5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that we often hear about national screening programmes. It has just occurred to me that if everybody over the age of 70 was sent a text message through the NHS, summoning them into a screening programme, we could make huge advances in this area, particularly with things such as dementia—because, as he made clear, many people are either embarrassed by hearing loss, or not aware that they have it.
We have some of the best animal welfare standards for farm animals in the world. Of course, we can do much by regulation, but the best way to protect farm animals is to have contented and prosperous family farmers who love their animals and care for them. When I arrived in the House, farmers used to talk in glowing terms about Tom Williams, the Labour Minister for agriculture in the Attlee Government, who started 80 years of prosperity for our farmers. I beg the Secretary of State and the Minister, if they are really concerned about animal welfare and the welfare of our farmers, to drop the absurd family farm tax.
May I ask the Leader of the House about the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament, which is fast developing into a major scandal? According to some estimates, up to £800 million may already have been spent, with barely a brick being laid. We need an urgent decision. I served for many years on various bodies concerned with this programme, and the whole debate has been bedevilled by plans for 15-year decants that may never happen and the setting up of a delivery authority, instead of just getting on with the work around us. The Leader of the House may not agree with my particular view, but I am sure he agrees that we need to have a decision, there needs to be clear leadership, and we need to get on with the work.
I agree with the Minister that we have to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, because that is how we are strongest, so can we agree on the following two points? First, it would be intolerable if any peace settlement forced Ukraine to give up territory that Russia has not already conquered forcibly and if Ukraine gave up its fortress belt. It would be like stripping Czechoslovakia of Sudetenland and leaving it defenceless. The second point is even more important. We cannot have a peace settlement through warm words alone; we must have a commitment that Ukraine’s defence is protected by the equivalent of an article 5 declaration. The only thing that will deter Putin is knowing that if he invades again, there will be war with the west and we will win. Can we unite on those two powerful points?
Sustained profitability requires sustained investment, and investment has collapsed as a consequence of the family farm tax, hasn’t it?
I thank the Minister for coming to the House today on this last day of Parliament before Christmas, which keeps Ukraine at the top of the political agenda, which is where it must be. I want to endorse thoroughly every word uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in his response to the Minister’s statement, as well as the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I make no apology for pressuring the Government to spend more on defence, and I know that secretly, in his heart, the Minister agrees with me. Will he think about coming back to the House early in the new year with a debate and a motion on a three-line Whip, so that we can thoroughly debate these matters with a much fuller House than we have this afternoon? That will enable us to lead the conversation that he so ably talks about.
I invite the Minister to be open and candid with the House. Could she tell us what discussions there have been and what views, opinions, advice or instructions have been issued to her, her fellow Ministers or special advisers by the political advisers in No. 10?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is about the reply I got to my question. I have it on very good authority that these decisions have been taken by political advisers in No. 10, and the Minister did not deny that. Could she clarify whether I am right to take away that impression, or could she be more open and candid with the House?
Here we are, at the 11th hour, on the very last day before Parliament rises for Christmas, and the Secretary of State has left it until now to publish Baroness Batters’ profitability review —48 days since it was handed to her. She has tactically left it buried in her Department until well after the Budget and purposely until after the crucial Finance Bill vote earlier this week, in which 333 Labour MPs backed the implementation of the family farm tax—all in the knowledge that whatever the recommendations in the profitability review, the Government’s financial assault on our farmers was locked in. What message does that say to our hard-working farmers?
Happy Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker. Earlier this year, I was successful in my campaign to increase the ridiculously short sentences handed down to three vile grooming gang members in my constituency. However, I spoke to at least one victim in my constituency who has told me that she did not know that the sentences of her abusers could be referred as unduly lenient. As the VAWG strategy is released today, will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss introducing a new statutory duty on authorities, mandating that victims of crimes must be informed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme?
