What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) embarrassed herself and this House when she said that the England football team needed to keep winning to keep women safe from domestic abuse. Does the Minister agree with me and with Refuge that linking domestic violence to football allows perpetrators to avoid accountability for their horrific actions?
In Aldershot and Farnborough, thanks to this Labour Government, this week we are bringing the National Armed Forces Day celebrations back to the home of the British Army. However, in a week when we salute those who have served and are serving our country, elderly Gurkha veterans were assaulted in the park by our war memorial and told to go home. Will the Prime Minister and the House join me in standing against that despicable attack, and commend the heroism of our Gurkhas, and does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to resolve the long-standing issues relating to Gurkha pensions that we have been working towards, because the Gurkhas have given so much for our country?
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and extend my thoughts to everyone who has been a part of the Ockenden review. I also hugely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for her unending efforts in campaigning for the families we represent in our constituencies, who have been through so much. Of course, I also thank Donna Ockenden for her work, her amazing support, and her constant engagement with us as the local affected Members of Parliament and with our constituents. In the past two years, I have met so many families who have been harmed in ways I cannot understand or comprehend, and have heard of and seen horrors that I can barely believe. In addition to those babies and mothers who lost their lives, it is important that we highlight children like our mate Ryan, who recently turned 18 but who will never be independent because of his acquired brain injury. Can the Secretary of State please reassure the House that he will do everything in his power to support children with acquired brain injuries, such as by recognising their conditions in education, health and care plans?
Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many brilliant farmers who work relentlessly to supply our shops, pubs and restaurants and to tend to our green and pleasant land. When I was elected I promised my farmers and their families that I would fight their corner every single day. We need a fairer deal for our farmers and the supply chain. Our farmers are the price takers, not the price makers. They are feeling the squeeze from our supermarkets. We must deliver and enforce fair contracts across all sectors. Our farmers also need long-term certainty. Although I welcome the new 25-year farming road map, our farmers need more from us. They need a sustainable framework that lets them plan for the next decade, not just the next season. Our farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our United Kingdom are the backbone of our country. We must go further and do more to give them the power to earn a fair return and to give them and us the certainty to plan for the future. I gently encourage the Minister to look for the letter I sent him last week. I congratulate him on his appointment and look forward to welcoming him to Newcastle-under-Lyme before too long.
On this hot day I rise to present the petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I also draw the House’s attention to the declaration of interest from the new leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council at the cabinet meeting yesterday. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Declares that the land to the south east of Junction 16 of the M6 should not be released from its green belt status for development as this would have a significantly detrimental impact on Audley residents; further declares that the proposed employment site represents a loss of 6% of the parish’s green belt, which would devastate the rural character of the conservation area; further declares that the proposed development would likely favour commuters over local people, increasing pressure on the A500/M6 roundabout and disrupting nearby rural lanes used by local people; further declares that the development is expected to cause poor air quality, noise, litter, 24-hour illumination and loss of habitat, while severely impacting views across the Cheshire plains and North Staffordshire; and further declares that, as the local planning authority tasked with producing the Local Plan, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council has a responsibility to listen to the overwhelming concerns of its residents and ensure the long-term protection of the green belt by removing site allocation AB2. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council to remove site allocation AB2 from its Local Plan and not to permit the release of green belt land for this development. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003213]
The hon. Member says that the oil and gas belong to the Union, but it is Scotland’s oil and Scotland’s gas. Can he explain why Scottish bill payers are paying the highest bills in the UK when the oil and gas is being extracted from the North sea?
The proliferation of misinformation, invidious algorithms and harmful content are the defining features of the current media landscape, and they are causing real harms and divisions within our communities. We need bold action to tackle this, and that surely includes taking on those who direct and abuse these situations. How will the Secretary of State promote trusted sources when there are people, even in this House, who are prepared to undermine them, and we are losing jobs and services at public service broadcasters?
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north-east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full-scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full-on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.
The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime. The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.
The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course. Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition. A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north-east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states: “That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.” He goes on to say: “The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.” What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co-ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so-called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition. Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north-east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north-east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north-east of Scotland. The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.
That is not the reason for my intervention. If there is such a drive to get investment and renewables in Scotland—there is some, though it is not nearly fast enough—why did it take two years to make a decision about Ardersier? After two years, the rug was pulled from underneath that with a simple no. If that was the decision the Government were going to come to, surely it could have been made sooner, and the project could have moved on and had some investment. That has the potential for 1,500 jobs on site and a further 4,500 in the supply chain.
