Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  The Government were elected on a platform that included a dentistry rescue plan. They correctly assessed a crisis in NHS dentistry and promised to fix it. Nowhere is that crisis more felt than in the rural areas across the country. Nearly two years on from the general election, I consulted residents across my constituency in a survey about the health care issues that mattered to them. Almost everyone who replied mentioned the state of NHS dentistry and the lack of provision across Somerset. If the Government want to show genuine support for rural communities, as they claim, they can no longer ignore those voices calling for action—but ignore them, the Minister does. When I asked the Minister on the Floor of this House what steps he was taking to increase the number of dentists accessible to rural communities, he directed me to, “Watch my post box” to be furnished with the numbers of how many more appointments have been provided in my constituency. I did wait, and then I waited some more, and no response came. Eventually, having chased the special adviser outside the Chamber and threatened a point of order for the Minister’s reply, I did get a response. It then became clear why his Department had been so reticent: the numbers revealed that 4% fewer NHS dental treatments had been delivered in the first seven months of this financial year compared with the same period before the general election. The Government are too busy patting themselves on the back to notice the dire reality of NHS dental provision across Somerset and other rural counties. For meaningful change to be felt by my constituents and patients across the country, reform of the system needs to start being treated as a priority. Access to quality NHS dental care should be available to all, not just those in urban Labour constituencies. Families in Somerset should not need to travel miles for basic care, paying fees they cannot afford or, worse still, going without treatment altogether. Polling for Ipsos last year revealed that when people cannot secure dental treatment, a quarter will resort to at-home DIY solutions. That is simply not acceptable in a modern health service. Before those on the Government Benches leap to their feet with interventions beginning with “Fourteen years”, which we hear every sitting day, I have to acknowledge that this problem did not start in July 2024. Previous Governments, including previous Conservative Governments, did not do enough to fix the problem. The last Government did take steps, including an uprating of NHS dental unit pricing, but far more needs to be done to address the deeper structural issues in the system. Contract reform, fundamentally, is what we need to see. I am encouraged that Ministers seem to agree, but on this issue, this Government’s intervention follows a familiar pattern. Instead of taking action, they are launching a consultation. This Government and this Minister have been in office for two years, and I would have thought that by now they would have worked out what they wanted to do to improve the system. If the Minister is going to consult, I very much hope that it is on the basis of a well-thought-through plan and that it is not being used as another delaying tactic. I hope, in particular, that he will consider how we can strengthen the dental workforce in rural areas. Something I have raised previously with the Minister is how we can train more dentists locally. Clinicians who train in a community are more likely to stay and practise there. In Bridgwater, discussions took place with Bridgwater and Taunton college on the potential for partnerships, such as with the University of Bristol dental hospital, to deliver local training pathways. If student dentists could do some of their practice within rural communities, it might encourage them to work there afterwards. The Minister asked me to write to him about that, and I did, but I got a whole load of platitudes back and, regrettably, no action was taken.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to discontinue hourly payments to volunteer rescue coastguards threatens the safety of Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency and coastal communities around the country. It is inevitable that fewer people will be able to volunteer to assist the coastguard if they cannot be reimbursed for time lost off work. The Minister will be aware that this decision follows a recent Court of Appeal case, so what steps will he take to ensure that the judgment does not lead to a reduction in the number of willing volunteers who keep our coast safe for residents and tourists?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Compassionate Use Medicine Schemes: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  It is utterly shameful that this Government are presiding over the imposition of VAT on drugs donated for compassionate use. The Minister referred to the previous Government. VAT was not put on those drugs under the previous Government, but it is being put on them under this Government. Was it the Health Secretary who signed this off when he was in the Treasury?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents. I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe. I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced. Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action. I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability. Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound “to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”. We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers. I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister believe that the Government’s current energy strategy is consistent with a successful British steel industry, or does he envisage that energy strategy having to change in order to lower industrial electricity prices?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that the National Wealth Fund, or indeed anyone else, would wish to invest in British steelmaking while our electricity prices are so very high? Does he agree that there is no point in this Bill until we fix the electricity market in this country?

• 21 May 2026 · Costs for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this latest U-turn by the Chancellor to freeze fuel duty, which will help my constituents, and I also welcome the cut in duty on red diesel to help our farmers. The Government’s carbon border adjustment mechanism comes into effect on 1 January. That will increase further the cost of fertiliser, which in turn will push up the price of food. Will the Chief Secretary undertake a review of that carbon border adjustment mechanism, to protect all our constituents from further food price increases?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In February, I asked the Minister for Care about access to dentists in rural areas. He said from the Dispatch Box that he would write to me with the numbers of how many more dental treatments have been provided in my constituency and integrated care board area. I was concerned when the Minister replied that Somerset ICB delivered 5,559 fewer NHS dental treatments in the seven months to October 2025 compared with the same period before the election—that is 4% fewer dental treatments in Somerset under Labour. Will the Minister give a statement to explain why dental services in Somerset are getting worse under this Government?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister recognise just how damning it is of the Government’s lack of regard for transparency and accountability that the ISC finds itself in the position of having to publicly condemn their actions?

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The former Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls said that real change in combating violence usually came only after threats from her following “catastrophic mistakes”. Does that not confirm that the Government are unwilling to take the tough decisions necessary to tackle violence against women and girls?