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, and indeed all Members across the House, a very happy Christmas? Like thousands of my constituents, I have recently been sending Christmas cards. May I use this opportunity to congratulate Leo from Oakworth on creating such an excellent design for my Christmas card this year? I am sorry to say that hundreds of my constituents have raised their concerns about continued unacceptable delays in mail deliver. There has been partial or no delivery of mail, particularly in the Worth valley area, for months. It is resulting in missed doctors’ and hospital appointments, as well as in bills and urgent correspondence being missed. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of this issue, and ensure that Royal Mail is held to account?
I absolutely welcome the strategy published today, and I share the Minister’s ambitions on early intervention. However, in constituencies such as mine, one of the state’s greatest failures has been the historical failure to openly and honestly confront perverse cultural attitudes behind violence and abuse against women and girls. I think of the women in my constituency specifically targeted because they were working-class, white girls. I think of the many women I have met who have poor English and little education, and who do not know about their rights or how to access support. I also think of those many women I have met in my constituency who are too scared to raise those concerns. The Minister rightly speaks of challenging misogynistic attitudes within schools, but can she assure me that the strategy will not stop at the school gate and that the Government will challenge any institution, religious or otherwise, that continues to reinforce harmful attitudes towards women and girls and puts their safety at risk?
The levelling-up agenda is incredibly important for traditionally forgotten-about places like Keighley. That is why, turning back the clock, I was incredibly proud to achieve a drawdown of about £80 million for various levelling-up projects across Keighley, which was delivered through the £33.6 million Keighley towns fund; the long-term plan for towns—rebranded by this Labour Government—that awarded £20 million to Keighley in 2023, to be spent on rejuvenating the town centre and other projects; and the £19 million that we were able to draw down through the levelling-up fund. We are making good progress on many of those projects. The Providence Park project has developed and units can now be rented out, although there are some problems getting them valued through the Valuation Office Agency. I would like to see the Government put pressure on the office to unlock that. We have managed to achieve the manufacturing, engineering and tech hub, money has been spent on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, and toilets and new roofs have been built in many community projects, but we are still finding a roadblock with the accounting body that is Bradford council. Significant projects are at risk, right now, of not being delivered on time: the new stand that we need to see delivered for Keighley Cougars; the new health and wellbeing hub that we want to see built in the centre of Keighley, but which Bradford council is so lethargically slow in getting off the ground; and the money that needs to be spent on the maintenance and rejuvenation of Haworth village hall to get it up and running. I met the new trustees who are forming and driving forward that project, but we need Bradford council to get a move on. The money was allocated way back in 2022 and Bradford council is being so slow. Likewise, we are yet to get the skills hub that will deliver adult learning, and we need to make sure that the money that is due to be drawn down to the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway through the levelling-up fund is spent. My point is that under the last Conservative Government, we managed to achieve a whopping £80 million-odd to spend on Keighley. Bradford council needs to pull its finger out to make sure that those projects are delivered. Before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the whole House a very happy Christmas.
5. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the extended producer responsibility scheme on the hospitality sector.
Mr Speaker, I would never forget to wish you and your exemplary staff a merry Christmas—I thank the Minister for the reminder. The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that because of EPR, the cost to brewers just for glass bottles alone is somewhere near £124 million annually. That is the equivalent of a 12% rise in beer duty. This, coupled with the Government’s disastrous jobs tax, is leaving pubs in my constituency in a perilous position, wiping out any profit on a bottle of beer. What will the Minister do to resolve this issue and other issues around EPR, to help protect the nearly 1,000 jobs in the 36 pubs across Bromley and Biggin Hill?
A merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last month, at my surgery in Bromley, I spoke to my constituent Rhonda Josephs, whose 11-year-old son Alexander has been diagnosed with a brain tumour. His ongoing care is currently spread across five hospitals, leading to delays in communication between different teams and increased stress on Alexander and his family. My constituent feels that transferring her son’s care to Great Ormond Street, where everything can happen under one roof, would be the most sensible option. However, that has been rejected. Can we please have a debate on ensuring joined-up care in the NHS so that we do not see more such cases putting undue stress on patients, particularly young children, and their families?
