The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2015-10-09.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he expects to publish a detailed implementation plan for the new five-year cancer strategy for the NHS.
Jane Ellison
NHS England is currently working with partners across the health system to determine how best to take forward the recommendations of the Independent Cancer Taskforce report and put in place a governance structure for delivery.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2015-09-16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether it is her policy to allow alternatives to in-home displays to be used in the smart meter rollout.
Andrea Leadsom
Energy suppliers are required to offer their domestic customers an In Home Display (IHD) where they install a smart metering system, enabling consumers to visualise how much energy they use, when they use it and how much it costs them in near real time. There is strong evidence that IHDs are instrumental to energy savings, as set out in the Smart Metering Impact Assessment and the findings of the Early Learning Project published in March 2015. IHDs facilitate a significant proportion of the expected benefits of the smart metering programme (some £4.3 billion).
Energy suppliers are able to offer their customers, where they so choose, other engagement tools in addition to the IHD. However there is a lack of evidence on the enduring consumer benefits of alternative engagement tools within Great Britain. The Government is currently consulting on proposals to allow suppliers to undertake, with the Secretary of State’s approval on a case by case basis, trials of alternative energy use engagement tools to IHDs. This will help DECC to gather evidence on the performance of other approaches, to understand if the IHD requirement remains optimised for the costs and benefits accruing to consumers.
The consultation can be found on the following weblink:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/smart-meter-in-home-display-licence-conditions.
“
The statement made by Matthew Pennycook, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, on Twitter on 1 November 2022.
Yesterday evening saw significant disorder on the Greenwich Peninsula involving a large group of youths discharging fireworks. This was deeply distressing for residents and I will be having further discussions with the police, council and others about how we tackle the problem.
The speech made by Matthew Pennycock, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.
It is a privilege to respond for the Opposition in this important and timely debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. In so doing, they have given the House not only the opportunity to appropriately mark the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, but a chance for us to properly reflect on its aftermath and what could be, but is not yet its legacy.
It has been an excellent debate, and I thank all those Members who have taken part. We have had a series of incredibly well-informed and powerful contributions. On behalf of those on the Opposition Benches, I put on record once again the admiration we feel for the survivors and the bereaved, and for the wider Grenfell community. In the face of unimaginable loss, their pursuit of justice for their families and neighbours and their dedication to securing wider change command enormous respect.
The events of 14 June 2017 were, as many have said today, horrific. The fear that the residents of Grenfell Tower must have felt on that night is inconceivable. The loss of 72 innocent men, women and children is something we must never forget. The fire is frequently referred to as a tragedy. I personally have never been convinced that is quite the right word to describe the horror of Grenfell, because labelling it as such implies that it happened not only unexpectedly, but entirely by chance, yet we know that what happened could have been avoided. It could have been avoided if shortcuts were not taken when it came to safety, if the countless reckless and unforgivable decisions made by some of those within the product manufacturing and construction industry were not taken, and if repeated warnings, including those expressed, as so many Members have said, by the residents of Grenfell Tower themselves, had not gone unheeded. But they were, and it is the survivors, the bereaved and the community who must forever live with the consequences.
Doing so is made all the more difficult by the knowledge that those guilty of wrongdoing have not yet been punished. Many Members have rightly raised that point in the debate. While we can never fully appreciate the grief that those who were directly affected have experienced, I can understand the fury that they must feel as they watch the Grenfell Tower inquiry continue day after day to relentlessly expose a catalogue of malpractice and negligence. While we recognise the need to await the conclusion of the inquiry before it is determined precisely what steps must be taken, I can understand the frustration that they evidently feel—it was palpable on the silent walk on Tuesday—that the prospect of justice feels more distant than ever.
When it comes to the question of justice, it is our responsibility as Members of this House to recognise that the fire at Grenfell Tower was not simply the result of pernicious industry practice; it was also the product of state failure—the failure of successive Governments in presiding over a deficient regulatory regime and ignoring repeated warnings about the potentially lethal implication of that fact. The Government have a duty to ensure that everyone lives in a safe home. Sadly, while there has undeniably been progress toward that end over the past five years—and a quicker pace of progress over the past nine months, for which I give the Minister and his colleagues due credit—this debate has highlighted the serious concerns that remain.
