Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We do not have plans to take that step at this stage, but I assure my hon. Friend that we raise the matter regularly—indeed, the Minister for Europe raised it with the Russian ambassador only last week. I am going to Kiev later this week, and we will continue to work with the Ukrainians to try to secure the release of those two Ukrainians, as well as the Estonian border guard who was captured by the Russians six months ago.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

7. What reports he has received on displacement of Bedouin in southern Israel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The UK has excellent military-to-military relationships with Jordan. We send troops there for training for our own purposes and we provide technical support and assistance to the Jordanian armed forces. Many Jordanian officers come to the UK for training. We will continue to support the Jordanian armed forces and the Jordanian Government in every practical way we can.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Have the Government given any thought to the aftermath if they cannot get agreement on a broad-based Government for Iraq? What is likely to happen after that?

[Mr Hammond]

It is not for us to get agreement on a broad-based Government; it is for the Iraqi people to seize the moment to ensure the future continuity of Iraq as a unitary state. That is not assured. Clearly, there are three separate regions within Iraq, any one of which could seek autonomy if a broad-based Government in Baghdad is not formed. We have to devote our present energies to seeking to ensure that outcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment the Government have made of how many reservists need to be recruited as part of the Army Reserve plan to replace regular troops from the disbanded units.

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

I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, as I have already this afternoon, that we are not recruiting reservists simply to replace regular troops from disbanded units. We are changing the structure and functions within the Army, creating a whole force of regulars, reservists, civilians and contractors that will make the best use of our resources and harness the talents across the whole of UK society. As I have already said, the Army is finalising a set of recruiting targets that will at different points over the next four years deliver the numbers into training that we need to achieve the challenging goal of 30,000 trained reservists by 2018.

[Mr Cunningham]

Given that the Secretary of State is constantly moving the goalposts and that we know that he will not recruit the number of reservists that he needs, why does he not reinstate the two battalions of the Royal Fusiliers? That will give him the manpower he needs, so why does he not retrain those people?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information from, but as I said earlier we are five weeks into a five-year recruiting campaign, and I do not see anything about his track record that would lead me to give any particular credence to his prediction about how successful that campaign will be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I can honestly say that I have not come across the Newark Patriotic Fund, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will acquaint me with it intimately in the near future. I look forward to disseminating its good intentions.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

3. What discussions he has had on the proposed merger of BAE Systems and EADS.

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

I was involved in a number of discussions regarding the possible merger of BAE Systems and EADS, as proposed by the companies themselves, prior to their mutual decision to end negotiations on 10 October.

[Mr Cunningham]

I first pay tribute to the former Minister with responsibility for procurement. When we had problems and needed meetings to resolve difficulties, he was one of the very first to arrange such meetings. We never had a problem. Having said that, why did the Secretary of State not take into consideration the shareholding issues experienced by BAE and its associates? Does he not understand that this has caused a lot of unease among them?

[Mr Hammond]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by saying that I did not take account of shareholding issues. The Government made it clear that we understood the reasons why the companies were attracted to a possible merger and that we were willing to listen to the arguments for it, subject to setting out clear red lines about the UK’s national interest with regard to national security, our technology base and protecting jobs. It subsequently became clear that the UK’s red lines could not be satisfied while simultaneously satisfying those of the French and German Governments. It also became clear—I think that this is the point of the hon. Gentleman’s question—that not all the shareholders on either side of the transaction were satisfied that it made sense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

We have announced all the reductions in armed forces manpower required to deliver the outcome of the strategic defence and security review. The changes announced will allow us to deliver the Future Force 2020 structure in 2020.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State look again at the cuts to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, particularly the impact on Coventry and Warwickshire and the local impact? Can we have an answer without the right hon. Gentleman blaming everybody else? He is responsible for the double-dip situation that we have got.

[Mr Hammond]

I am responsible. I take advice from the Army, which is the only responsible way to decide on a restructuring package for the Army. As I said, I have reassured myself since I made the announcement that all of its elements are sound and based on proper evidence provided by the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend will know that the Secretary of State for Education has announced the “troops to teachers” scheme. Work is ongoing to put the flesh on the bones of that proposal, and an announcement will be made in due course.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the defence sector of the aircraft carrier programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended, now and in the future; that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks; and that we honour our armed forces covenant. In order to discharge those responsibilities, it is necessary to ensure that the Department has a properly balanced budget and a programme that is affordable and sustainable in the medium to long term.