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The question many will be asking out there today is: what does this Labour Government have against democracy? Only two days ago, when asked, the Secretary of State said that all local elections were going ahead. He either hid his decision until today or has changed his mind in the past 48 hours. Which was it? Voters will now potentially be denied the right to elect their own representatives, and not for the first time under this Labour Government. This is the second year in a row that Ministers have scrambled to postpone elections. Now, while many people gather around their screens to watch movies like “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, we are sitting here discussing how Labour is trying to steal the elections. There is no mandate for the Government’s botched reorganisation plan, and they have behaved as the sole actor, forcing local council leaders to reorganise, with little regard for local people and their democratic rights. Has the Electoral Commission been consulted on these latest changes, or has it been ignored once again? Just as the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted when mayoral elections were previously cancelled, the commission exists to protect the integrity of our electoral system, but time and again the Government seem content to brush aside its advice when it becomes inconvenient. Do the Government still believe in the Gould principle—the long-standing agreement that election rules and practices should not be changed within the six-month period of a scheduled election—or is that expendable whenever Labour finds itself politically vulnerable? The Opposition accept that there is a precedent for a single-year delay, but that is not what we face. Do the Government accept the clear advice of the Electoral Commission that further delays are unacceptable? It said that scheduled polls should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances —what are the exceptional circumstances in this case? We know the answer: Labour’s rushed, chaotic and flawed local government reorganisation plan. It is the Government’s fault, not local leaders’ fault. Have the Government undertaken or commissioned any up-to-date research into the costs of restructuring? Again, we know the answer, and it is a resounding no. What assessment has been made of the paralysis that the restructuring risks causing in local plan preparations? At a time when the Government claim they want to speed up planning, how does freezing governance structures help? Will this disruption not make the Government’s beleaguered 1.5 million homes target even harder to achieve? What about social care? What assessment has been made of the impacts of breaking up counties on adult and children’s social care provision? The broader narrative is clear. Yes, some councils have expressed an interest in restructuring, but Labour’s process has been rushed and deeply flawed, local residents have not been properly consulted and this Labour Government have put a gun to the heads of local council leaders. The Opposition support council leaders who have engaged with the process, such as Kevin Bentley, the leader of Essex county council, who has stated clearly in the public domain that he will not ask for elections to be delayed in Greater Essex. I am pleased to say that my authority, Hampshire county council, does not support the move, either. In December 2024, the Conservatives set out several clear tests; Labour has failed every single one of them. Is this a genuine choice for councils and communities, or are councils being compelled and punished if they do not comply? Will they be more accountable as a result? Will this reorganisation keep council tax down and improve services or simply add new layers of cost? Will it avoid disruption to social care at a time of immense strain? On all counts, the answer is no. Earlier this month, Labour cancelled mayoral elections because it was worried it would not win them. Now it is doing the same with local elections, pausing the democratic process to serve its own political interests, creating for itself a true nightmare before Christmas. The process has been a mess from start to finish. It is not wanted, not in Labour’s manifesto and centrally dictated. It should be scrapped today.
9. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.
Happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members and staff of the House. At the Liaison Committee this week, the Prime Minister admitted that some farmers will take their own lives because of the family farms tax, but he repeated the claim that three quarters of farms will not be affected. According to the National Farmers Union, the opposite is true: three quarters of commercial family farms will have to pay it. The big idea now is to drive up profitability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, the family farms tax is killing investment. Does the Minister think that Baroness Batters was wrong when she said in her report, on page 4, that the closure of the sustainable farming initiative and the family farms tax have left farmers “particularly in the arable sector… questioning viability, let alone profitability”?
7. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.
I am going to do my best to get an answer, but I am not sure I will get one, based on the two we have just heard. Without any kind of mandate, the Government want to do away with jury trials and to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years, without any right to appeal the conviction or the sentence. Will the Solicitor General confirm that, of the 5,000 cases appealed from magistrates courts last year, more than 40% were upheld? Is it the Government’s policy simply to live with that number of miscarriages of justice?
