Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for bringing the motion. It is important that we improve the quality of our rivers and seas. Does he share my concern that in the Water (Special Measures) Act the Government refused to allow local areas to retain the money fined from water companies to improve the environment in that area? Were they able to do that, that would lead to a real improvement in the quality of our environment.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Sentencing Council.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council · Hansard source

  More

  Draft guidelines from the Sentencing Council now propose substantially lower sentences for immigration offences than levels agreed by Parliament, so will the Lord Chancellor call on the Sentencing Council to revise those guidelines, so that they align with the time periods agreed by Parliament?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill is unfortunately necessary because of the unwise actions of the Sentencing Council. While the Lord Chancellor is right to bring the Bill forward, she did so only at the very last moment. It was on Monday 31 March, mere hours before the guidelines were due to come into force, that the Sentencing Council was forced to perform a U-turn. Those guidelines would have led to a two-tier justice system in England and Wales. The Sentencing Council did not withdraw those guidelines out of wisdom or principle—it did so because it was caught out. Its backtrack was quietly communicated to judges and magistrates several hours after courts had already opened on Tuesday. To make matters worse, the Sentencing Council’s message said that it still believed the policy was necessary. There was nothing necessary about that policy. Under the proposed guidelines, judges and magistrates were told that pre-sentence reports should normally be required when sentencing individuals from ethnic, faith or cultural minority groups. What about those who are white, male and not part of a specified minority? They would not have fallen within that description. The implication was clear: defendants will be treated differently, not based on their actions or the harm they have caused, but based on their identity, and that is wrong. It was only after the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, that the Lord Chancellor rightly took action. Race, culture and religion should never determine whether someone goes to prison. The Lord Chancellor said that she was willing to legislate to stop this travesty if the Sentencing Council refused to back down, and that is what we are now doing. This is about the most fundamental principle in a free society: equality before the law. The question we must now ask ourselves is how the Sentencing Council got this so badly wrong and, judging by the comments of Lord Justice Davis, would continue to get wrong. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines would have had real consequences. In borderline cases where a judge is unsure whether to issue a custodial sentence, the presence or absence of a pre-sentence report can be decisive. The whole purpose of these reports is to influence the outcome. By tilting the system toward giving those reports preferentially to certain identity groups, the council would effectively be tipping the scales of justice, and the council knows it. Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, has warned that the guidelines may violate the Equality Act 2010. If we allow sentencing outcomes to be guided by race, faith or cultural identity, we abandon the core British principle that the law applies equally to all of us. I agree with the Lord Chancellor that we should pass this legislation to override this guidance, but how confident is she that we will not face a similar situation again? I would like her to go further and ensure that Parliament is given oversight of all future sentencing guidance. We must put into law the principle that no factor like race, religion or cultural minority status should ever influence sentencing procedures. Justice must remain blind, not selectively blinkered. If we lose equal justice, we lose the foundation of a free society.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Digital Landlines: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Large parts of the Bridgewater constituency lack both effective broadband and mobile signal. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should pause the switching-off of landlines until there is an effective technology that can be used in rural areas?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Lord Chancellor for her rather belated statement. I particularly welcome her observation that recent events have uncovered a democratic deficit. Is she not concerned that it was the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who uncovered this deficit, and not herself, her ministerial team or her Department? It was my right hon. Friend who first raised the issue of two-tier sentencing guidelines in this Chamber on 5 March, four weeks ago. Could the Lord Chancellor tell us why she has waited until the eve of their introduction to bring forward her emergency legislation?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Access to Dentistry: Somerset · Hansard source