Let me get this straight: the Government—either a Minister or, worse, unaccountable civil servants—are planning to decide which news providers are deemed trustworthy and which are deemed untrustworthy; and then the Government, or unaccountable civil servants and quangos, are going to give priority to the services that they deem to be trustworthy, and reduce the prominence of those that they do not like and consider to be untrustworthy. That sounds quite dystopian to me. How can it be seen as anything other than a serious attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech?
May I put on record my admiration for the 2,500 families across our county of Nottinghamshire who gave evidence to Donna Ockenden and shared what were undoubtedly the most personal stories that one could ever imagine sharing as a parent? I will never forget a family coming to see me at my surgery, who said they had been told that their time was up when they were sitting together with their baby, and they were asked to leave. They went to the café, and then they sat on the floor, on the kerb in the car park, and cried together. They said that it was like being shooed out of a restaurant by a rude waiter, not literally the most heartbreaking moment in someone’s life. I was very disturbed to read for the first time revelations about the mortuary service at Nottingham, which is frankly astonishing. It seems as if the right steps are being taken, but we all hope that those responsible for that feel the full force of the law. Nationally, I hope that every hospital trust reading the report now treats the situation as the emergency it truly is. It is astonishing that the NHS is spending almost as much on negligence claims as on maternity services themselves, although of course the money is nothing compared with the misery and pain that has been inflicted on families. For our hospitals in Nottingham, improvements seem to have been driven by ensuring that there is now regular and high-quality training, which was sadly very absent for a long time. Can the Secretary of State assure me that mandatory and regular training is now ensured in all maternity hospitals across the country?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how to ensure that named day written parliamentary questions are answered by the Department on time. My written questions 10935 to 10940 to the Foreign Office about a company called Siren Associates Ltd had not been answered by 22 June. They are of great personal and national importance, and we want to know when they will be answered.
Will the Minister give way?
Given that we have reduced our carbon emissions by some 54% since 1990, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State agrees with me that we have led the way and done our bit. It is now time for others to do theirs.
Will the hon. Gentleman just answer a very simple question, as this is in the Labour manifesto and the Secretary of State bangs on about it week after week? When will energy bills and electricity bills come down?
Shut the borders!
It is an excellent idea to talk about the economics. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) could not answer this simple question, but perhaps the hon. Lady can instead: when will the bills come down?
Well, we are debating the carbon budget order, but I think we should rename it the job-destroying, industry-killing order, because that is essentially what net zero is doing. For the hon. Members who do not appreciate the economics of this, let us go on a little history lesson, shall we? Let us go back to the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. Yes, our energy consumption increased by some 20%, and real GDP per capita—per person—increased every year by 3.2% per annum. Let me now take everyone forward to the last 20 years: our energy consumption has declined by about 15%, and guess what has happened to our GDP per person? Yes, it has collapsed to just 0.5% per annum. There is a direct link between the quantity of energy we consume—
I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.
What a tragedy it is that the truth clearly hurts for the Green party; and, by the way, the Greens do not believe in carbon capture, which has been mentioned previously. The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between higher energy use per capita and higher GDP per capita—the richer a nation is. That is the fundamental point that everybody in this place seems to forget. As we have reduced our carbon emissions since 1990 by 54%, people seem to forget that carbon emissions around the world are increasing. Other nations are not admiring our net zero leadership; they are laughing at our utter stupidity, as they steal our jobs and our money. They are laughing at us.
And what labour are the Chinese using? Slave labour is what they are using—that is the reality. They are laughing as they sell us Chinese cheap solar panels to cover our brilliant food-productive farmland in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is insane.
There we are. Apparently Labour Members want more asbestos, when we know that is dangerous—yes, it is in the wind turbines. The reality is—
I will give away shortly; I am doing well. The reality is that industries across our country are being slaughtered and jobs are being destroyed—from pottery businesses to aluminium businesses, chemical businesses, steel businesses and oil refineries. Why? Because of our high energy costs. We have seen the brilliant, highly skilled, highly qualified jobs in Aberdeen being slaughtered because this Government will not allow more exploration of the North sea. This is the reaction, and this is the consequence of net stupid zero.
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The renewables sector keeps saying that it is going to reduce the bills, yet the bills are going up. Indeed, only recently an energy boss said that even if the price of gas went to zero—clearly, it is not going to, folks—our electricity bills at the next general election, assuming that is in 2029, will be even higher. Why? Because of all the increased policy costs, increased levies, increased constraint costs and beyond.