I welcome much of the strategy and I know that it is a personal achievement for the Minister. Anybody who has spoken to a woman who recounts being attacked by her husband or boyfriend and being unsure of whether she is going to leave the room alive, knows that this country still fails to tackle violence against women and to take it seriously. I want to ask about a couple of areas where we know that the state has had a blind spot in recent years. Will she say very clearly that the crimes of the rape gangs were racially and religiously aggravated, and should be punished as such? Does she agree that if there is any law that prevents us deporting any foreign sex criminal or rapist, including the Human Rights Act 1998, we should scrap it?
Order. Being called early, as he has a flight to catch, is Jim Shannon.
I am going to struggle to get everybody in, and interventions do not help. I call Alex Mayer.
The good news is that I can get you all in; the bad news is that there is a speaking limit of two minutes.
With the leave of the House, I would like to put on record my thanks and pay tribute to all the House staff, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks, the staff in the Ways and Means office—Abi Samuels, James Holland and Emily Pullen—my constituency staff, who enable me to do my job, Pavlina Aburn, Alison Dobson, Conor, Abi, Asja and Bob. I wish everyone in my constituency and everywhere a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
I second that. I call the Minister, whom it is good to see here, and not writing her new Christmas cards.
For the final time this year, at the end of the final Adjournment debate of 2025, I shall put the Question that this House do now adjourn. Happy Christmas, everybody. Question put and agreed to.
4. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of Operation Nova, which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and assists veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system, so may I set her a theoretical challenge? Let us assume that an Op Nova veteran who fought in Afghanistan goes out one evening and is assaulted in a bar, perhaps by someone who does not like soldiers very much, but the situation is confused, and the soldier—the veteran—ends up in the dock. Should not that person, who fought for his country in a war zone and in this country’s uniform, be entitled to put his defence in front of a jury of his peers?
My wife, who is a radiographer, is on call on Christmas day, but luckily we are going to the in-laws, so hopefully that will cover it.
They’re not going to risk that! Mr Speaker, we know you are an animal lover—the world knows that—but some may recall that our great friend, Sir David, was a passionate animal lover, too. One cause that was very close to his heart was pig farrowing crates. Another was banning the import of foreign hunting trophies, which is an awful trade. There was a private Member’s Bill in the last Session that sailed through the Commons but ran into trouble in the Lords. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies? At the moment, they are not providing any private Member’s Bill Fridays for other reasons, so how will that ban be achieved?
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I echo the Minister’s rightful tribute to Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment, who gave his life for the cause of freedom while serving in Ukraine. His sacrifice will never be forgotten. There are things that we welcome in this statement, including the imposition of further sanctions and the provision of new equipment, including drones, missiles and in particular air defence equipment for Ukraine. We must not forget that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB colonel who has sanctioned the barbaric use of highly accurate cruise missiles against children’s hospitals in Ukraine. In particular, I agree with the Minister that no enduring settlement of the war can be reached over the heads of the Ukrainians. A world war one Admiral, Sir Jackie Fisher, once remarked, “Ultimately, all nations desire peace…but peace on their terms.” We cannot allow peace on Putin’s terms, as that peace would surely not last for long. It is also worth reminding our American allies that article 5 of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once—by them, in 2001, following the appalling attack on the twin towers. Thousands of Americans were murdered that day, as were several hundred Britons. When the Americans rightfully called for help, within weeks British special forces were working alongside their American counterparts, killing terrorists in the caves of Tora Bora. Alliances work both ways. For the record, when the call came, we turned up. The Minister also made reference to the coalition of the willing. However, if British troops were to participate, they would need to have modern, effective equipment. That brings me to the elephant in the House: where is the long-awaited defence investment plan? Prior to the summer recess, the Defence Secretary assured us that the DIP would be published in the autumn. As the autumn came and went, it slipped right, but Ministers remained adamant that the DIP would still be published before the House rose for Christmas. So where on earth is it? As there were multiple references to industry in his statement, let me say to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry that our defence industry will rightly be furious at this continued delay. To