  More

  I ask the Minister to reply to my suggestion that students from the University of Bristol Dental Hospital do some part of their training in Somerset, where they can benefit the population.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Access to Dentistry: Somerset · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that at least 100 Ukrainian dentists in this country are unable to practise with the NHS because they are waiting to take examinations. Can the Minister do anything to expedite their ability to practise in this country?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Access to Dentistry: Somerset · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate. Does she agree that Somerset benefits enormously from Bridgwater & Taunton College, where nurses and midwives are trained? Will she join me in asking the Minister whether dental hygienists, and in due course dental students from the University of Bristol Dental Hospital, might also train there and provide a service to the whole of Somerset?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend will find that the problem, of course, is that Somerset is run by the Liberal Democrats, and run very badly.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Specifically on new clause 19, does my hon. Friend agree that it is inevitable that the generational smoking ban will lead to an increase in the illegal tobacco market and that that is a highly regrettable consequence of the Bill?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Liberal Democrats have been responsible since 2022 for the mess that has become Somerset. I am in favour in principle of building more houses, but it must be done in a way that brings local communities with us. We must ensure that new developments are accompanied by the right infrastructure —schools, health centres, roads, and a proper number of green spaces in between. When the Government announced their new housing targets, it became immediately apparent that the bulk of the increase would be in rural areas, so while Somerset as a whole has seen an increase of 41% in its housing target, the City of Bristol has seen its target reduced by 11%. Why is that? If it is related to the high number of Labour councillors in Bristol, and the very small number of Labour councillors in Somerset, we should be told. The Bill also proposes a new nature restoration fund, which developers can pay into to offset environmental impacts, rather than conduct individual environmental assessments. Although I can see the logic of that move in some cases, I have concerns about the impact in Somerset. Given the network of waterways across the Somerset levels, the environmental impact of any individual site has the potential to spread to a much wider area than in much of the rest of the country. It is for such reasons that local accountability is so important, and by shifting the planning system to make it too top heavy, the Government risk unintended local consequences. On compulsory purchase powers, the Government argue that streamlining the process will allow housing and infrastructure projects to progress more quickly. I am concerned about the abuse of power, particularly in relation to agricultural land and green spaces. By simplifying land acquisitions and reducing protections for affected landowners, the Bill could pave the way for large-scale developments that displace communities, damage the environment and undermine agricultural interests. The Government have already done great damage to the farming community in Somerset with their family farm tax and the closure, without notice, of the sustainable farming incentive. The proposal seems like another Government scheme to impoverish our farmers. Although the Government’s aim to address the housing crisis and accelerate infrastructure development is important, the Bill raises significant concerns. It risks undermining local democracy, environmental protections and citizens’ ability to hold developers and the Government to account. If we are to build a sustainable future that is responsive to the needs of our communities, we must approach this Bill with caution. That is why I shall seek to improve it before we give it a Third Reading.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is about speeding up planning processes, judicial reviews and the development of critical infrastructure. Although some elements of the Bill are positive, others risk undermining the long-term success of any development. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to decide the consenting route for individual projects, bypassing local input and oversight. That is combined with the overall reduction in local democratic control by transferring significant powers from local councillors to planning officers. Currently, planning committees are the place where elected officials can reflect local concerns and represent their communities in decision making. By shifting more power to unelected officers, we risk alienating the public and further eroding trust in local democracy. That is especially important given the shift towards creating larger unitary authorities. We see that already in Somerset, where my constituents have seen Sedgemoor district council, a small but effective planning authority, replaced by a larger but less effective unitary council. That may be connected with the fact that Somerset is run by the Liberal Democrats. If local decision making becomes more detached, how can we be sure that developments will reflect the needs and desires of the people who will live with them?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. President Macron has blocked British firms from the new EU defence fund. What are the Secretary of State’s views on this act of solidarity?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Military Aid to Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he is taking to ensure that UK military aid is adequate to meet Ukraine’s capability requirements.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Military Aid to Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. Over the weekend, President Trump’s special envoy dismissed the Prime Minister’s plan for an international force to support the ceasefire in Ukraine, calling it “a posture and a pose”. Whatever the wisdom of those remarks, does the Secretary of State see a future in which UK forces could deploy on peacekeeping operations in Ukraine without a US security guarantee?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The M5 motorway in Somerset is being closed ever more frequently and for longer durations. This causes great inconvenience to businesses and residents, occasionally gridlocking the town of Bridgwater. Can we have a debate in Government time on the policy of National Highways for when and for how long it closes our motorways?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister may recall that in Committee, every single Labour member of the Committee declared sponsorship by the trade union movement. Does he agree with me that this clause is simply payback for the trade union movement, after its financial support for the Labour party?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. The Employment Rights Bill will grant union equality representatives the right to paid time off work. Will the Prime Minister grant special constables the right to take unpaid leave to perform their duties?

• 12 Mar 2025 · School Standards in Wales · Hansard source

  More

  9. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on school standards in Wales.

• 12 Mar 2025 · School Standards in Wales · Hansard source

  More

  Children in Wales have the lowest PISA —programme for international student assessment— scores in the United Kingdom and are significantly below the OECD average. Does the Minister believe that that could be related to 26 years of Labour government in Wales?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I had the good fortune to serve with the Minister for 21 sessions in Committee, and at the end of that we had a Bill 192 pages long. We now have 270 pages of amendments, most of which come from the Government. Why are they tabling so many amendments and giving them just two days’ scrutiny? Are these just more union demands?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the Public Bill Committee for the Bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments the Government tabled to their own legislation in Committee. There were hundreds of amendments, demonstrating how badly the Bill was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit to introducing such a major piece of legislation within 100 days of the election, but I guess that was the price of trade union money to fund the Labour party. Having had 21 sittings in Committee scrutinising the Bill line by line, we now find ourselves with another vast number of Government amendments once again, but this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the amendments on the amendment paper are the Government’s. The amendment paper is thicker than the original Bill. This is a bad Bill. It pushes up the cost of labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible and will increase unemployment. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 30, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers who give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, both on and off duty, and put themselves in harm’s way without payment to keep our society safe. Today, the special constabulary—an institution that has served this nation for nearly two centuries—faces a crisis. The number of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the past decade; in the past year alone, we have seen a 20% drop. Many police forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. This is not just a temporary dip, but a long-term trend. There are multiple factors at play, but clearly becoming a special is not an attractive proposition to too many potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure that the special constabulary continues to play a vital role in policing for generations to come. It is in that context that I bring forward my amendment to the Bill, which seeks to amend section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For those who are not aware, section 50 allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their duties. On the list are magistrates, local councillors, school governors and even members of the Environment Agency. It seems strange to me that we would exclude those prepared to keep us safe from the list of community-minded citizens.