Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for our recent conversations about flooding in Somerset. Flooding is a huge challenge for areas across the country. Some 6.3 million properties in England are currently located in areas that are at risk of flooding, including many in my constituency. When floods occur, the Environment Agency, local volunteer groups and farmers work to help people quickly, often in difficult circumstances. I was humbled and deeply proud to see the way the community pulled together in affected areas during the flooding earlier this year, particularly in Moorland and Fordgate. The Minister knows how seriously I take flooding, and has engaged with me following my requests for stronger national support, clearer local responsibilities, more dredging and improved pumping capacity. The previous Conservative Government took real action to prevent flooding and protect homes and businesses, ensuring that over 600,000 properties were better protected from flooding and coastal erosion. Between 2015 and 2024, over 900,000 acres of farmland were also protected. In 2020 the previous Government announced a doubling of capital funding for flood defences in England, which rose to £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027. Flood Re was set up under the former Conservative Government, and it remains an important scheme to promote the availability and affordability of flood insurance for eligible homes. Its recent accounts report contains serious warnings for Ministers. Flood Re is clear that “the external environment has changed materially, with higher climate-driven loss volatility, tighter global reinsurance capacity and greater pressure on affordability.” It says that the scheme is now retaining higher levels of risk and facing “increased liability exposure”. At the same time, Flood Re warns that the scheme is under structural pressure. Its board has said that improved flood mapping has led to “more properties being classified as high risk…including a growing number of higher-value homes”, and that without change, the scheme risks being asked to carry “unsustainable levels of exposure and cost.” As such, will the Minister please explain what steps she is taking to ensure that Flood Re’s growing pressures do not result in additional costs for households through higher insurance bills? Will Ministers bring forward a credible, long-term flood resilience plan? Do the Government have plans to include businesses in Flood Re? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of these changes on households that are asset-rich but income-poor, including pensioners living in higher-band homes in flood risk areas? In her statement, the Minister said that Flood Re would reform its premium model across council tax bands and regions. Will she publish the modelling behind those changes, including regional impacts, so that households can see what this means for them? Flood performance certificates may help households understand risk, but will the Minister confirm who will pay for them? Will they be mandatory, and will they affect mortgage availability? Flood Re has done valuable work, but households continue to need affordable insurance. They also need a Government who are serious about flood prevention, resilient homes, and long-term protection for communities. Conservative Members will always work with the Government to ensure that every person living in a property that is vulnerable to flooding gets the support they need.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and introducing it so very well. In Burnham-on-Sea, we have a fantastic coastguard team and rescue officers. They are dedicated volunteers who respond to incidents along one of the most challenging stretches of coastline in the country. The Bristol channel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the risks are very real. When people get into difficulty, it is these volunteers who respond, often within minutes. Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation that they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham-on-Sea coastguard team, who are deeply concerned about what that means for their future involvement.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Lady: I think those volunteers have been poorly treated. The payments were never a salary, but they made it possible for people to continue volunteering. One officer of many years, who shared his thoughts with me, said: “Call Outs never come at a ‘convenient’ time. The money we earn would never replace the time lost, but it does soften the blow.” It is often said that rescue officers do not volunteer for financial reward but out of a strong sense of duty and community spirit. However, the modest compensation recognised the very real costs involved: travel, time away from work and the disruption to family life. I understand that the MCA must operate within the law, and that the Court of Appeal ruling has created a complex situation. It is, though, sad to see these committed volunteers penalised as they have been. I urge the Government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer coastguards and would be grateful if the Minister addressed these questions when he sums up. What assessment has been made of the impact on recruitment and retention? In constituencies such as mine, a reduction in volunteer numbers would have a direct impact on public safety. Is the Minister satisfied with the MCA’s engagement with volunteer coastguard teams? I end by thanking the coastguard volunteers in Burnham-on-Sea and across the country.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Fishing Industry: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate. Fishing is not just an industry; to many it is a way of life, passed from one generation to the next. It is why so many people in our fishing communities looked to the Government’s UK-EU summit in May 2025 with disbelief. At that summit, the Government agreed to grant the European Union full access to UK fishing waters until 2038—a 12-year extension of the existing arrangements. The Government said that it would be in return for British participation in the Security Action for Europe defence fund. Despite repeated questions, however, it remains unclear exactly when or indeed if they will achieve that. That is because the talks collapsed when the EU demanded billions of pounds from Britain as a condition for joining. You might think, Sir Alec, that the Government would have thought about that possibility before signing away important fishing rights. They seem to have got nothing in return. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government will renegotiate with the EU and return the fishing rights to our fishermen and women, now it is clear that the talks have failed? Or was our fishing industry just used as a bargaining chip in pursuit of the Prime Minister’s broader political objective? This House deserves answers, and so do the communities whose futures depend on those decisions. I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the fishing and coastal growth fund and will claim that it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the sector, but fishermen across the country feel very differently. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has raised serious concerns about the Government’s approach in relation to this fund. It found that Ministers had not clearly explained why the figure of £360 million was chosen, why the fund should run for 12 years or why this support is best delivered through a single integrated scheme. Crucially, the Committee also concluded that the fund lacks clear objectives against which success can be measured. That is a remarkable criticism, and I hope the Minister will address it. I ask him these questions directly. What are the objectives of this fund? How will he measure its success? What outcomes will demonstrate to fishing communities that this money has delivered meaningful change? And what happens if those objectives are not met? The previous Conservative Government had a clear record of backing our fishing industry. We secured increased fishing opportunities, allocated substantial support for the long-term future of the sector, developed new fisheries such as bluefin tuna, and began replacing the hated common fisheries policy with a bespoke framework designed around the interests of UK fisheries. On this side of the House, we support investment in fishing and coastal communities. Many stakeholders have rightly highlighted the need for better port infrastructure, improved training opportunities and investment in skills, scientific research and fleet modernisation. By contrast, this Government’s headline achievement has been to lock in EU access to UK waters for another 12 years while offering a fund that, to many, looks to be little more than a sticking plaster. Additionally, “Economic outcomes of annual negotiations for UK fishing opportunities in 2026”, published earlier this year, shows that there has been a decrease in this year’s quota of 135,000 tonnes compared with last year’s quota. That will cost the British fishing industry £136 million. At the same time, spatial squeeze is forcing fishermen out of their traditional fishing areas, and new rules have been imposed governing trawl mesh sizes. The Iran war pushed up fuel prices, but the Chancellor’s May statement on support during the Iran war did not help fishers at all. The fishing industry is vital for our food security and deserves proper support from the Government to address the financial pressures and uncertainty that many fishing communities now face. The Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of access to our own waters and Britain’s rights as an independent, sovereign coastal state. I urge the Government to do the same.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Fishing Industry: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Fishing Industry: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is drawing to the end of his time allocation, but could he explain to fishermen the benefits, as he sees them, of his Government signing away to the EU 12 years of access to our fishing waters?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument amends provisions within the Education and Inspections Act in relation to new schools. Let me start by acknowledging the one positive aspect of these regulations, which is to make it easier to create new pupil referral units. The previous Conservative Government supported PRUs and expanded provision of alternative education to children who need additional help. In particular, the alternative provision academies achieved better results, according to Ofsted, because they were allowed to innovate and take control of their curriculum. Unfortunately, this Government have not learned that lesson, either in relation to alternative education or traditional schooling. Regrettably, the focus of the statutory instrument is to crack down further on academies and the freedoms they enjoy. The Academies Act 2010 allowed more schools to benefit from academy freedoms, to innovate and to improve standards. Those rising standards are one of the proudest achievements of the previous Government. Research by the Education Policy Institute found that pupils attending the early sponsored academies achieved outcomes equivalent to roughly one GCSE grade higher in subjects, compared with similar pupils in predecessor schools. Academies are now educating millions of children across England, to their benefit. Although no system can guarantee success in every case, academy trusts are strongly represented among the highest-performing school groups in the country. Across the border in Wales, where the Conservative education revolution did not occur, standards have lagged behind. Welsh pupils have been disadvantaged compared with their English counterparts. Labour’s assault on academies is short-sighted and wrong. It speaks to its need for ever more control. The Conservatives know that giving academies freedom to innovate helps more children to get a decent education. That is why we will oppose the statutory instrument.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s failure to publish the impact assessment means that NHS authorities across the country do not know how much this deal will cost them? My constituents in Somerset cannot get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist. That is far more important to them than this obscure deal.