Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The two-tier sentencing guidelines take effect on 1 April. If the Lord Chancellor is sincere about having a justice system that treats everyone equally, will she not support our Bill to block the guidelines?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments so far, but the emails I have received from constituents who support his campaign make reference to “raising the age of ‘internet adulthood’ from 13 to 16” and “to help support the ban on phones in school being brought by MP Josh MacAlister”. He will forgive me for saying that nothing he has said so far requires legislation. The Bill he has brought could all be achieved by the Minister just deciding to ask the chief medical officer to produce a report, or the Minister producing a plan. What has happened to the legislative action that was clearly in earlier drafts of his legislation and which campaigners clearly want?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the Minister that often a Bill will contain something that is merely declaratory. Has he ever seen a Bill that is wholly declaratory and contains nothing that actually requires legislation?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The smartphone is one of the most remarkable pieces of technology ever invented. Smartphones keep us connected to the world and allow us to stay in touch with family, friends and colleagues no matter where we, or they, are. They give us access to the internet and the immeasurable amount of information that is available online. They give us access to our emails, allowing us to organise our schedules and do work on the train and even in this Chamber. They are also fantastic entertainment hubs, whether for music, movies, games or e-books. Smartphones and the internet have transformed society, and while most of that technological progress is good, it has serious consequences for our children. In 2023, Ofcom reported that most children acquire their first smartphone between the ages of nine and 11. That is problematic, especially when it comes to social media. Social media on smartphones has become an integral part of our children’s lives, and it poses several risks that can have a negative impact on their wellbeing. One of the biggest concerns is the effect it has on mental health. Constant exposure to curated, idealised versions of others’ lives can lead to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety and depression. Teenagers may feel pressured to live up to unrealistic standards, affecting their self-esteem and sense of self-worth. There is also the potential for addiction. With their constant notifications, likes and shares, social media apps are designed to capture attention and keep users engaged forever. That can lead to excessive screen time, reducing time spent on other important activities such as studying, physical exercise and face-to-face interactions, all of which are essential for healthy development. Social media can also affect sleep patterns—having brought up two children, I know how difficult it can be to remove a phone at bedtime. Ultimately, parents are responsible for how they bring up their children. They are responsible for deciding whether and when to allow their child to have a smartphone, and how long they use it for. But parents need help, and tech companies have a responsibility to ensure that children are not exposed to harmful or addictive products. Social media can also expose teenagers to cyber-bullying. Online platforms can be breeding grounds for harmful behaviour, as people feel anonymous and less accountable for their actions. Negative comments, trolling and harassment can take a toll on teenagers’ emotional health, sometimes leading to tragic consequences. I was pleased when the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), having been successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot, announced that he would introduce a Bill to increase the digital age of consent from 13 to 16. As such, when the Bill was published—only yesterday—I was surprised to discover that the very measure he talked about has not been included. All the Bill requires is that the Secretary of State makes a statement about whether that age threshold should be raised. Why is that? I suspect that what may have happened is that the hon. Member received a visit from one of the Government Whips, who told him that he had a very promising career ahead of him, should he agree to do the right thing and water down the legislation to the point at which it does not actually do very much at all.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I maintain that this Bill is a waste of time. I will vote for it today, if we get the opportunity. Unfortunately, I understand that the debate is going to be adjourned, which suggests that the Government are not that serious about taking it forward. I will vote with a heavy heart, because I really think the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington could have achieved so much more if he had had the courage of his convictions.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but having spent a great deal of time talking about raising the digital age of consent and having asked my constituents to email me if they wanted me to be present in this House today specifically to vote for that, rather than working in the constituency, I wish that he had presented a Bill that said that, because we could then have voted on it and it would have passed. Of course, the Government might have killed it off at a later stage, but I actually think they might have been too embarrassed to do that. There is nothing in this Bill that requires legislation. The Secretary of State could ask the UK’s chief medical officers to provide their advice, as clause 1 requires, and they would do so. The Secretary of State could publish a plan for research, as required by clause 2, and an assessment, as required by clause 3. The sad truth is that this Bill achieves precisely nothing, and the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington should be a little bit ashamed of having campaigned so vigorously and then presented this Bill.