give just one example, we still have no decision on the new medium helicopter—a programme vital for the future of Leonardo’s workforce of thousands at Yeovil. Roberto Cingolani, the corporate CEO of Leonardo, said recently: “We cannot subsidise Yeovil forever”. That frustration will be repeated up and down our defence manufacturing base, from primes to fourth-tier subcontractors, the latter of whom struggle to subsidise anything at all. Is it any wonder that Mr Kevin Craven, the chief executive of ADS, said only yesterday in the Financial Times that the “delay in releasing the Defence Investment Plan…is frustrating, to say the least”? If we are to defend the Ukrainians successfully, we have to be able to defend ourselves. At the Liaison Committee on Monday, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who as ever is in his place, told the Prime Minister: “the Government does not seem able to agree on the money involved. It cannot deliver the defence investment plan on time. It means that things are moving very slowly, rather than moving at pace, given the threats from adversaries.” Is it any wonder that his all-party Committee recently described the Government’s progress on increasing war readiness in Britain as “glacial”? We also welcome the ongoing financial commitment to Ukraine, which follows a similar path to our approach when in government. Would that we had such financial clarity at home. The three distinguished authors of the strategic defence review were adamant that it required defence expenditure of 3% of GDP to deliver it. But the Government cannot even give the year in which that will be reached because they are incapable inter-departmentally of agreeing it. Moreover, in-year—now—Defence Ministers are pursuing an efficiency savings exercise—“savings cuts” in pub English—of £2.6 billion in the Department’s operating budget, which is materially affecting our readiness for war and thus our ability to deter it. In summary, our commitment across this House to the brave Ukrainians remains unwavering, but as someone once famously said, “To govern is to choose.” Yet again, the Government have avoided making choices, moving key capability decisions even further to the right yet again. When it comes to the future procurement of vital military equipment for the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies, they have kicked the can so far down the road that we can no longer see the can at all—even with an Ajax. In contrast, while our Ministers prevaricate, our Polish allies are digging anti-tank ditches along the border with Belarus. The Romans had a saying: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” —he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. The Conservatives announced a £50 billion sovereign defence fund this morning to do precisely that.
Absolutely; it does pertain to the statement. We had been hoping for a Christmas present in the form of a defence investment plan. The Minister has told the House that the Government are working, in his words, flat out—
Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?
As I have three minutes, I just want to raise two quick issues. The first, I hope, is good news; it is to do with Riverside medical centre. I have been trying for seven years to get an extension on its GP practice, but because of the unbelievable NHS bureaucracy, about which I will not try the patience of the House, it has not been possible to do so until recently, even though a brand new housing estate called High Elms Park, built by Barratt Homes, has produced many extra residents who need a GP. The parties have now come up with an innovative solution. Barratt has just sold the last couple of houses on the estate, and for a notional £1 it is going to donate its sales office to the practice, which will convert it into a GP annexe that can accommodate three GPs with attendant training and administrative facilities. This is a big win for the local community; we had a public meeting in April at which there was overwhelming public support for the idea. The planning application has been slightly delayed because of red tape, but Riverside assures me that that application will go in soon, and it should be a relatively straightforward conversion. Hopefully, that annexe—which I think will be very popular in the village of Hullbridge—will open some time in the summer of 2026. That is a good-news story. We then have the saga—and it is a saga—of the old Co-op supermarket site in Wickford. In a nutshell, the Co-op closed over three years ago. The site was bought by a South Africa-based developer called Heriot. It tried to do a deal to redevelop the site with Morrisons, but that fell through; it tried to do one with Asda, but that also fell through. Heriot recently got planning permission, yet it still has not managed to secure a contract with a new tenant. There are rumours all over the town of Wickford that it has been talking to everyone from Lidl to Waitrose, although I will believe the latter when I see it. My constituents in Wickford are exasperated with Heriot. They just want a new supermarket. They deserve one by now, so I make a plea in the Commons to the directors of Heriot, with whom I have had numerous meetings: “Please, please bring this to fruition. You’ve got planning permission; pick one group and do a deal with them. Get them on site, and let’s get that new supermarket opened in a way that my constituents in Wickford—who have waited more than long enough—deserve.” In my final 10 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all MPs, the staff of the House, and our own staff—without whom this job would be impossible—a very merry Christmas.