Time does not permit me to respond to all the pertinent issues that have been raised during this debate, from the failure of the Government to implement all the recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry, to the ongoing impact of the building safety crisis on blameless leaseholders in privately owned buildings and on social landlords. I therefore want to use the time I have left to pick up two particular issues raised in the debate that are incredibly important for how we go forward: the functioning of the new building safety regime, which was raised in considerable detail by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin); and the extent to which the wider post-Grenfell building safety crisis has been comprehensively resolved.
When it comes to the new building safety arrangements, the Building Safety Act comes into force in 12 days’ time, but the practical implementation of the new arrangements is just as important as what the legislation itself provides for, and in that respect, we have real concerns about whether the new regime will be able to function effectively. In particular, we remain unconvinced that the new Building Safety Regulator, which the Act makes responsible for all aspects of the new framework, has what it needs to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it.
Take the issue of indemnity insurance for approved inspectors. The Minister will be aware that as a consequence of a late Government amendment to the Bill, the current Government-approved scheme comes to an end next month, yet there is no sign of an appropriate alternative arrangement being put in place to protect the public and the public interest. Indemnity insurance may seem like an incredibly technical matter, but it is nevertheless integral to the proper functioning of the new regime, and on this and a number of other pressing issues it simply is not good enough for the Government to pass the buck to the new regulator without providing it with the necessary support, as is clearly the case.
The Government will have to do more in the months ahead to ensure that the regulator can carry out its functions effectively, not least because the second phase of the Grenfell inquiry will almost certainly produce recommendations that place additional pressures on it. When he responds, can the Minister update the House on what more his Department is prepared to do to assist the regulator to discharge the duties the 2022 Act places on it?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I would go further than the hon. Member. The concept behind the architecture in the Building Safety Act is still not adequate. There are conflicts of interest for building control surveyors, and there is the complete lacuna of independent incident investigation. Would he undertake to allow Nick Raynsford, Keith Conradi and me to come and brief the Opposition Front-Bench team on this matter, so that they understand our submission to the Grenfell inquiry fully?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and the other individuals he cites. I agree that there are gaps and deficiencies in the new regime, and I agree in particular that there is a conflict of interest with the Health and Safety Executive being the body that investigates major incidents. If those incidents were in in-scope buildings, it would be investigating the regulator that sits inside it, but there are also conflicts in building control, as he rightly raises.
When it comes to the wider building safety crisis, alongside its impact on blameless leaseholders, the overall pace of remediation is arguably the most pressing concern we face. It is agonisingly slow. In the debate that took place last week on social housing and building safety, the Secretary of State openly admitted what has been patently obvious for some time to any Member dealing with cladding casework, namely that the building safety fund
“has not been discharging funds at the rate, at the pace and in the way that it should”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 974.]
Despite Members from across the House having repeatedly expressed concerns about that fact with Ministers over a considerable time, little has seemingly been done to expedite the processing of applications.
The result is that of the 3,462 non-ACM-clad privately owned buildings over 18 metres that have made applications to the fund, remediation works have begun on only 259 and have been completed on just 30. Can the Minister tell us what is being done to expedite decisions on those applications not yet determined? As one would expect, given that it was established earlier and its scope is far more limited, better progress has been made in remediating ACM-clad buildings via the building safety programme, with 78% having been completed, but five years on from the Grenfell fire, how can it be the case that 55 residential buildings still have deadly Grenfell-style ACM cladding on them, and 16 of those have not even begun to remove or replace it?
Of course, in both those cases, the figures I have cited relate only to high-rise buildings over 18 meters. By its own estimate and published figures, the Department believes that there are likely to be between 6,220 and 8,890 mid-rise residential buildings that require full or partial remediation or mitigation to alleviate life safety fire risks. I suspect that the real numbers are far higher.