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister appreciate that the reason he is commissioning former Army bases and spending millions of pounds on more asylum accommodation is that his Government’s policy of smashing the gangs has completely failed? There have been 76,000 illegal crossings across the channel into our country, and until he accepts that those are economic migrants who should be deported when they arrive in our country, this problem will continue.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  On prevention being better than cure, would the Minister care to comment upon the reduction in provision of prison education before she concludes her remarks?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with her. Members of the Justice Committee hear that all the time when we visit prisons. For example, broken security netting cannot be repaired or replaced until some very long and convoluted process goes through Whitehall and comes back six months later, no doubt after many drones have flown in with however many packages of contraband goods. It is absolutely hopeless. We have to devolve proper responsibility and financial management to prison governors. Sitting on the Justice Committee, I have seen and heard at first hand the reality of how reduced educational opportunities are putting rehabilitation at risk, yet despite awareness of these dangers, the Government only partially accepted our formal recommendation to prioritise the delivery of core education provision. Estimates day debates allow the House to hold the Government to account, not just for how much they spend, but for how well they spend it. Curtailing jury trials for marginal gain and cutting back on prison education are not the reforms of a system focused on long-term effectiveness. If we are serious about delivering timely, fair and sustainable justice, we must prioritise the right kinds of investment that will deliver the reforms the justice system needs to protect victims as its No. 1 priority, to deliver justice and to get good value for money for the taxpayer.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend recall that when the Labour party announced its early release system, it said words to the effect of those who have been imprisoned for the most serious and heinous crimes would not be covered by the early release scheme? Does it not seem extraordinary that rapists and those who have committed serious sexual assaults are in fact eligible for this early release scheme?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe that information was provided, certainly not when it was presented to me, but if the hon. Lady has it, no doubt she will send it to me. Jury trials and staff absence are not the only areas where the Government are focusing on the wrong issue; a similar problem emerges in the management of our prisons. The Government seem to believe that recklessly releasing many thousands of criminals early will address the crisis of overcrowding, instead of investing in measures to ensure that they do not reoffend. I fear that releasing so many criminals so early in their sentences risks a wave of reoffending in the future. It is well established that when prisoners engage in meaningful educational or vocational courses, there are sizeable reductions in reoffending. More than 50% of adult prisoners have the literacy skills of an 11-year-old or lower; knowing this, one might think that the Government would seek to address the problem. The earned progression model should surely ensure that participation in education and training is compulsory to secure the very early releases that the Government are proposing. Instead, this Government are choosing to reduce the provision of prison education, astonishing though that might seem. That is of huge concern, because investment in prison education is cost-effective. Research in 2018 showed that the economic benefits of lower reoffending and higher levels of employment after release outweighed the costs of prisoner education by a ratio of 5:1. In this instance, the problem is not that the budget has been cut, but that the cost of supplying that education has risen so significantly that the volume of core education delivered this year will be cut by 20% to 25%. Instead of addressing why those costs have increased or exploring more competitive and flexible commissioning models to incorporate smaller providers, the Government’s response has been to cut provision. That is short-sighted. If the MOJ is so poor at entering into contracts, may I recommend to the Minister that that budget is entirely devolved to prison governors? I believe they would be better at bringing together local businesses to provide the education they need for the prisoners in their care. It would certainly be better than paying Serco, Capita or whoever £100 million a year to deliver less education each year.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  The Crown court backlog is the most significant challenge facing the Ministry of Justice. Long delays in cases reaching trial undermine confidence in the whole justice system. I welcome the extra money that the Government have made available to increase the number of sitting days of the Crown court. I also welcome the additional funding to improve the physical condition of our courts and to invest in improved IT systems to make our courts run more efficiently. While the Government are right to take those steps, I am concerned that they are wasting time, effort and money in curtailing the rights of British citizens to a jury trial. This reform has been presented as a necessary step to improve the efficiency of the courts. However, evidence suggests the contrary. The Government are aware of analysis by criminal justice researchers that indicates that the entire package of Government reforms will save no more than 8% of Crown court time. More striking still, the introduction of judge-only trials is likely to deliver a saving of just 1.5% to 2.5%. That is a marginal efficiency gain compared with the curtailing of our citizens’ rights to a jury trial, and it does not take into account the potential wasted time in determining whether a trial is to be held in a magistrates court or the new Crown court bench division. I have previously asked the Lord Chancellor to set out the evidence to show how much of the backlog will be cut by his reduction of jury trials, but I have not received a meaningful reply, so I must conclude that he is either unwilling or unable to provide a response. The Labour party has proven of late that it is willing to dispense with the unpopular and the ineffectual, so I hope it will take the same approach to unpopular and ineffectual policy as it does to personnel. I hope that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and his new Lord Chancellor will drop this dreadful policy. If the Government are serious about reducing delays, perhaps their focus should be on addressing why workers in the Ministry of Justice take more days off sick than workers in any other Whitehall Department. The average MOJ employee took 10.7 days’ sickness in 2024-25; that is 30% higher than the civil service average, and double the average in the private sector. The Minister needs to get her Department in order.