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen. I also thank everyone in the Public Gallery and those around the UK, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who champion her legacy. Two hundred and fifty years after her birth, Jane Austen remains not just a cornerstone of English literature but a distinctly English voice rooted in place, tradition, social order and moral responsibility—a true Tory perhaps. Her wit and insight are timeless. As she wrote: “It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.” That line captures something profoundly serious beneath the comedy: an emphasis on conduct, duty and personal responsibility. Those values feel increasingly relevant to Members of this place. It is sometimes forgotten that Jane Austen was, by instinct and upbringing, a conservative figure in the truest sense of the word. She was, as we have heard, the daughter of a Church of England clergyman, deeply embedded in parish life. She was respectful of established institutions and sceptical of radical upheaval—she wrote in the long shadow of the French revolution. Her novels consistently defend the importance of social stability, inherited responsibility and moral restraint. She sought not to overturn society but to understand it and, where necessary, gently challenge and correct it. Her characters are judged not by fashionable opinions but by their behaviour towards others. Her heroines are not radicals attempting to dismantle the world around them, but thoughtful, intelligent women navigating society as it was in their time, valuing good judgment, self-control and integrity. Their flaws are acknowledged, their virtues earned, and their happy endings never accidental. Jane Austen’s life was firmly rooted in England. She was born in Stevenson in rural Hampshire and wrote arguably her greatest works in Chawton. She lived for a time in Bath and was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral. She drew deeply from parish life, village society and the rhythms of provincial England. Those connections remain visible today across Hampshire, Bath, Southampton and beyond. Jane Austen’s legacy continues to make a real economic contribution. Her house in Chawton attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year, as my right hon. Friend said, while Austen-related tourism supports jobs in hospitality, heritage and the creative industries. Her novels, which earned her just over £600 in her lifetime, now generate millions through book sales, film adaptations and cultural tourism. Her reach has grown further through adaptation: more than 70 films and television series have been inspired by her work, from faithful period dramas to modern reinterpretations, introducing new audiences to her stories and projecting a distinctively British cultural inheritance across the world. Her place in our national life is reflected not only in festivals and exhibitions but quite literally in our pockets. Since 2017, Jane Austen has featured on the £10 note—a quiet but fitting recognition of her contribution to our cultural and literary heritage. Yet despite Jane Austen’s popularity, there have been attempts to sideline her work and that of other literary greats from parts of the curriculum. That would be a mistake. Jane Austen is not an optional extra in our cultural inheritance; she is central to it. The then Education Secretary said in December 2012: “I do not see anything wrong with having the 19th century at the heart of the English curriculum. As far as I am concerned, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy—not to mention George Eliot—are great names that every child should have the chance to study.” —[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 583.] Two hundred and fifty years on from her birth, Jane Austen’s work endures because it speaks the permanent truths about human nature, society and the value of continuity over chaos. She reminds us that progress does not require rupture or revolution, and that civilisation is sustained not by grand theories but by character, restraint and responsibility. That is a literary and cultural legacy well worth defending and celebrating. At the end of my short speech, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions. I wish them all a merry Christmas, and I hope this Government can find some sense and sensibility in 2026.
T4. From Fylde to Chorley, a very warm Lancastrian merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker. I went out to meet some of the farmers who came down for the latest protest this week, and having listened to the answers from Front Benchers today, I wanted to clear up a little confusion. They are aware that those farmers do not keep coming down to thank them, are they not?
8. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of her policies on farming communities.
I have met many farmers from my part of the world who have shared with me the horrific consequences of the family farm tax on food prices, on food security and on families who have farmed for generations. This morning’s farming profitability review identifies that that is the single biggest issue affecting farm viability. I believe that if the Minister heard at first hand from farmers in my part of the world, she might think again. Will she meet them?