Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Perhaps to the surprise of the House, I can confirm that I am always delighted to visit my hon. Friend. I have done so on many occasions and I look forward to doing so whenever he wants and whenever my diary permits.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

In a speech last month to the Energy UK conference, the Secretary of State made the case for a decisive shift towards clean energy and away from what he termed “volatile fossil fuels”, on which he said

“we are still very dependent, perhaps too dependent”.

Will he therefore explain how a decision by the Government to permit Cambo, an oilfield whose anticipated lifespan would see it still producing oil four years before we are legally bound to reach net zero, would be anything other than fundamentally at odds with that vision?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that the licences under which Cambo was permitted were actually granted when his own party was in government. He will also appreciate that I have always said that there will be a transition. He and his Labour associates want to shut down the industry and cause mass unemployment among the 250,000 people in this country who work in the sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

With regard to TRID, the hon. Lady will know that the consultation on that closes tomorrow. I would urge all interested parties to feed into that consultation so that we can reach a good decision. She knows that I am on record as having committed to a strategic presence of steel in the UK . I think that is vital and as Secretary of State I will always promote it within Government.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The crisis at Liberty Steel is yet further evidence of the need to break the cycle of crisis management that has defined the approach of successive Governments to this critical sector. The Secretary of State knows full well that there is a global race under way to green the steel industry and that our country is currently at the back of the pack, with no concrete plans for trialling hydrogen-based primary production and only vague plans for a single carbon capture-based project. With its long-term survival at stake, can he explain why the Government believe that the UK steel industry can afford to wait a further two years for the limited clean steel fund to even begin distributing investment?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I completely reject the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The idea that we are at the back of the pack in decarbonisation is complete nonsense. We are the first country in the G7 to have come up with an industrial decarbonisation strategy. He and his Labour colleagues were saying, “Secretary of State, why don’t you nationalise Liberty? Why don’t you give Mr Gupta £170 million?”, and we made absolutely the right call. We showed judgment and restraint. Going forward, he will appreciate that I was the Secretary of State who resuscitated the Steel Council. We have had constructive conversations across unions and employers to work out a decarbonised future for the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend, as he often does, raises a pertinent question relating to our energy strategy. Obviously, carbon pricing is at the centre of any move to try to decarbonise our energy mix. We have a track record on this, and we have also committed to 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, which, through the auction process, is critical to delivering our net zero ambitions.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

If we are to sustain public support for the goal of net zero, it is essential that we maximise the benefits of the green transition here at home, but there are far too many examples where the promise of that green transition risks not being realised. One such case is the plight of the BiFab engineering yards in Fife and Lewis, which represents a clear failure to utilise industrial strategy to ensure that British firms win work and sustain decent jobs from the billions of pounds being invested in offshore wind installations just a few miles off the Scottish coast. Citing state aid rules, the SNP Scottish Government appear content to sit back and let the steel jackets in question be manufactured overseas. Can the Minister give a commitment today that the UK Government will step in and safeguard the future of mounting fabrication in the UK and these vital 450 Scottish jobs?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are absolutely committed to maintaining a UK supply chain for the extra deployment of offshore wind that I alluded to earlier. With regard to this specific issue, we are in conversations with counterparts in Scotland and also speaking to people in the company.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We do have extensive plans. We have further plans for decarbonising freight that will form part of the transport decarbonisation plan, which we expect to publish later this year. We work constantly with other Departments to ensure that we can reach our net zero targets. My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise, in particular, the role that transport plays in carbon emissions.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

If we want business to play its full part in reducing emissions and to finance the innovation and infrastructure critical to the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Government need to address the very real barriers to private investment. One obvious way to do so is through a national investment bank with a clear mandate to channel both public and private capital towards projects that aid a green recovery and help the country to achieve its net zero target. Does the Minister’s Department as a whole support the establishment of such a bank, and if so, will he update the House on what progress has been made in convincing his colleagues in the Treasury to get behind the proposal?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

It is no secret that there is plenty of discussion about a national infrastructure bank. The Green Investment Bank, which was set up in 2015, was successful, and this is something that we are constantly in conversations about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. New nuclear obviously has an important part to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are investing in new nuclear. On Wylfa, I am afraid, I cannot comment on the merits of the site, given that the Secretary of State is currently considering a development consent application. That said, there are a number of potentially good sites around the entire United Kingdom.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The COP26 summit, now rescheduled for November 2021, will be a critical moment in a fight against runaway global heating. We all have a stake in ensuring that it is a success. Building momentum for that summit and establishing our credibility as its host is dependent on demonstrable leadership at home. In that regard, does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for publishing our nationally determined contribution before the end of 2020, and an arguable case for basing that NDC on a significantly enhanced 2030 target that puts us on the path to achieving net zero?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, of course, president of the COP26. He is committed to publishing very rigorous and ambitious targets for ourselves. As I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), we are second to none in our commitment—our legislation—in terms of dealing with climate change. We have legislation that is very clear and sets the path.