Oh dear, oh dear. How desperately sad it is that the hon. Lady does not appreciate that the wholesale price of electricity, which some claim is driven by gas, is about a third, so it is not the majority—a third is less than 50%. The simple reality is that there is a direct causal link between the growth of renewable generating capacity in the last 20 years and the growth of our electricity prices to the highest in the western world. That is the reason that everybody is feeling so much poorer. It is as simple as that. All the advocates of the renewables industry cannot answer the question: when are the bills going to come down? The answer is: they are not going to. The Government can try to cheat by putting it into general taxation, but the simple fact is that, actually, costs are going to go up. We have heard, for example, that the cost of more contracts for difference is going to increase by £4 billion, £5 billion or £6 billion by 2030, and that the extra cost to the grid is going to increase by some £10 billion a year by 2030. Per household—which is how people will want to understand it—that equates to about £500 per year extra on the cost of living because of the costs of net zero. Everybody needs to understand that point, as they debate and vote on this issue. As we look to the future, having explained the history and the economics to those who do not seem to understand, we hear that the Secretary of State for Energy—he is rather absent at the moment; where is he?—wants to get rid of all our wonderful tumble dryers. No, no, we can’t have tumble dryers in the brave new world of the Secretary of State for Energy! Then we hear that, through this carbon budget, the Government want us to reduce our dairy and meat consumption by some 20%. We have had enough of this. We should vote against this ridiculous motion and scrap net stupid zero.
The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech. She seems to be an expert on this subject, so could she advise the House by how much it would reduce the Earth’s temperature if this country became net zero right this minute?
My hon. Friend is making a passionate and very intelligent speech. Is he aware that we are also importing from China wind turbines—windmills, if you like—that are stuffed with asbestos?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of deep concern to animal welfare organisations, rescue centres, veterinary professionals and millions of animal lovers across the United Kingdom: the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters, and the wider challenges facing animal welfare across this country. Before I begin, I pay tribute to my dear late friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was one of Parliament’s most passionate champions of animal welfare. Throughout his distinguished parliamentary career, he consistently spoke up for animals—God’s creatures—who could not speak for themselves. Whether campaigning for stronger welfare protections, raising welfare concerns in Parliament or supporting charities working on the frontline, his compassion for animals was unwavering, and I am determined that his legacy on animal welfare will live on, hence this debate today. I would also like to recognise the work of his daughter, Katie Amess, who has continued that commitment with great determination and dignity. Through her engagement with rescue organisations, campaigners and welfare charities, she has ensured that these issues remain firmly in the public consciousness. Those working tirelessly to improve animal welfare across our country are grateful for her continued advocacy. Sir David understood a simple truth: the way a society treats its animals says much about the values it upholds. It is in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House. The issue before us is not simply one of euthanasia; it is about transparency, accountability, responsible ownership, animal welfare and whether our current systems are equipped to cope with the pressures they now face.
The hon. Member is, of course, absolutely correct. The laws in this area are completely inadequate, and as I will go on to say later, this is something that people across the British Isles care deeply about. We are a nation of animal lovers, and there is no greater animal lover than the hon. Member. He speaks very passionately for the people of Northern Ireland, and I thank him for his intervention. Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, rescue organisations report that they are overwhelmed. Shelters are full, waiting lists are growing and charities are being forced to make impossible decisions as increasing numbers of dogs and other animals are abandoned, surrendered or left as strays. The RSPCA has reported significant increases in abandonment in some areas, and rescue organisations throughout the country consistently warn that they are operating beyond capacity. The consequences of the cost of living crisis, combined with irresponsible breeding practices and impulse pet purchases have created what many in the sector now describe as a genuine animal welfare crisis. When shelters are full and rescue spaces cannot be found, local authorities and contracted kennels face a difficult decision. Under existing legislation, once a stray dog has completed the statutory holding period and remains unclaimed, authorities may rehome the dog, transfer it to an appropriate establishment or euthanise it. The law therefore clearly provides alternatives to euthanasia, but campaigners, rescue organisations and those working directly with council pounds have serious concerns about how the system operates in practice. Many local authorities no longer operate their own pounds. Instead, they contract the service to private kennels or commercial providers. Those facilities often have limited space and resources and significant operational pressures. As a result, many do not conduct the full behavioural assessments and adoption processes required for direct public rehoming. The practical reality described by many rescue organisations is that once