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

  More

  The Sentencing Council has issued guidelines saying that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered before sentencing a criminal from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, or if the criminal is a woman or a transsexual, but not, apparently, if someone is a straight, white, Christian man. That evidence of two-tier justice is corrosive to public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. Given that Ministry of Justice officials attend the Sentencing Council, either the Lord Chancellor knew of the policy or she was asleep at the wheel. For the record, the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, Alex Chalk, has described this as ridiculous. The Leader of the House failed to give a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), so will she find time for a debate on the Sentencing Council?

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  Many women in my constituency are doing incredible things, and I am pleased to speak in this debate on International Women’s Day. Judith Ballard, Moira Allen, Molly and Rachel Fitton, and Joy Russell are all leading members of the Save Pawlett Hams action group, who successfully convinced EDF that it should not destroy a beloved local area of natural beauty with an unwanted salt marsh. Rose Stacey is a successful local business owner, who I nominated for an MP HERoes award for her work in our community and the local people she employs. Niki Miles visited me in Parliament to raise awareness about the dangers of gambling addiction, in memory of her brother Del. Amy Branson, along with her husband Ben, has campaigned on the injustice of sentencing guidelines, in memory of their daughter Bethany who was killed by a drunk driver in 2022. Emma-Elizabeth Murphy is a special constable who brought my attention to the fact that specials cannot request unpaid time off work like magistrates or councillors. She inspired me to table an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, and Labour Members can show their support by co-signing new clause 30. I particularly want to pay tribute to the Nelson Trust Somerset women’s centre, based in Bridgwater. Celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, the Nelson Trust provides one-stop shop support to more than 5,000 women annually, from its network of women’s centres across the south-west and Wales. The centres are safe women-only spaces, provided for women who are experiencing multiple unmet needs, such as homelessness, addiction, mental ill health, domestic and sexual abuse, and familial separation. Having seen the huge difference that the centre makes to some of the most vulnerable women in my constituency, I pay tribute to Gemma Berry and Lorna Griffiths for their incredible work, and for their service not only to women but to our whole community.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  The Government were elected eight months ago with a promise to go for growth, but so far most of their policies seem designed to make life more difficult for business. Their £25 billion national insurance jobs tax is a direct assault on the businesses that create jobs. The increase in capital gains tax, the introduction of the family business tax and the family farm tax all discourage entrepreneurship. The 1970s-style employment laws are slowing business growth and discouraging job creation. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will increase costs to businesses by £5 billion, borne mostly by small businesses. Take day one rights. If, after less than one week, it becomes apparent that a new employee is the wrong fit for a business, a complicated process must be followed to dismiss them. Speaking as a former—though fully qualified —solicitor, I know the businesses that will be hit hardest are the ones with no human resources department. Get the process wrong, and they could be taken to court for unfair dismissal. Another example is the obligation for the employer to notify an employee in writing that they have the right to join a trade union. Is that something we would reasonably expect from the local publican, or the proprietor of a family newsagent? In what world is that really going to occur? Yet if it does not occur, those small businesses will on the hook for an additional four weeks’ salary in damages. That will have brutal consequences for very many microbusinesses and will deter them from employing people. The Bill also establishes an advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. That body will advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the labour market. It is an expensive and pointless exercise. The Secretary of State has plenty of avenues to collect advice already. There will be a complicated process for selecting members of the panel, which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and money. The members of the board will be paid hundreds of pounds a day. This is a sham process designed to allow the Secretary of State to hand out sinecures to receive advice on strategy from his union friends that he could have got for free. The first instinct of this 1970s-style old Labour Government is to regulate, to stifle innovation and to back the unions over business every time. We Conservatives will stand up for business and the people who make the economy work, and will continue to champion its success.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend refers to the increase in regulation. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which I have in my hand, is 192 pages long. Only this week, Government amendments totalling 216 pages have been tabled for this House to consider in two days next week. Does that not present any business with a vast quantity of new regulation to consider?