Skip to main content

1-20 of 3,171 results for answeredby:"Lord Hammond of Runnymede"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that position is enshrined in statute, and only this House of Commons could change it.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1057
House
House of Commons

I regularly discuss EU exit with the Secretary of State for Scotland and other members of the Cabinet. The Government remain committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1041
House
House of Commons

I have consistently made the case and explained to this House that there is fiscal headroom within the current fiscal rules. If we have a smooth exit from the European Union through a transition that will remove the economic uncertainty that is hanging over our economy, it will then be safe to release that headroom and make it available for additional public spending or, at the choice of the next Government, to reduce taxation. Either way, we have the headroom available once we have removed the Brexit uncertainty.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1041
House
House of Commons

I announced at the spring statement that it is the Government’s intention to conduct a three-year spending review concluding this autumn, subject to a deal with the EU being completed. Departments are already commissioned to carry out the work necessary for such a spending review, but it will be for the new

Government to decide whether the circumstances make it appropriate to conduct a full three-year spending review or a single-year exercise.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1041
House
House of Commons

As I have consistently said in this House, I do not believe that a no-deal exit would be in the interests of this country, and I will do everything I can to ensure that we avoid it, but an exit based on a negotiated deal that allows us to continue a close trading relationship with the European Union can work for Britain, and that is what I will be arguing for.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1042
House
House of Commons

Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The Scottish economy would be far more adversely affected by a breach of trading relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom than it will by a breach in trading relationships with the European Union.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1042
House
House of Commons

As the right hon. Gentleman would have heard me say if he had been in his place earlier, I announced in the spring statement that it is the Government’s intention to conduct a three-year spending review, concluding this autumn, subject to a deal with the EU being completed. He asks whether I plan to launch the spending review before the summer recess: I can tell him that Departments have already been commissioned to carry out the work necessary for such a review. It must be for the new Government to decide, in the circumstances, whether it is appropriate to conduct a full three-year spending review or a one-year exercise.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1052
House
House of Commons

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is manifestly asking the wrong person that question. I literally cannot answer it. The purpose of a spending review is that such matters can be looked at in the round, and the responsible way to do a spending review is first to set the envelope of what is affordable, and then to look at the different bids, which will—I can confidently predict—greatly exceed the available spending power, and prioritise. That is the difficult business of government, and that is why I am not in favour of ad hoc spending commitments or tax cut commitments being made.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1052
House
House of Commons

As my hon. Friend knows, we have signed off the Truro funding decision, and I am sure she is happy about that. The Prime Minister has made very clear that dealing with the challenges in the housing market is a priority for the Government, and in the spending review we will continue to prioritise funds to support both the housing market and the provision of social and affordable housing.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1053
House
House of Commons

I think the hon. Gentleman has sketched a highly unlikely scenario, but I can answer his question. We have built up about £26 billion or £27 billion of fiscal headroom, and the purpose of that headroom is precisely to protect the UK economy from the immediate effects of a possible no-deal exit. I have no doubt whatsoever that in the event of a no-deal exit we will need all that money and more to respond to the immediate impacts of the consequent disruption, which will mean that no money will be available for longer-term tax cuts or spending increases.

Let me go further: the Government’s analysis suggests that in the event of a disruptive no-deal exit there would be a hit to the Exchequer of about £90 billion, and that will also have to be factored into future spending and tax decisions.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1053
House
House of Commons

We are committed to investment in infrastructure. One of the things that I have done in my three years as Chancellor is move the balance of spending towards investment in economic infrastructure, and we now have the highest level of public capital investment for 40 years. We have a National Infrastructure Commission to set long-term guidance for the Government on how to invest in infrastructure investment, and that will be considered in the zero-based capital spending review that sits alongside the main spending review. However, I assure my hon. Friend that this Government are committed to investing in the productive capacity of the UK economy, because it is the only way to raise real wages and living standards, and that is what government is all about.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1053
House
House of Commons

My principal focus is to ensure the continued resilience of the UK economy and public finances at this time of uncertainty. Thanks to the hard work of the British people, our national debt is now falling sustainably for the first time in a generation, but it is still too high and it is vital that the Government continue to get debt down to ensure that the economy is resilient against future shocks, to prevent the wasting of billions of pounds more on debt interest payments, and to avoid burdening the next generation.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1055
House
House of Commons

We have done so: by 2023-24 we will be spending an extra £34 billion a year on the national health service. That is a record cash injection to our national health service, which represents this Government’s commitment to it.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1055
House
House of Commons

Yes, it is a vital cornerstone of our institutional structure that the Bank of England remains independent, and those who have suggested that they would seek to politicise appointments to the Bank of England would be doing a great disservice to this country and our economy.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1056
House
House of Commons

There are many people who could comment on spending commitments that have been made by candidates in the Tory leadership competition, but the right hon. Gentleman is not one of them.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1056
House
House of Commons

That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman; I much prefer this little red book to the one he gave my predecessor, although I have to say that I have not read this one and I have read the other one.

On the broader question, I have been consistently clear that I believe that a no-deal exit would be bad for the UK, bad for the British economy and bad for the British people. We cannot rule out that happening, because it is not entirely in our hands, but I agree with him that it would be wrong for a British Government to seek to pursue no deal as a policy. I believe that it will be for the House of Commons, of which I will continue proudly to be a Member, to ensure that that does not happen.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1056
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to storm clouds over the global economy. We tend to focus on Brexit-related issues and the domestic agenda, but I have just come back from the G20 in Osaka, and looking more widely, we can see that global growth is slowing and that global trade growth is slowing even more dramatically. A great deal hinges on finding a solution to the disputes between China and the United States. It is hugely in our interests that that dispute is resolved and that normal trading relations are resumed between the world’s two economic superpowers. As a middle-sized open economy, we are bound to be adversely affected if global trade slows down.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1057
House
House of Commons

We made an announcement this morning about our plans for green finance. Over the coming months and years, it will be essential to demonstrate how we are able to mobilise our capital markets and the instruments of a market economy to deliver on this huge enterprise. If we do not demonstrate how the market economy can provide solutions to decarbonising our economy, there are others with alternative solutions to present.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1057
House
House of Commons

We have worked hard to build a stronger, fairer economy, dealing with the deficit that we inherited, helping people into work and cutting taxes for people, families and businesses, and the result is that the economy has grown continuously for the past nine years. Employment is currently at record high levels, unemployment is currently at the joint lowest rate since 1975, and real wages are rising again. We have created 3.5 million new jobs, but the next stage must be about increasing real wages by raising productivity, because that is the only sustainable way to raise the living standards of working people in this country.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1057
House
House of Commons

At this stage of my career, I will not speculate on my future actions. What I will say is that the Government’s analysis shows that a no-deal exit would mean that all the regions, nations and sectors of the UK economy have lower economic output compared with today’s arrangements and compared with the White Paper scenario that the Government set out. It is important we all understand that preparing for a no deal, which is a perfectly sensible thing to do because it might happen to us without our volition, is not the same as avoiding the effects of a no deal.

Answered by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
2 July 2019
Reference
662 c1060
House
House of Commons