Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and John Howell

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

In 2010, we inherited the largest deficit since the second world war, standing at nearly 10% of GDP. We have successfully reduced it by three quarters, meaning that it stood at 2.3% at the end of last year, but our debt is still too high. High levels of debt leave us vulnerable to economic shocks and incur significant debt interest, which is why the Government have clear and detailed fiscal plans to reduce borrowing further and to ensure that debt falls.

[John Howell]

Does the Chancellor agree it is essential that our policies continue to show that we are living within our means, because the alternative—a failure to do so—simply passes on our bills to the next generation?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that a policy of increasing borrowing simply means passing the cost of today’s consumption to future generations and wasting more taxpayers’ money on debt interest. Even Labour’s shadow Education spokesperson has acknowledged that this is an ultra high-risk strategy that would be a gamble with our economic future.

Britain in the World

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and John Howell

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend moved on from the middle east I wanted to catch him on the nuclear verification programme for Iran. Is he really happy with it, and does it capture the potential military uses that it could be put to?

[Mr Hammond]

The programme as agreed at Lausanne does indeed capture that and provide very good levels of protection. Of course, we have now got to translate that into a detailed written agreement. That is the process that is going on at the moment.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and John Howell

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We have a separate bilateral dialogue with the Iranians in which we urge them, as I said earlier, not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and not to take actions that would destabilise the region, but these nuclear discussions are taking place at P5 plus 1 or E3 plus 3, whichever people choose to call it. On many of the issues that my hon. Friend listed we would not get agreement among the P5 plus 1 about what is happening on the ground, so we have chosen—I think it is the right decision—to keep these nuclear talks ring-fenced and separate from all other bilateral and multilateral strands of discussion with Iran.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran must be asked to provide details of its previous nuclear activity? Otherwise a mechanism for monitoring Iran’s future actions will be fundamentally flawed.

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. An essential part of the agreement will be a proper investigation into, and understanding of, past breaches of Iran’s international obligations in respect of nuclear weapons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and John Howell

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

17. What assessment he has made of the potential effect that a reduced number of nuclear-armed submarines would have on the UK’s ability to maintain a continuous-at-sea deterrent.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The 2006 White Paper, “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent”, stated that the minimum number of Vanguard class submarines required to maintain a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent was four. The number of submarines required to deliver CASD into the future will be determined in the main gate investment decision for the successor replacement for the Vanguard class, which is expected in 2016. This is a technical, rather than a policy, question.

[Mr Hammond]

I have learned not to read too much into newspaper reports. The main gate decision in 2016, which will define the number of submarines required to maintain CASD, will consider the case for four or three submarines, but I can say without equivocation that there is no possibility of maintaining CASD with two submarines.

[John Howell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any cost savings from a proposal to reduce the UK’s fleet of ballistic missile submarines to just two would need to take into account the requirement to maintain the UK’s sovereign submarine manufacturing capability?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Simply reducing the fleet, even if that were possible while maintaining CASD, would not generate proportionate savings. Many of the costs are fixed—the costs of development and maintaining industrial capability, not merely at Barrow-in-Furness for submarine building, but in the nuclear propulsion industry. No one in this House should ever forget either that these high-end, high-technology platforms support the very top end of British manufacturing industry—the high-precision, high-technology engineering industry on which the revival of manufacturing depends.