The bottom line is that if the Government do not accelerate markedly the pace of remediation across the board, we are likely to find ourselves marking the 10th or even 15th anniversary of the Grenfell fire while still bemoaning the fact that some unsafe buildings require fixing. It is essential that the Government continue to be urged to address those failures and the others that have been raised in the debate, because honouring the lives of the 72 involves not just commemoration, but the building of a fitting legacy, as other hon. Members have said.
As Grenfell United made clear in the statement it released on Tuesday to mark the fifth anniversary, the survivors, the bereaved and the community want those who were lost to be remembered not for what happened, but for what changed. Not enough has changed over the last five years and it is beholden on the Government to go faster and, in many cases, further so that everyone has a secure, decent, affordable and safe home in which to live.
The comments made by Matthew Pennycook, the Shadow Climate Change Minister, on 26 February 2021.
With the election of a new US President and China’s recent commitment to carbon neutrality by 2060, the past few months have offered grounds for cautious optimism on climate change. But this report serves as a wake-up call. It sets out in stark terms just how wide the gulf remains between national pledges made and what the world must do to avoid catastrophic global heating.
This year’s COP26 summit is the last best chance to keep alive the hope of the Paris Agreement that warming might be limited to 1.5°C. As its hosts, the UK has a unique responsibility not only to do whatever it takes to maximise global ambition but also to secure agreement on a roadmap for delivering that ambition.
It’s essential we lead by example. But by remaining seriously off track to meet its existing climate targets whilst promising more ambitious ones; by laying claim to the mantle of climate leadership abroad whilst approving new coal mines at home; or by seriously undermining our standing with those on the frontline of the climate crisis by cutting the overseas aid budget, the Government continues to damage its credibility as the custodian of the COP process and by implication the prospects of success in Glasgow in November.
The comments made by Matthew Pennycook, the Shadow Minister for Climate Change, on 17 September 2020.
2030 is an ambitious but achievable date by which to phase out the sale of new petrol, diesel, and hybrid vehicles, one that would give a new lease of life to the UK car industry, whilst combatting climate breakdown and cleaning up the air that dangerously pollutes so many of our towns and cities.
But as well as accelerating the phase out, the Government must also set out a credible plan to get there – one that backs the low-carbon jobs and industries of the future and ensures that workers and communities are properly supported in the transition to a fairer and cleaner economy.
It’s time for Ministers to seize this opportunity as part of a world-leading green recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, creating good jobs across the country, and generating real momentum for next year’s COP26 climate summit.
The comments made by Matthew Pennycook, the Shadow Climate Change Minister, on 7 September 2020. The comments were made with reference to an Institute for Government report on the Government’s approach to achieving net zero emissions.
This report lays bare the Government’s failure to put the country on a path to net zero emissions.
If Ministers were determined to end the UK’s contribution to global heating by mid-century they would have a clear roadmap to achieve that goal, it would be pursued relentlessly from the centre, the institutional architecture would be put in place to coordinate and drive progress across all departments, and emissions reduction would be woven throughout government policy.
Until this Government gives emissions reduction the status it requires and acts accordingly, the UK is destined to remain off track for the net zero target, legislated for just over a year ago.
Text of the letter sent by Matthew Pennycook, the Shadow Climate Change Minister, on 20 July 2020.
Dear Alok,
UK credibility on climate change
I am writing to you as the Minister with lead responsibility for tackling climate change regarding the need for consistency across government policy to ensure the UK’s credibility ahead of the crucial COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow next year.
As you know, we are at the start of the decisive decade in the fight against runaway global heating. COP26, now rescheduled for November 2021, will be a critical moment in that fight. As the first country in the world to industrialise, the world’s sixth-largest economy and the summit’s host, we have a particular responsibility to make it a success.
Establishing the credibility of our COP26 Presidency depends on demonstrable leadership. That has to begin here at home with action to make up the ground lost over recent years and put us on track for net zero emissions.
The need to rebuild our economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic presents the Government with a once in a generation opportunity to bring forward an ambitious stimulus package geared towards the rapid decarbonisation of our economy; one that would create swathes of new jobs across the country, lay the foundations for an enhanced 2030 climate pledge and build momentum in the lead up to COP26.