the seven-day statutory holding period expires, the race begins to find a rescue space before a healthy dog loses its life. Volunteer groups known as pound pullers spend countless hours attempting to find rescue placements for dogs facing euthanasia. Rescue organisations report that they are frequently contacted to take dogs from council pounds, but many are already operating at full capacity. One of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that we do not actually know the true scale of it. There are no centralised systems recording how many healthy or treatable animals are euthanised by local authorities, contracted kennels or veterinary practices. Freedom of information requests often produce inconsistent results, records vary significantly between local authorities, and veterinary practices are not required to report such figures centrally. There is no direct knowledge of what is really happening on the ground. The absence of data is a serious problem. Good public policy demands that evidence is provided, and depends upon it, yet there is a remarkable lack of transparency in this area. We cannot properly assess the scale of the issue, identify trends or develop effective interventions if the information is not collected. I therefore urge the Government to consider establishing a national reporting framework for healthy and treatable companion animals euthanised in the stray dog and shelter system. Such a measure would not seek to criticise local authorities, rescue organisations or veterinary professionals; rather, it would provide transparency, improve accountability and ensure that future policy decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption. The Government should also review whether the current seven-day holding period remains fit for purpose. Rescue organisations argue that seven days is often insufficient to locate an owner, complete necessary assessments or secure an appropriate rescue placement. Given the unprecedented pressures facing the rescue sector, it is reasonable to ask whether a framework established decades ago remains adequate for today’s circumstances. Although euthanasia is the issue we are debating today, it is not the root cause of the problem. The real question is why so many animals are entering the system in the first place. Time and again, rescue organisations tell us the same thing: there are simply more dogs than there are homes available for them. The reality demands action. First, we should examine whether it is appropriate to continue issuing large numbers of new breeding licences when shelters and rescue centres are already struggling to cope with existing demand. Responsible breeders have an important role to play, and this debate is not about penalising those who adhere to high welfare standards. However, when rescue organisations across the country report that they are full and that healthy animals are being put at risk due to lack of capacity, we must ask whether the current rate of licensed breeding is sustainable. The Government should therefore consider temporarily restricting or reducing the issuing of new breeding licences until pressure on shelters and rescue organisations has eased. Secondly, all animals rehomed through shelters and rescue organisations should, where medically appropriate, be compulsorily spayed or neutered and microchipped before adoption. Many reputable rescue organisations already operate in that way. Introducing a consistent national standard would help reduce unwanted litters, improve traceability and prevent future generations of animals from entering the shelter system unnecessarily. Thirdly, we should continue strengthening laws on animal cruelty and abandonment. Animals are sentient beings, not disposable commodities. The law must reflect that principle. Stronger enforcement with tougher penalties for serious cruelty offences, and greater support for prosecutions, would help deter neglect and abandonment while reinforcing the responsibilities that accompany pet ownership. Fourthly, the Government should establish a central national database for stray, abandoned and lost animals that is accessible to local authorities, shelters and authorised welfare organisations. At present, information is fragmented across multiple systems, charities and regions. A unified database would improve communication, reduce duplication, increase opportunities for reunification and significantly improve the efficiency of rescue efforts. Fifthly, every stray animal should be routinely scanned for a microchip upon entering a veterinary surgery, local authority facility, contracted kennel or rescue organisation. We desperately need a more unified approach here. Surprisingly, there is no single microchip database for those organisations to check. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the 11 databases of the Association of Microchip Database Operators to build a single point of search, but what happens with the 14 databases that are not AMDO members? Furthermore, although some databases are free of charge, some are now charging one-off amounts. Others are starting to charge subscription fees, which I am concerned will create a financial barrier to a legally mandated obligation on owners to microchip. I commend to the Minister the work of Vets Get Scanning, an organisation established by the late Sir Bruce Forsyth and his fabulous daughter Debbie Matthews, who has been campaigning for this for many years to stop pet theft and return animals to their rightful owners. I invited Sir Bruce Forsyth to the Houses of Parliament some years ago to promote this very cause. He met many Members of Parliament at that time, including Sir David Amess, to promote the importance of all veterinary surgeries scanning animals when they are brought in, to check who the real owner of the pet is and to ensure that stolen dogs are returned to their rightful owners. This recommendation carries a particular significance because of the tragic case of Tuk in 2017, which exposed serious shortcomings in the identification process and highlighted the devasting consequences that can occur when procedures fail. I must also pay tribute at this point to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed this cause. Routine and repeated microchip scanning would be a simple, practical and cost-effective safeguard that could prevent similar incidents in the future while increasing the likelihood of lost pets being reunited with their families. Taken together, these proposals would not require vast new expenditure. They are simple, preventive measures that address the causes of the crisis rather than merely responding to its consequences. By reducing the number of animals entering the system, improving traceability, strengthening accountability and supporting responsible ownership, we can reduce the circumstances in which euthanasia becomes necessary. