Government Announcements
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Stuart Anderson(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way we can have a list of the commercial companies who have had sight of the review ahead of anybody else, because commercially sensitive decisions might be made that impact the defence industry and give people a market advantage?
Mr Speaker
You make the point that I was hinting at before. I am very concerned that people who have skin in the game may be able to take advantage of what is in the report. I hope that no trading has been done on the back of it, because that would be a real concern. I find it quite appalling that Members still do not have the report. The Leader of the House could, if she wishes, suggest that we allow the report, so that Members have the chance to read it. It is totally out of order that we know the report is sat there and could have been made available, but nobody has been given the chance to read it. Rather than my suspending the House—time is tight—people could go and collect a copy of the report now, and could be reading it before the next urgent question. Does the Leader of the House agree?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Stuart Anderson(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Community hospitals can reduce pressure on major hospitals, especially in rural communities such as mine. Will the Secretary of State lay out his plans to support community hospitals in South Shropshire?
Point of Order
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Stuart Anderson
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on yesterday’s debate about a jobs tax on working people who are not working people—it depends on the definition of “working people.” The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury claimed that the Office for Budget Responsibility stated there was a cover-up by the previous Government. In column 203 of Hansard, we see the words used by the Minister: he said that the OBR used the words “cover-up” not once but twice. I have since checked with the OBR. It has not said this; I believe it is a creative use of words to suit a political narrative. Could you advise me on how I could bring the Minister to the House to correct the record?
Mr Speaker
If no one on the Government Front Bench wants to, I will deal with this. First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of the point of order. I understand that he has notified the Exchequer Secretary that he intended to refer to this matter in the Chamber, and I thank him for doing that. The Chair is not responsible for what Ministers say in the Chamber; that has historically been the case. However, he certainly has put the record straight in his view, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his remarks, and will reflect on them. Let me put it that way.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Stuart Anderson(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
As a rifleman, I know the importance of training for military operations; it ensures readiness, lethality and survivability. In addition to the recent announcement that there is no firm timeline for spending 2.5% of GDP, possible cuts to the training budget have been mentioned. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no cuts to the training budget in either this financial year or the next?