European Council: Article 50 Extension

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the extension to the article 50 process agreed at the European Council summit on 21 March.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

Last night, the Prime Minister met Donald Tusk, following the EU Council’s discussion on the UK’s request for the approval of the Strasbourg supplementary documents and for a short extension to the article 50 process. The Council agreed, subject to this House approving the withdrawal agreement next week, an extension of the article 50 period to 22 May. This provides Parliament with time to pass the necessary implementing legislation and to complete ratification. If Parliament does not approve the withdrawal agreement next week, article 50 will be extended until 12 April. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Brussels last night, at that point we would either leave without a deal or we would need to put forward an alternative plan.

The House should be aware that the European Council has clarified that any extension beyond 22 May will require the UK to participate in European parliamentary elections. The Prime Minister has made clear her view: that it would be quite wrong to hold these elections three years after this country voted to leave the European Union. The House should also recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last night, that we are now at the moment of decision. She, and the whole of this Government, will continue to make every effort to get a deal agreed so that we can leave the EU in an orderly manner and move the country forward.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question? However, given the significance of what was agreed in Brussels yesterday evening, the Government should have made a statement to the House this morning, instead of requiring us, once again, to drag Ministers to the Chamber. On Wednesday evening, the Prime Minister made a divisive speech from Downing Street, in which she chastised right hon. and hon. Members for not making a decision on Brexit. But we have made a decision, voting down her deal twice by historic margins. It is just that it is a decision the Prime Minister is clearly incapable of accepting. It is her intransigence, her pandering to the hardliners in her own party and her refusal to compromise that has brought us to this point. Now that the article 50 process has been extended, I trust that responsible Ministers are urging their colleagues to change course.

Let me turn to the substance of the EU Council’s communiqué. It makes it clear that, provided the withdrawal agreement is approved by this House next week, an extension will be granted to 22 May. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will give us a third meaningful vote next week and, if so, on what day? Can he explain how the Government intend to comply with the terms of the statement that you, Mr Speaker, made on Monday to the effect that to have a chance of being put the motion would have to be “substantially” different? Can he commit now publicly to publishing the necessary secondary legislation and giving the House the opportunity to approve it at the earliest possible opportunity?

The Minister will know that it is highly likely that if the deal is brought back next week, it will once again be voted down. The Council’s communiqué makes it clear that if it is, the article 50 process will be extended to 12 April, in the expectation that the UK will “indicate a way forward” before that date. As such, can the Minister state categorically that in the event of such a scenario it would not be the Government’s policy to take us out of the EU without a deal, on or after 12 April? If that is the case—this is the crucial question—could the Minister set out the process by which the Government will provide this House with an opportunity to properly debate the range of alternative options available to us and to facilitate attempts to secure a majority for one of them?

Ministers have constantly told us that a responsible Government prepare for all eventualities. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us what contingency plans are being made for the distinct possibility that an extension beyond 12 April will be required? Over recent months, we have repeatedly argued that an extension to the article 50 process was inevitable and we have made it clear that its length must be determined by its purpose. After next week, it must be for Parliament to finally determine what that purpose is, so that we in this House can do what is right for businesses, communities and people in every region and nation of the UK. In short, it is time that we took back control.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions and makes a number of assertions, some of which are simply not true, frankly. The idea that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has refused to compromise is an exaggeration; I do not think that is an accurate reflection of what has happened. With respect to his remarks about the meaningful vote, the Leader of the House set out clearly in her business statement yesterday that she will make a further business statement next week, which would be appropriate—[Interruption.]

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If my right hon. Friend would not insist on heckling me, I would also suggest the key part of all of this is paragraph 3 of article 166, which refers to “mutual consent”. The Joint Committee simply cannot act if the UK does not agree.

On the point about the UK Government’s relationship with this Parliament, there will be full and ample opportunity, as we have provided in the last four months, to debate the provisions or recommendations of the Joint Committee. In this final part of my answer to my right hon. Friend, I would like to stress that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister herself has spent no fewer than 20 hours at this Dispatch Box in the last four months. There is a full and ample range of debate and discussion.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing it.