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for giving way. What contribution to reducing the Crown court backlog does he believe curtailing the right to jury trials will make?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. One reason why so many HMOs are required is the lack of social housing, certainly around Bridgwater. I have had developers approach me who have completed a private scheme, and they want housing associations or a charity to take those social houses off their hands, but they have not got the funds to do it. I have raised this with the Minister before, and he told me that he set up a register to match housing associations with developers who have social housing to effectively dispose of the units. Could he update us on how successful that register has been?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is “very few indeed.” The issue in my Bridgwater constituency is that Hinkley Point C—a nuclear power station—is being constructed a few miles away. Many thousands of good workers have come to the town—their number will peak at around 12,000 in the next couple of years. The local council needs the power to restrict the number of HMOs in any particular street or district. Clearly, there is a housing need, so one understands why landlords convert those houses, but the resulting economic pressures bring a change upon the nature of certain areas. Councils need the power to restrict the concentration of HMOs.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for obtaining the debate. In the town of Bridgwater, we have had an increasing number of HMOs being developed. It leads to an enormous number of vehicles trying to park on a single road, it changes the nature of an area, and the council seems powerless to stop it. Does she agree that local authorities need additional powers to restrict the number of HMOs in any particular area, and furthermore, that permission should be required for HMOs with fewer than five people?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Public Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm whether these reforms will apply to the provision of services to prisons? This year, the Ministry of Justice will commission 25% fewer hours of education and training in our prisons, not because of a cut in the budget, but because of an increase in the unit price. The Ministry of Justice requires providers to offer a very large minimum number of hours in order to bid for contracts. If he allowed small businesses to bid to provide education and training in just one prison, the Ministry would get a lot more value for money.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Green Paper. Many of my constituents in Stockland Bristol and Fiddington continue to endure very poor or non-existent broadband coverage and mobile signals, so they are concerned about the Secretary of State’s proposal to stop terrestrial broadcasts by 2034. Will she ensure that the proposal does not cut off my constituents in rural areas?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  While I welcome the farming road map, farmers in Somerset will be sceptical that this Government will deliver for them given their imposition of the family farm and family business taxes, which have undermined confidence and reduced investment in the rural economy. The Government closed the last SFI without notice, causing chaos for farmers. Will the Secretary of State undertake now not to do that again?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Teacher Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows that the figure she has quoted to the House excludes primary schools. The Labour party manifesto promised to increase the number of teachers by 6,500, funded by the party’s education tax, yet this morning the DFE website says that there are now 1,900 fewer teachers than in 2024. Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union, says that the overall fall in teacher numbers makes a mockery of this Government’s promise to increase teacher numbers. He is right, isn’t he?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will recall that when he wrote to me on 23 April, he confirmed that under Labour 4% fewer dental treatments were performed in Somerset than in the same period before the general election. If everything is so wonderful, why is dentistry in Somerset worse now under his watch than it was under the last Government?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I think golden hellos are a useful tool, but they are not sufficient. Reform of the contract is fundamentally what we need, and one would hope that after two years in his place, the Minister would have developed an idea of what to take forward. I believe that these local partnerships are exactly the sort of solution that could make a real difference to areas such as Bridgwater. More broadly, the Government must ensure that NHS dentistry is a viable and attractive career. This means continuing to look at how procedures are valued, at whether payments properly reflect the work involved and at how we can encourage dentists not just to enter the NHS but to remain in it. This House has already identified the problem and we have talked about reform, but now we need to deliver results to those in need. My residents across the Bridgwater constituency do not want another consultation that drags on for months without anything changing. They want an appointment with a dentist, and I urge the Minister to do all he can to deliver upon that as quickly as possible.