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by rescue charities, volunteers, local authority officers, kennel staff and veterinary professionals. Those on the frontline of animal welfare frequently face heartbreaking decisions. They do not do so because they lack compassion, but because they are operating within a system and are under immense strain. This debate is not about assigning blame, but about identifying solutions. Sir David Amess often reminded us that animals cannot speak for themselves. It therefore falls to us as legislators to ensure that their welfare is properly protected. The measures I have outlined today would increase transparency, support rescue organisations, encourage responsible ownership and reduce the number of healthy animals at risk of unnecessary euthanasia. Most importantly, they would tackle the underlying causes of the crisis rather than merely its symptoms. In doing so, we would not only improve the lives of countless animals across the country, but honour the legacy of Sir David Amess, whose lifelong commitment to animal welfare inspired so many, and support the continuing efforts of Katie Amess and others who work tirelessly to ensure that vulnerable animals are given the protection, dignity and compassion that they deserve. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. The end of the Prime Minister’s premiership comes close on the heels of the end of Labour’s 100-year dominance in Wales. People simply did not feel that his party stood up for them, and it is irrefutable that that too is part of the Prime Minister’s legacy. I believe there is a tradition of leaving notes on desks for successors. Will the Prime Minister leave a useful note to the incoming Prime Minister, saying that respect and understanding go a very long way and that democratic choices, including those of devolution, cannot be dismissed?
Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer and a member of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. The costs of farming have spiralled over many years, particularly since Brexit. I want to concentrate on the cost of fertiliser and fuel, both of which have been affected by the war in Ukraine and, most recently, the war in Iran. Input prices affect profitability, and too often profitability is what forces decisions on whether farmers remain on the land, give up, move on or start over. Farming is a hard life, with long hours and hard graft—I can tell hon. Members that from personal experience. We need stability in the market on costs but also on farm-gate prices that farmers receive for their goods. Milk prices have crashed, leading many smaller dairy holdings to make the decision to leave the market. Sheep and beef prices have steadied but are now showing signs of decline, and horticultural producers also want a steady market for their produce. We need to seriously value food production. Since I have been in this House, I have heard hon. Members talk about food security time and again, but in all honesty the meaning of that phrase is often lost, I am sorry to say. My ask of the Minister is simple: will the UK Government commit to action to improve resilience across the food system and supply chains, so that we can invest, stabilise the industry and encourage growth?
I thank the Secretary of State for her informed answers. The new media Green Paper highlights the importance of continued universal access to good-quality, trusted television. Part of maintaining that access is making the content in the first place. With the news that the BBC Cymru Wales will face £9 million in spending cuts by the end of 2027-28, it is inevitable that Welsh commissions, already on the decrease, will decline even further. How will the Secretary of State protect Welsh-language content from such sweeping cuts, especially considering that access is already limited for us?
Will the Minister give way?
The Minister spoke about exceptional financial support. I was interested to hear her say that we do not wish EFS to be normalised. I suggest that we are in circumstances in which it is normalised, given that so many councils require it and so many of them expect to have to use it. A lot of councils are struggling to balance their annual budgets on that basis.
I recently hosted a roundtable with leading organisations in the VAWG sector to discuss the vile trend of men filming degrading videos of women enjoying a night out, and accompanying the videos with absolutely awful captions. Before she resigned, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), committed to meeting me to discuss solutions. I know that the political situation is a little fluid, but can the Minister ensure that her Department takes this very seriously, and will she meet me to discuss solutions?
We should add that water shortages are a real cause of conflict. Many communities will be displaced. Anybody who is worried about migration now should be deeply worried about migration in the future, because people will simply be displaced—
They will come, and you will shut the borders, but we will have wars over water shortages. We absolutely will. It sounds alarmist, but we can do something about it. We should not put our heads in the sand. Does my hon. Friend agree?