[Mr Cunningham]

What progress has been made with the Indian Government on the Typhoon deal?

[Mr Hammond]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), just said, UK Ministers have been assiduous over the past few weeks in promoting the case for the Typhoon in India and in other countries that are considering the purchase of new fast jets. We understand that there is likely to be an announcement in the next few weeks on the decision made by the Indian Government.

McNulty Report and West Coast Rail

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I thought, at the beginning of my hon. Friend’s question, that perhaps he had missed what I said about less departmental micro-management, but I saw from how he ended that he had not missed it all. We will not mandate the new franchisee to do what he describes, but we will make it possible by relaxing the rigid timetabling and specification imposed in the past. We will also give operators an incentive to do so. By moving away from the cap and collar revenue-sharing regime, we will make operators much more responsive to the demands of passengers waiting on a platform and ready to pay good money to get on a train. In the past, that has not always been the case, because 80% of what passengers handed over went directly to the Government.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I note what the Secretary of State said about subsidies and fares—we will return to that later in the year—but will he give us a progress report on the Coventry Knuckle project, which I am sure he knows a lot about, because it would help Coventry’s economic situation?

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had a productive meeting with him, some of his parliamentary colleagues and local councillors about the project. I think they took from that meeting clear guidance on what needs to be done to raise the project’s prospects of achieving local authority major scheme funding. I remain happy to engage with him and his colleagues in progressing that project.

High Speed Rail

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The determining factor, of course, will be commercial considerations: how much passenger load there is and where interchanges might be made in the system between Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Old Oak Common and the route through the channel tunnel. However, the proposed single bore tunnel will have capacity for four trains per hour in each direction.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) will bring little comfort to people in Warwickshire or those living on the outskirts of Coventry. I wish to ask the Secretary of State specifically about the increase in the frequency of service between Coventry and London that he mentioned in his statement. Does he understand that what will anger a lot of people is the blighting, which can go on for many years? What sort of compensation scheme will he offer? Normally, such schemes are based on market values, but the market value of some of the properties involved is set to drop drastically. Can he answer that one?

[Mr Hammond]

The consultation will set out the proposals for compensation. Of course compensation arrangements have to be based on market value, but they should be based on the unblighted market value of the property in question. On the frequency of services from Coventry to London, one of the points that I have tried, on several occasions, to make to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members is that the west coast main line will change radically in nature once this railway is built. It will no longer be primarily about long-distance trains from Scotland, Preston, Manchester and Liverpool; it will be about long-distance commuter services. Places such as Milton Keynes and Coventry will be well within commuting range of London with fast commuter services. I say to him that if he looks around the south-east, he will find that one of the great drivers of prosperity is the ability of people to get into London quickly and reliably on frequent services. The ability to extend that to stations on the west coast main line will greatly benefit the population of those areas.

Transport (Investment)

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be in Ipswich tomorrow to examine the scheme, when there will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss those issues with the promoters. Of course, the promoters will need to obtain any necessary planning and other statutory consents to allow schemes to go ahead. We will engage with the local authority promoters to ensure that any unnecessary cost has been squeezed out of the scheme and that every opportunity to secure supporting non-public-source funding has been explored and exhausted. By doing that, we will ensure that the total pool of schemes that we can support is as large as possible and that the economic benefits to the economy as a whole are as great as possible. We will undertake that work with the local authority promoters as a matter of urgency.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for receiving a delegation from Coventry on the Nuneaton to Coventry line, which is better known as the NUCKLE project. Further to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the scheme has been around for several years, and I appreciate the fact that it is still in the running. Even under the previous Government—we had a go at them—officials kept knocking the scheme back for a variety of reasons. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the scheme will get a fair wind this time round?

[Mr Hammond]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that all schemes will be objectively appraised and that I do not always take the word of my officials; I ask to see the underlying data and business case, and I shall continue to do so.