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor has been in office for eight months today. Although her announcement of additional sitting days is welcome, it is regrettable that she did not make this statement seven months ago. There is only so long that she can blame the last Government for the Crown court backlog. We all know that the pandemic was largely responsible for the substantial increase. We know that the Lady Chief Justice has offered the Lord Chancellor a further 2,500 sitting days. Why is she not taking advantage of that? There are currently too many people on remand for too long, and it is clear that even the announcement that she made today will not lead to a reduction in the backlog, so we need structural change. Will the Lord Chancellor give serious consideration to the creation of an intermediate court, so that we can reduce the backlog more quickly?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Bridgwater’s 77 pubs, including the Crossways Inn in West Huntspill, are at the heart of our local communities, yet the sector overpays £500 million in business rates relative to turnover. Will the Chancellor commit to the British Beer and Pub Association’s call for a 20p cut in the small business multiplier and 15p off the standard multiplier, in order to secure the future of British pubs?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Finance Bill implements the 2024 autumn Budget. That was a bad budget and this is a bad Bill. It punishes businesses, discourages entrepreneurship and raises taxes on those trying to make a living. It will lead to job losses, reduced investment and higher prices. It will lead to higher interest rates and higher Government debt, which will lead to lower growth. If we wanted to make a list of things that our economy did not need, this Finance Bill would be a good starting point. The Bill is built on broken promises. The amendments tabled try to help the Government to keep their manifesto promises. During the election, Labour told the public that its plans were fully costed and fully funded. Its manifesto said that it would increase spending by £11 billion, so how can the Government now justify an increase in spending of £70 billion a year funded by an extra £40 billion in taxes and £30 billion in borrowing? Even if people believe the fairy story of the black hole told by Labour Members—I do not—£11 billion plus £22 billion does not equal £70 billion. Is not the truth that the Labour party always planned a large increase in taxes and borrowing but did not have the courage to tell the British people in advance? The Chancellor and the Prime Minister insisted that working people would be protected, but it is now clear either that they were wrong or that they do not consider small business owners, publicans or farmers to be working people.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I invited the Minister to explain how the Budget would improve the lot of farmers. In particular, I gave the example of the £5 million family farm that would incur an inheritance charge of £400,000. How will that family pay that out of an annual income of about £50,000? That is eight years’ income, with nothing to live on.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, combined with the rise in the minimum wage and Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, the contents of this Finance Bill seem to deliberately set out to harm small businesses. The Labour Government’s plan to introduce inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses is more evidence, if it were needed, that they do not understand how farms and small businesses work. Under this Government, a family farm with land, buildings and machinery worth £5 million will incur inheritance tax of £400,000 when it passes to the next generation. That same farm might produce a return of 1%, or £50,000, in an average year, so the Government are proposing to take all that family’s income for the next eight years. I have a question for the Minister: how does he expect that family to live in the meantime? Labour’s response to our farmers has been to sneer at our rural communities. The Treasury offered a Minister to farming representatives, who then spent that time telling them that there was not a problem. This is bad not just for farmers but for rural economies and our nation’s food security. This Finance Bill increases taxes, spending and borrowing. It makes our public sector larger and the private sector smaller. It does exactly the opposite of what is required. If we want a prosperous society, we need to encourage enterprise. We need low and simple taxes that incentivise people to work hard, to invest and to grow their businesses. This Finance Bill does exactly the opposite, and that is why we will oppose it this evening.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that there are one or two good parts to this Finance Bill, but the hon. Gentleman was elected on a manifesto pledge to increase spending by £11 billion, and that was fully costed, yet this Finance Bill increases spending by £70 billion. I just wonder why he and his hon. Friends did not have the courage to put that before the British people at the election. Small and medium-sized enterprises and the hard-working entrepreneurs who run them are the backbone of our economy, and they are the victims of this Finance Bill. In constituencies such as Bridgwater, where SMEs are key to local prosperity, the Government have imposed a huge national insurance hike that will make it more expensive to employ people. This rise, which breaks Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise national insurance, will cost SMEs £732 more per year for every employee earning £20,000. This tax on jobs will stifle growth and lead to higher unemployment. The rise in national insurance is especially damaging to those in the healthcare sector, and the proposed amendments will help to assess the damage that that causes. Last week, representatives from the social care—

