I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for confirming that he has indeed informed the Member he mentioned. He seems to be raising a point of dispute, and the point at issue is not a matter for the Chair, but he has most definitely put his view on the record.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much regret that I did not have the opportunity to let you know I would be raising this, but it has been drawn to my attention that the Government are briefing a change of policy on business rates for pubs. Has a Minister indicated that they want to come to the House to make a statement, as I am sure the Speaker would prefer them to do that before they give any further briefing to the media?
I have not been made aware of any such statement, but I have been in the Chair for a little while now. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench have heard that, and will accordingly be acting appropriately.
May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the quality of this report? I have a family interest in undersea cables: it was my great-great-grandfather, Professor Fleeming Jenkin, who laid the first transatlantic telephone cable in 1858. On the question of deterrence, can we realistically deter this kind of behaviour by our adversaries if we continue to allow our hands to be tied by an overstrict interpretation of international law? The vandalism committed on undersea cables has very serious economic consequences, and maybe even national security consequences. It is being committed by ships that are themselves in breach of international law. Should we not just deal with them, particularly if they open fire on our military aircraft, as happened recently with lasers from a Russian ship?
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Order. You are a senior Member of the House, and I made it very clear earlier that no interventions should be made on party leaders.
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberI add my congratulations to the Government for getting this agreement over the line, but when will we get their defence industrial strategy? So far we have had only a rather lengthy statement of intent. We need to reindustrialise our defence industrial base in order to face modern challenges, and that is particularly essential given the threats we face from the east of Europe at this time. That is very difficult to do in government, because the Treasury hates his stuff, as the Secretary of State may already have discovered, but we will hold him to account on what he described as leading this sector into future growth, and indeed on reindustrialising our steel industrial base and so on, so that we have the self-sufficiency that is vital for the defence of the country.
I encourage the Secretary of State to be brave in responding to the point about the Treasury.