Jane Austen

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

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.

Employment Rights Bill

Louie French Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

I did not follow that, so I will just have to move on.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) has just made a point suggesting that working people are not impacted by the behaviours of trade unions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the working people of this country who are hammered the most when Labour Members’ paymasters, the trade unions, go on strike?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot add any more to that. He has hit the nail on the head.

I support amendment 291, in the name of the Opposition, which would remove clause 52. At the moment, this is a circular Bill of self-interest: Labour Members get money from the unions, the Bill increases union powers and that clause increases the amount of money from the unions. The clause is brazen and shaming, and it should be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this Bill gets the balance wrong. Labour’s weakening of a variety of trade union laws, particularly on the threshold for industrial action, is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs.

As a London MP, I have heard this fairytale from those on the Labour Benches before, because London has too often been paralysed by strikes under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city “zero days of strikes” in 2016, but he has comprehensively broken that promise. In Sadiq Khan’s first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes, which is almost four times more than the number of strikes under his predecessor —a record that Mayor Khan labelled a “disgrace”. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, the 135 under Mayor Khan represent a catastrophic failure. My fear is that this Bill and the Labour Government’s amendments will make strikes even more common in London.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member recall how many strikes there were under the last Conservative Government?

[Mr French]

As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike.

This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.

[Gareth Snell]

I guess that the hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a trade union or participated in an industrial ballot. Members choose to go on strike once the ballot has finished; no one forces them to go on strike. When members give up a day’s pay to go on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to their terms and conditions. He is making out as though they are somehow compelled to strike. When members turn out for a strike, they do so because of their strength of feeling about the conditions they face—nothing more.

[Mr French]

I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.

[Becky Gittins]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a small number of militant trade unionists taking industrial action if this Bill becomes law, it is worth noting that over the last 10 years, a small and militant group of Conservative party members have managed to choose successive Prime Ministers with fewer requirements than those applied to members of trade unions when they vote to take industrial action in their workplaces. Does he think that is fair?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Lady for her rather odd intervention. It has nothing to do with this Bill, but if more people had a chance to vote on issues such as who should be the Prime Minister today, I suspect that they would come to a completely different answer from the one they came to last July, because this Labour Government have broken every single promise that they made at the election. I cannot wait for the public to have the opportunity to vote out this shocking Labour Government, so I am all for people having more chance to do so.

As I and other Conservative Members have said already, this Bill was written by the trade unions and for the trade unions. Why are the Government granting this wish list to the trade unions? The simple answer is that the Labour party will benefit from these proposals. As I was taught as a young man, “Follow the money.” [Interruption.] Yes, I did not follow it by coming into this place. Over the past five years, the Labour party has received more than £31 million in political donations from the unions. This Bill will remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in to those contributions; instead, they will have to opt out, which means more will unknowingly contribute to political causes that they do not support. The Government’s amendment will mean that trade unions no longer need to renew their political resolutions every 10 years, and ultimately this will make it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes, including the Labour party.

In short, this Bill means more strikes more often and more money for the Labour party, and strikes will be grinding business to a halt, shutting down public services and closing public transport systems again.

[Daisy Cooper]

As I noted in my speech, there are problems with the Bill. The hon. Member has mentioned the problems on public transport. Does he recall that in 2022 the train unions and the train operating companies actually resolved their dispute, and does he regret that the Transport Minister at the time intervened to block that agreement to resolve the strikes?

[Mr French]

My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment.

These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets.

[Mr Frith]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—

Oral Answers to Questions

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This issue is important to Members in all parts of the country, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s particular point about prosperous rural economies. Access to banking and financial services is a prime example of the fact that the Government will work across every Department to make sure we are giving businesses what they need. I am not nostalgic, and I understand that banking has changed, but small businesses need to be able to deposit cash on the high street. The key policy in this area will be run by the Treasury, but this is about changing the eligibility for banking hubs, so that we have more of them. We will see at least an additional 350 in this Parliament, including in my constituency; tomorrow, I will take a sneak peek at the new banking hub in Stalybridge.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Under the Labour Mayor of London’s proposals, many small businesses that drive vans via the Blackwall tunnel will soon have to pay charges of up to £40 a day—the congestion charge, the ultra low emission zone charge, and the Mayor’s new tunnel tax. Do the Government agree that this is neither fair nor good for economic growth?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a matter that is important to his constituency. My Department works very closely with a range of devolved arrangements around the UK, and it is important to work with them with respect and good faith. This question is clearly for the Mayor of London, but I recognise the hon. Member’s point. We always take heed of the aggregate impact on business of everything at every level of government, which is why having an industrial strategy and a small business plan is key.