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. People in the social care sector in Bridgwater were particularly concerned that the national insurance contributions rise had not been subject to an assessment. Assessing the damage that it and the other tax rises will do is therefore critical to the successful implementation of this Finance Bill.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right: all Labour’s measures will increase unemployment. Although Labour will say it has reduced the multiplier of business rates, this does not fully compensate—it leaves an average pub paying an additional £5,500 a year. This is not a sustainable burden for many businesses that are already struggling with inflation and rising costs. These taxes add up, and will lead to closures, job losses and harm to our communities. Another troubling decision from the Labour party is the reduction of the cap on business property relief. BPR, introduced in 1976 by Denis Healey, was designed to protect family-owned businesses from being broken up and to ensure these businesses could continue to provide jobs and contribute to the economy across generations. It is extraordinary that Labour has found a Chancellor less sympathetic to businesses than Healey. This decision is a blow to those who have worked tirelessly to build and sustain their businesses, and will force families to sell their businesses or take on crippling debts just to pay the taxman. For many, this will be the end of their family businesses. The Employment Rights Bill will require employers to spend £150 per employee on additional administrative costs to comply with new rules, including a ban on zero-hours contracts and potential liabilities for third-party harassment. At a time when businesses are already under strain, this is a further unnecessary cost, especially for small businesses that do not have the resources to navigate the red tape. Having spent 11 weeks going through the Employment Rights Bill line by line, I know just how damaging it will be to SMEs in Bridgwater and elsewhere. Let us take just one example: the so-called day one rights. These rights would mean that if, after less than a week, it became apparent that a new employee was the wrong fit for a company, a complicated process would have to be followed to dismiss them. Speaking as a former—though fully qualified—solicitor, I know that this will have a disproportionate effect on small businesses without an HR department. If they do not dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s, they will be left exposed to being taken to court for unfair dismissal.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman would be correct if, in fact, there was a written contract that included a probationary period. What he forgets, however, is that many small businesses will conclude that contract on a handshake and a verbal agreement—there will not be a formal probationary period. It is exactly those small businesses that do not use a written contract that will be liable to legal action. Let us take another example. Should a business fail to notify a new employee of their right to join a trade union in writing, it may be liable to pay an additional four weeks’ pay as a compensatory award. In what world is this system really going to work? Do we believe that those running a corner shop, pub or fishmonger are going to give their employees written notice that they have the right to join a trade union? No, they will not—and legal consequences will follow. We on the Conservative Benches believe that businesses are at the heart of the economy and that they should not be punished by Government policies that stifle growth and investment. It is important to note that, when it comes to business, this Government’s track record is deeply troubling. Just one member of the Cabinet has ever started a business. When decisions are made by those who do not understand the pressures faced by small business owners, it is no surprise that the policies are so harmful. The Labour Government that we face is not a new Labour Government in the Tony Blair model. It is very much an old Labour Government of the 1970s, addicted to taxing, spending, borrowing and regulating. I regret to say that we will see unemployment rise. We will support family businesses, safeguard jobs and ensure that the British economy prospers.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased the Opposition are using our time today to debate the importance of businesses large and small. It is the private sector that creates the wealth on which our society depends, and it is the taxes businesses pay that fund our NHS and other important public services. The policies of this Labour Government, from raising taxes to imposing additional regulations, are putting those businesses at risk. Having promised during the general election not to increase NICs, the Chancellor immediately broke that promise in the Budget. This national insurance hike will cost employers £900 for every employee earning the average salary. The tax rise disproportionately affects employees on low wages. Someone earning £9,000 a year will cost their employer an extra £600 a year in tax. This is not just a tax on businesses; it is a tax on jobs. Labour has introduced a £25 billion jobs tax that will increase the cost of hiring workers. It has also increased business rates by £2.7 billion. Under the Conservatives, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors received a 75% relief on their business rates; Labour has reduced this relief to just 40%.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties is that employers cannot spend the money from the apprenticeship levy easily, and that too much of that money is retained by the Treasury? Will she undertake to speak to the Chancellor to see whether she could make it easier for employers to spend that money on training?