The Joint Committee has attracted a significant degree of attention over recent weeks in relation to its role in the operation of the Northern Ireland backstop, but as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, it is important to remember that the Joint Committee and its specialised sub-committees are also responsible for the application and implementation of the entire withdrawal agreement. Under Article 166, paragraph 2, any decisions made by the Joint Committee would have “the same legal effect” as the entire withdrawal agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has done this House a service in providing us with an opportunity to scrutinise more carefully this important part of the agreement and to seek reassurances about the role of Parliament in overseeing its operation.

To that end, may I ask the Minister the following questions relating to the role of this House in scrutinising the work of the Joint Committee, should the deal ever be approved? First, will the Government commit now to making a statement to this House before and after each and every meeting of the Joint Committee, and to make all of its documents available to Members? Secondly, what plans, if any, do the Government have to create a dedicated Committee of the House to oversee the withdrawal agreement, including the Joint Committee? Thirdly, the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that the Joint Committee will be made up of representatives of the United Kingdom and the European Union, so what role do the Government foresee Parliament having in the appointment of the UK representatives? Fourthly, is it the Government’s intention that the UK representatives include individuals from the main political parties, as well as those from the devolved Governments and Assemblies? Finally, specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s view that an indefinite application of the backstop would not constitute an unforeseen situation under article 164, paragraph 5(d) in such a way as might provide for amendment of the treaty itself?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

On that list of questions, it would be absolutely customary and right for a Government Minister to make a statement when the Joint Committee had opined or made recommendations. That is absolutely in order. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s request about a Committee, that is a matter for the House. It is not for the Executive to decide which Committees of this House can or cannot be formed.

We have ample and very full discussions with the devolved Administrations. They will of course be involved in aspects of the Joint Committee’s decisions, particular with regard to the question of Ireland and the backstop. There is no way, and this is carefully documented in the withdrawal agreement itself, that the Joint Committee would be making statements or recommendations about the backstop or any other matters relating to Ireland without, on our part, some representation and involvement of the Northern Ireland Government. On that question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be ample consultation and involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Article 50 Extension Procedure

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Kwasi Kwarteng

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There were lots of questions from my right hon. Friend. She made some remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s votes last week. I voted exactly the same way as he did—I voted against an extension in the free vote.

One of the points about the votes on Thursday was that it was absolutely vital that the House voted against the Benn amendment, which, if it had been successful, would have bound the hands of not just this Government but future Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did exactly the right thing by voting to reject the amendment—and, as I remember, it was rejected by three votes. That is exactly what I did, and that is exactly why he voted the way he did.

With regard to the last vote, it was a free vote. My right hon. Friend said, as I did, that we would not seek to extend article 50. However, as Members of the House know, the House did vote to extend article 50. As a consequence, I set out clearly in my statement the process that will be followed. As I said, we will, as soon as possible following agreement at EU level, bring forward the necessary domestic legislation to amend the definition of exit day. That legislation will take the form of an affirmative statutory instrument, which will be laid before the House after the agreement with the EU, next week.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on securing it. It is particularly interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has been given the task of responding. As he rightly admitted, he, like the Secretary of State, voted against the Government’s motion on Thursday. He has not reconsidered over the weekend, and he comes before us glorying in the fact that he opposes the Government’s stated policy, which is to seek an extension to article 50. Can he tell us whether he even agrees with what he has just read out from the Dispatch Box?

However, in all seriousness, the written ministerial statement made on Friday throws up a series of important questions. First, given that it appears there is now little chance that the House can approve the deal before tomorrow, for what purpose will the Government seek an extension to the article 50 process, and how long do they propose it lasts? The written ministerial statement is clear that the EU would require a clear purpose for anything longer than a technical extension; it cannot be just the principle that is put to the EU.

Secondly, leaving aside the SI dealing with the domestic legislation, is it the Government’s intention to bring back the terms of any extension that might be agreed, so that the House can debate and vote on them, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicated in response to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) in the debate on 27 February? Finally, have the Government sought or received any legal advice relating to the requirement to participate in the European elections, given that, as the Minister will know, there is a range of views not only inside this place but outside?

The fact that we need to extend the article 50 process is a mark of this Government’s abject failure. For weeks, the Opposition have argued that an extension to the article 50 process is inevitable; on Thursday, the House, if not the Minister and his colleagues, finally accepted that. We need clarity from the Department on precisely how this process will unfold.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Let me respond very briefly to the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that I did not agree with the statement; I fully agreed with everything in it. That is just for the hon. Gentleman’s—[Interruption]—instruction.