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. The Justice Committee heard that, as of February 2026, there were only 412 young people in custody, of whom about 44% were on remand, so when he says, with a great flourish, that he intends to reduce the number by 25%, he is talking about reducing a very small number—about 185—down to about 135. That is a very small number of individuals. Rather than making a huge effort, as he appears to be doing, to bring about this very small reduction, his efforts would be better spent on improving education and training in the youth custody system.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  And I would like to know from the Liberal Democrats in Somerset whether they think it appropriate to take money from my constituents in Berrow, Brean and Burnham-on-Sea and spend it in Taunton and Yeovil. For some reason, they seem reluctant to say. The King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s plans to curtail our constituents’ right to a jury trial. It is a tragedy that this Government are trampling on our ancient rights and liberties. They claim that it is because of the backlog of cases in the Crown courts, but that backlog was not caused by jury trials, and it will not be reduced by curtailing the right to a jury trial. Labour Ministers have failed to provide any evidence that this will increase court efficiency. It will not bring swifter justice, but it will undermine confidence in our whole justice system. It is a reform without any rational justification. I believe that the Government are wrong, and must reverse their course. My constituents want secure borders, affordable energy, safer streets, economic growth and opportunities for their children, and that is why the Conservatives are setting out our alternative King’s Speech. At a time of international instability, the Government should be cutting welfare spending in order to spend more on defence, but instead we are stuck with a feeble Government who threaten both our economic and national security.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not shameful that the Government are having to subsidise employers who take on young people, when it is the Government’s actions—their imposing higher national insurance charges, a higher minimum wage, and a higher burden through the Employment Rights Act 2025—that caused the problem in the first place?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The rate that Britain is now paying is higher than at any time over the last 20 years—in fact, it is the highest rate since the last time Labour was in office. Britain’s finances are in a precarious position precisely because Labour is doing what it always does: spending other people’s money like there is no tomorrow. The Government announced a holiday tax in the King’s Speech. This will enable councils to tax holidays taken in this country even more than at present. Most people who take their holiday in Britain are British. They already pay VAT at 20% on their holidays, and Labour wants to tax them further. This will hit local businesses in Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Many families who holiday in Somerset are not wealthy. A tax of £2.50 per person per night will take £70 a week away from a family of four. That is money taken out of their pocket that they cannot spend with local businesses. It has been interesting to watch Liberal Democrats in Somerset squirming over their plans for a holiday tax. While their colleagues in Bristol and Bath have welcomed the tax, calling its introduction a victory for Liberal Democrats, those in Somerset do not quite know what to say. No doubt they will make their position clear before next year’s local elections.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is one of my favourite socialists in the Chamber. Does he accept that were he to change the duty of trustees from getting the best return possible for their pensions, the result will be that future pensioners will enjoy a lesser income? Is that what he wants for future pensioners?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Since being elected by the people of Bridgwater, I have sought to be a strong voice for local families, small businesses and community groups across my constituency. I am saddened that, during those two years, life has got more difficult for so many people. The cost of living is rising faster than two years ago, unemployment is higher and small businesses are struggling. The reason for these problems is that this Government are making life harder for people who work hard and do the right thing, and too often they reward those who do not. Labour is taxing and spending and borrowing too much. It is taxing those who work, those who employ people, those who save, those who invest, those who create jobs, and those who build up a family farm or family business and want to pass it on to their children. It seems that the only people better off under Labour are train drivers and those on benefits. Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out the borrowing plans of the last Conservative Government. We planned to borrow £323 billion in the five years from April 2024. This Labour Chancellor is planning to borrow £583 billion over the same period, which is an 80% increase—an extra £260 billion borrowed over five years. All that extra borrowing must be paid for. Poor economic management and chaos within the Labour party mean that Britain is now paying 5.1% to borrow money for 10 years.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), attempted to cut the welfare bill and was sent packing by Labour Back Benchers. In the autumn, the Government had to get rid of the two-child benefit cap because of Labour Back Benchers. Is the truth not that the Secretary of State is incapable of reforming the welfare system because he does not have permission from his Back Benchers?

• 14 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It might be him!

• 14 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Madison Chilcott is a student midwife from Bridgwater. She pays fees of £9,500 a year, and must complete a minimum of 2,300 unpaid clinical hours. She works 12-hour shifts at nights and weekends, while her protected learning time is routinely overridden to fill staffing gaps. Despite that, she and many student midwives face graduating into unemployment. This is happening during a national midwife shortage. Can we have a debate in Government time on the graduate guarantee made by the Health Secretary in August 2025, which induced many midwives to start training with what appears to have been a false guarantee of employment?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to try to support small businesses by cutting red tape, but will he explain why, while he is saying this at the Dispatch Box, another part of Government is requiring any business seeking a Government contract to demonstrate trade union recognition? Does he accept that that is completely irrelevant as to whether a business provides a good service and good value for money? Does he appreciate that that only imposes additional costs on businesses?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Falling School Rolls · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. One reason for improved academic standards in our schools under the last Government was the ability for good schools to expand and for failing schools to be put under new leadership. How will the Secretary of State ensure that underachieving schools with falling numbers are transformed with new and rigorous leadership, rather than conscripting unwilling parents to send their children to them?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister might remember that, in a debate on these amendments on 25 March, she and I had an exchange in which I described the very long explanation that she had given as a “load of waffle”, and she replied: “We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted.” —[ Official Report , 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 332.] The amendment to extend the period to 180 days is very welcome, but when the Minister said on 25 March that that was not what the families wanted, was she inadvertently misleading the House?