system and public investment to encourage more development in existing urban areas and less on greenfield sites, with an aspirational target of 60% of new homes on brownfield land. The 1998 planning for the communities of the future policy statement, published by the Blair Government, set out a general preference for building on previously developed sites first; the 2000 planning policy guidance note 3 specified a brownfield target of 60%, with the aim of promoting regeneration and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. That 60% brownfield target remained in place throughout the life of the Blair and Brown Governments and was carried forward by the Conservative-led coalition Government into the 2012 national planning policy framework.

    In short, while the precise weight accorded to brownfield over greenfield has certainly fluctuated, every Government over recent decades, of whatever political persuasion, has ostensibly sought in one way or another to maximise the development potential of brownfield land. The succession of Conservative Administrations since 2015 are no exception in that regard.

    All manner of initiatives have been announced over recent years to promote brownfield development, including the use of brownfield registers, the allocation of funding to unlock and accelerate development on suitable and available brownfield sites, and minor changes to the planning system to fast-track brownfield regeneration. The problem is that these recent initiatives have been and continue to be undermined by other decisions the Conservative Administrations have taken—or, in many cases, have failed to take. Let me give three examples.

    First, there is the Government’s reluctance to reform biased spending rules. Leaving aside the issue of whether this Government are actually going to be able to spend the £1.5 billion brownfield fund, or whether the Treasury might claw some of that funding back, one need only examine the distribution of allocations from the Government’s brownfield land release fund over recent years to see that a disproportionate share of brownfield land remediation funding flows to local authorities in the south of England for no other reason than the fact that they are already relatively prosperous and have higher house prices.

    If the Government were serious about delivering a more overt brownfield-focused policy, they could choose to direct more already allocated funding towards brownfield regeneration in those parts of England where urban brownfield land is relatively low value and the cost of remediating sites often prohibitively high, rather than channelling those funds into high-value housing markets where that further stokes land-price inflation.

    Secondly, there is the Government’s general unwillingness to intervene to enable brownfield development. In those parts of the country where land values are relatively high, the existing incentives for brownfield land, including subsidy, are often sufficient. Instead, barriers to development in those locations more often than not relate to delivery, whether that be problems relating to fragmented land ownership or difficulties associated with site assembly.

    Again, if the Government were serious about delivering a more overt “brownfield first” policy, they could act to ensure that brownfield development takes place in areas where local planning authorities either cannot or will not build out deliverable brownfield sites themselves, whether that be, as one hon. Member mentioned, by legislating for further reform of compulsory purchase powers or by overhauling Homes England to give it a greater role in driving brownfield regeneration and supporting local authorities with land assembly, master planning, infrastructure delivery and the brokering of local delivery partnerships.

    The third example is the Government’s refusal to confront many of the underlying reasons why greenfield development is so much more attractive for private developers than is brownfield land. That applies in both high and low-value land areas. In many ways, the proliferation of low-quality, car-dependent development on greenfield sites that more often than not fails to meet local housing need is a direct consequence of the Government’s over-reliance on private house builders building homes for market sale to meet housing need. Again, if they were serious about delivering a more overt brownfield-focused policy and reducing greenfield market sale sprawl, the Government could take steps to ramp up social housing-led development on those brownfield sites with genuine viability challenges and limited prospects for market development, not least by more effective use of grant funding.

    However—here we come to what is the nub of the issue in many ways—even if the Government did act in those and other ways to increase the overall quantum of brownfield development, the fact remains that brownfield development alone will almost certainly never be enough to meet the country’s housing need. The evidence on that fact is perfectly clear. There are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable, in the right location and able to provide the type of homes required to meet local housing needs and aspirations.

    The CPRE figure is correct, but it is existing total permissions over a very long period. Analysis published by Lichfields last year makes it clear that even if every brownfield site that has been identified to date were indeed deliverable and were built out to full capacity, including by means of intensified density, the resulting development would equate to 1.4 million net dwellings over 15 years. That is just under a third of the 4.5 million homes that estimates suggest are needed in that period.

    Put simply, even if the Government manage to boost rates of development on identified brownfield sites significantly, that will only ever be, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued in his contribution, part of the solution to the housing crisis, which is why previous “brownfield first” approaches ultimately had to incorporate requirements to ensure that local planning authorities maintained a sufficient supply of housing on deliverable sites, irrespective of whether that supply could be met in full by development on identified brownfield sites alone.

    Wendy Morton

    I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which I welcome. On that specific point about brownfield, does he agree that unless sufficient protections are in place around the green belt and really push the “brownfield first” approach, all that happens is that brownfield sites remain undeveloped, developers continue developing on the green belt and we achieve absolutely nothing?

    Matthew Pennycook

    I agree with the right hon. Member. As I hope I have conveyed to the House, I think the Government could be doing much more to ensure that brownfield sites are built out and that we do not get speculative fringe development of the type that she refers to. They could do so by, for example, putting in place effective regional frameworks, and sub-regional frameworks, for managing housing growth. There is nothing there at the moment, and a series of Members just applauded the removal of the duty to co-operate, which, as flawed as it is, is the only mechanism in place to provide for that sub-regional housing growth. We will end up in a situation where we have no strategic planning mechanisms to go for growth, and I fear that, even with the changes in place, we will still get speculative development of the kind that the right hon. Member refers to.