Yet while other major economies are racing ahead, we risk slipping behind. The energy efficiency measures set out in the summer statement were welcome but what has been announced to date in no way amounts to the “green recovery” that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised. Narrowing the gulf between the Government’s rhetoric on climate action and the reality is going to require far more domestic ambition before the year’s end.
However, the credibility of our COP26 Presidency also rests on the consistency of our actions abroad. I know that you recognise this fact and I note that just this month, you used your London Climate Action Week keynote address to state your commitment to making sure that “climate risk is factored into every single investment decision taken around the world”[1].
Yet over the last decade the Government has directed £6 billion of public money into fossil fuel projects around the world via UK Export Finance (‘UKEF’)[2], the UK’s export credit agency. Indeed, between 2013 and 2018, 96% (£2.5 billion) of UKEF’s support for global energy projects went to fossil fuel ventures – the vast majority of which (£2.4 billion) was channelled in projects in low and middle-income countries[3].
In May 2019, a report from the Committee on Climate Change made clear that UKEF “is not aligned with climate goals, and often supports high-carbon investments”[4]. Similarly, in June 2019, the House of Commons’ Environment Audit Committee (‘EAC’) found that UKEF’s activities were “undermining the UK’s international climate and development targets” and called for UKEF to end its support for new fossil fuel projects by 2021 and to align all its investments with the UK’s 2050 net zero target [5].
Those recommendations have so far been ignored. Instead, at this year’s UK-Africa Investment Summit, 90% of the £2bn invested in energy deals went into fossil fuel projects[6] with the Government committing at that summit only to end UKEF support for overseas coal – an easy pledge to make given the UK has not provided finance for overseas coal projects since 2012[7]. Just last month, it was reported that UKEF will provide a £1bn loan guarantee for Mozambique’s first onshore gas pipeline which, on completion, will account for 10% of that country’s greenhouse gas emissions[8].
When it comes to the climate crisis, the Government’s deeds need to consistently match its words. It is clear that the Government’s support for overseas fossil fuel energy projects is not in line with the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, which commits signatories to make “finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”[9].
What is more, by backing these projects, we send a strong signal about their viability to other investors; de-risking them, crowding in further financing, and locking low and middle-income countries into high-carbon dependency for decades to come.
Nor is it at all clear that investing in such schemes provides value for money for UK taxpayers. In a Paris-complaint world most will not be economically competitive and will become stranded assets[10]. As the Conservative MP and current chair of the EAC Philip Dunne said last month, “such investments look very poor value for British taxpayers compared with renewable alternatives”[11].
The government has highlighted[12] the jobs in the UK oil and gas sector that could be put at risk by ending support for fossil fuel projects abroad. This is a legitimate concern and one that we share. However, research shows that with the right policies, job creation in clean energy industries will exceed affected oil and gas jobs more than threefold in the years ahead[13].
Rather than ducking this issue and simply storing up problems for the future, the government must align its policies at home and abroad with the transition that we know must take place and bring forward the investment and support necessary to help those whose jobs currently depend on the financing of overseas oil and gas projects begin the transition to the low-carbon industries of the future.
We urgently need a different approach. The Government has an opportunity to match its stated net zero priorities at home with its practices abroad, and to show the leadership and consistency required from its COP Presidency to make next year’s summit a success.
As such, we are asking the Government to:
1. Immediately end all financing of new overseas fossil fuel projects and review the decision to use public money to underwrite the Mozambique onshore LNG project;
2. Change UKEF’s mandate to ensure that any financing provided by it is aligned with the UK’s climate commitments and the Paris Agreement;
3. Leverage UKEF’s position among other OECD export credit agencies to ensure multilateral action towards net zero emissions by taking up the EAC’s recommendations from last June and:
a. Reporting on the forecast and actual emissions of the entire UKEF portfolio, including scope 3 emissions, to ensure maximum transparency; and
b. Committing to follow recommendations by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures to quantify and report its exposure to stranded assets due to climate change and its actions to support energy transition.
4. Bring forward a Just Transition Plan for British workers affected by these changes to retrain and reemploy them in decent, long term jobs in renewable projects instead.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Best wishes,
Matthew