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill is important for the future of technical education and apprenticeships in our country, and I accept that the Government’s intention is to streamline the governance and management of skills. However, I believe that, in its current form, the Bill threatens to centralise the system to such an extent that it may undermine the independence and effectiveness of our skills system. The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education was established with the clear purpose of ensuring that apprenticeship standards and assessments were determined with the input of employers, education providers and industry experts. I fear that by abolishing this body in favour of a group of civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State, the Government will make technical education less responsive to the needs of the labour market. The Bill removes the requirement to publish regular reviews of occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. The Government say that removing this duty allows for much greater flexibility, but they are doing so without ensuring that the views of employers, educators and other relevant bodies will continue to be heard and considered. The Bill grants the Secretary of State power to determine the standards and assessments that will be used to measure progress in technical education. No longer will these decisions be made by a broad group of stakeholders, including employers and sector specialists. What does all this mean for our workforce, and what does it mean for learners? It means that we are at risk of creating a system that is more distant, less responsive and potentially less effective. When decisions are made by civil servants without the input of those on the ground—those directly impacted by these decisions—we risk losing touch with the realities of the skills landscape.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The pandemic clearly had something to do with that reduction. I would not say the system is perfect, but I fear that replacing it with a committee of civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State is likely to be less successful still. Amendments have been made in the other place to address some of these concerns. Specifically, a one-year delay was added between the establishment of Skills England and the commencement of the Bill, which would allow for a more effective transition and give Skills England a better chance of getting up and running. It is crucial that we do not damage the very real progress that was made on technical education under the last Government. During the general election, my party pledged to raise the number of people in high-skilled apprenticeships by 100,000 per year, representing a 30% rise. This was to recognise that, for many young people, apprenticeships represent a better way to enter the workplace than some university degrees. Bridgwater and Taunton College, based in my constituency, is the UK’s largest provider of apprenticeships, supporting thousands of learners in achieving their career ambitions. With over 120 apprenticeship programmes, the college offers exceptional opportunities for individuals to gain hands-on experience and develop the skills needed for today’s competitive job market. BTC’s success is reflected in its recent achievements, such as its registered nurse degree apprenticeship, which recruited 53 apprentices in the 2023-24 academic year alone. The college’s commitment to employer engagement and industry-aligned training is at the heart of its success. It has strong partnerships with employers of all sizes, ensuring that its apprenticeship programmes meet local and national skill needs. While BTC welcomes the streamlining of the management of apprenticeships, it is clear that these changes must not reduce the quality of education and support provided to apprentices. As it rightly points out, it is crucial that these changes do not compromise the wellbeing of students or the high standards of education they have come to expect. I hope that the new framework will continue to uphold these standards and ensure that the needs of both students and employers are met effectively. It is this type of local, industry-focused and employer-engaged approach to skills training that we should be fostering. In conclusion, while I understand the desire to create a streamlined, more efficient system, the Government must be careful not to sacrifice the effectiveness and independence that have been the hallmark of our apprenticeship and technical education system. This Bill, in its current form, grants perhaps too much power to the Secretary of State with too little accountability. It risks diminishing the role of employers and learners, and weakening the checks and balances that have served us well, so I will continue to scrutinise this Bill as it proceeds through Parliament.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be easier for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour if they had more support for special constables? The number of special constables has fallen in recent years, particularly since the pandemic. Will she agree to consider amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring special constables within section 50?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Bridgwater railway station has a bus stop that has remained unusable since its construction due to road layout and safety issues. Despite this being a relatively small fix, Somerset council has yet to take action. What additional support can the Government provide to ensure that buses can stop at the station safely and improve connectivity in my constituency?