    I would like to make some progress, because I am conscious of the time. It is the requirement to maintain a deliverable supply of land for housing in order that objectively assessed housing need can be met that the Government, in their weakness, have fatally weakened through the proposed revisions to the NPPF. As I have argued on previous occasions, the Government clearly hope that England’s largest cities and urban centres will do the heavy lifting, when it comes to housing supply, as a result of the entirely arbitrary 35% uplift to urban centres being made policy, but we already know that most of the cities that that uplift applies to almost certainly will be unable to accommodate the output that it entails.

    Therefore we are left with a situation where, despite a rhetorical commitment to “brownfield first”, the Government are seemingly not prepared to do what is necessary to maximise the supply of new homes on brownfield sites. Neither are the Government prepared to explore other ways in which brownfield-constrained local areas might meet local housing need, while avoiding development on urban green space and greenfield, for example by throwing the full weight of Government behind serious efforts to boost infill development in suburbs. And the Government are certainly not prepared—despite, as a series of hon. Members have mentioned, presiding over the progressive loss of large amounts of high-quality greenfield land over the past decade, often to haphazard and speculative fringe development—to consider how we might instead ensure that more of the right bits of the greenbelt are released by local authorities for development, that land value capture is maximised on those sites so that the communities in question can benefit from first-class infrastructure and more affordable housing, or that greenbelt land with the highest environmental and amenity value is properly protected, enhanced and made more accessible.

    Instead, Ministers have taken the easy option, namely to amend national planning policy in a way that will ensure that fewer houses are built in England over the coming years. In the midst of a housing crisis, the fact that meeting objectively assessed housing need is seemingly no longer a Government priority is, I would argue, a woeful abdication of responsibility. As we will continue to argue, it is high time that we had a general election, so that the present Government can make way for one that not only is committed to fully exploiting the potential of brownfield sites, but serious about building the homes the British people need.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of falling oil prices on the UK’s net international investment position.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The information requested is available in the latest Balance of Payments (2015 Q3) release from the ONS which can be found here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_429314.pdf

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that (a) more cases of chronic lyme disease are correctly diagnosed and (b) more people with chronic lyme disease receive the appropriate treatment.

    Jane Ellison

    Our aim is to ensure that cases of Lyme disease at all its stages and manifestations are recognised and treated appropriately. The National Health Service provides medical care following international guidance and most cases are dealt with by general practitioners (GPs). To help ensure people receive the appropriate treatment Public Health England has published a referral pathway for GPs to follow. Where additional investigation is required, specialist referral may be necessary and a small number of NHS clinics will see complicated cases. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has been commissioned to develop guidelines for the recognition and treatment of Lyme disease; this is expected in June 2018.

    Public Health England PHE) regularly review new tests for Lyme disease and participate in a Europe wide Quality Assurance programme to ensure that the most suitable tests available are used.

    In addition, PHE provide information on Lyme disease and tick awareness to the medical profession and the public, and holds regular medical training days, and works with Lyme Disease Action to support the needs and interests of patients.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-03-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the Answer of 29 January 2016 to Question 23417, whether she plans to issue a direction to hold a Contracts for Difference round for carbon capture and storage.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Government believes CCS could play a potentially important role in the long-term decarbonisation of the UK. Under the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014, Contract for Difference allocation rounds are limited to renewable technologies. My rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State can direct the award of a Contract for Difference to a CCS project. Whether or not she would do so would be subject to circumstances at the time, including factors such as value for money, affordability and competing demands on available budgets.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-06-13.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on the UK economy of the increase in corporate debt in China.

    Damian Hinds

    The Treasury continuously monitors global economic developments, including in China, and their impact on the UK as part of the normal process of policy development. As one of the most open trading economies in the world with a large financial sector, we have to recognise that the UK is not immune to the continued problems being experienced in the world economy. Nonetheless, the Bank of England’s 2015 stress tests modelled a severe slowdown in commodities and emerging markets. No banks were required to submit revised capital plans following the stress tests. These results indicate that the UK banking system would have the capacity to continue to lend to the real economy, even under such a severe adverse scenario.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-10-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of replacing the Bank of England’s two per cent inflation target with a two to three per cent inflation target averaged over the business cycle

    Simon Kirby

    A comprehensive Review of the Monetary Policy Framework was published in 2013, considering the benefits and costs of a number of different monetary policy frameworks. The current remit for the Monetary Policy Committee reflects the assessment set out in the Review, which includes retaining a flexible inflation targeting framework, with a 2 per cent symmetric inflation target, as measured by the 12 month change in the Consumer Prices Index. The remit also states that the MPC may allow inflation to deviate from this target temporarily in order not to cause undesirable volatility in output due to the short-term trade-offs involved.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Matthew Pennycook – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2015-10-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what progress his Department has made in piloting reasonable adjustments to the work capability assessment for people with mental health problems.

    Priti Patel

    The Department has been working closely with its new provider, the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA) to develop and test new processes for obtaining further evidence as part of the Work Capability Assessment. An initial test of these new processes should start by the end of the year.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-01-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what cross-departmental structures her Department has established with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport since May 2015 to ensure progress on meeting the EU target of 15 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

    Andrea Leadsom

    My rt. hon Friend has regular meetings with colleagues from all Departments with an interest in Climate Change and Energy policy.

    The 2020 renewables target is relevant to a number of government policies, and my Department ensures that all views across government are taken into account.