Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister acknowledge that debt reduction is taking place only because the Government have increased taxes by £66 billion? That contrasts with the tax rise of £7 billion that the Labour party promised in its manifesto. Could he explain the huge discrepancy between that manifesto promise and what the Government are imposing on our constituents?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member seems entirely ignorant of the success in Liverpool Crown court, where from 23 June, Operation Expedite reduced court delays by one third. Does he not think that it is worth replicating that experiment, which has been so successful in Liverpool, before curtailing the right to trial by jury?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The Government are changing the balance of power between the citizen and the state, then pleading delays in Crown court trials as justification. This policy of curtailing the right to jury trials is ideological. In January, the Courts Minister was asked about the plans to overhaul jury trials. She admitted that she would be scrapping jury trials even if there was no courts backlog. I wonder how many Labour colleagues agree with her. I think that is disgraceful, and I suspect that there are more than 80 Labour MPs who agree with me. There is no doubt that the Crown court backlog is a serious issue. The Leveson report contains many useful proposals to improve the criminal justice system, and I will support them, but the backlog was not caused by the right to trial by jury, and it will not be alleviated by curtailing that right. In my view, the solution is to increase the capacity of the Crown court, and in fairness, parts of the Bill aim to do that. However, why does the Lord Chancellor think that abolishing jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do? Senior judges, legal professionals, and even learned Labour MPs have all warned that removing juries will make only a marginal difference—if any—and as a former solicitor, I agree. Judges themselves have said that the supposed time savings are inherently uncertain. Single-judge trials still require full evidence, witnesses, legal argument and detailed, reasoned judgments. That takes time; in fact, the Bill risks leaving courtrooms empty while judges write up their decisions instead of hearing other cases. There are other reforms that we should make before sacrificing the right to trial by jury. To take one example, the Lord Chancellor should look at the wider efficiency of the Ministry of Justice. For the past two years, the MOJ—which includes the courts service—lost the highest number of days to sickness and absence per member of staff in the whole of Whitehall. Each employee took an average of 10.7 days of sickness, which equates to over two working weeks a year for every member of staff. Not only is that 30% higher than the civil service average, but it is double the average of the private sector. I have always thought that sickness is a fairly good indication of how well a company, charity or Department is run, and perhaps if the Lord Chancellor focused his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the whole system improve. The Lord Chancellor should also look at the listing practices of different court circuits in England. The western circuit, which covers Somerset, has a much lower backlog than London does, and the Liverpool circuit is probably the most efficient in the country. Why does the Lord Chancellor not try to replicate the listing practices of the Liverpool circuit before taking this disastrous step? He has previously said that cutting jury trials would be a mistake—in the past, he thought that was wrong. I believe that his first judgment, according to his conscience, was the right one, and I urge him to reconsider his plans.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participate in the administration of criminal justice and gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour party seem to take delight in tearing up long-held principles that underpin our constitution simply because it is politically expedient to do so. They are shredding our constitution without much thought as to the consequences.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which declines to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the Bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The Government’s plan to curtail jury trials is wrong.

• 10 Mar 2026 · High Street Businesses: Tax Changes · Hansard source

  More

  Many retail, hospitality and tourism businesses in my constituency traditionally give young people their first job, but with the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the unemployment rights Act and now huge increases in rates, many of those businesses are struggling to survive, so they just cannot afford to take on those young people. Does the Minister accept that his Government are the reason that youth unemployment is now higher in the UK than in the EU for the first time since records began?

• 10 Mar 2026 · High Street Businesses: Tax Changes · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates announced in the autumn Budget 2025 on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. In 2023, Parliament legislated to protect freedom of speech on our university campuses, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring section 8 of the Act into force, so will the Minister set out a clear timetable for commencing the complaints scheme to ensure that our academics are protected from censorship and silencing?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Independent Faith Schools: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  The justification for this tax given in the Labour party manifesto was to raise revenue to employ more teachers in the state sector, yet we now know that in November 2025, there were 1,400 fewer teachers than 12 months previously. Can the Minister tell us where the money has gone?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Independent Faith Schools: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the solution that the hon. Gentleman is presenting for faith-based schools, but does he accept that any tax on education is wrong in principle? Would he support my party’s policy of reversing the burden of VAT for all independent schools?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Active Lifestyles · Hansard source

  More

  Bridgwater is the home of carnival. At nearly 180 years old, ours is the oldest carnival in the UK. This fantastic cultural event promotes an active lifestyle among the whole community. However, every year the cost of complying with legislation makes it that little bit harder to continue. Will the Minister meet with me and members of the carnival to discuss what support might be available so that this fantastic spectacle continues for another 180 years?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Gibraltar Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I was honoured to represent Gibraltar during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament, so I know how important their British identity is to our fellow citizens living there. I am pleased that the treaty was negotiated with and agreed by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, but can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar’s Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty and that we will have the opportunity to know that Parliament’s views before we vote in this House?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  During the recent floods in Somerset, the Minister for Water and Flooding said that “the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset” —[ Official Report , 11 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 890.] and that it will consider “when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term.” —[ Official Report , 11 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 890.] Given the agency’s decision to withdraw from main river maintenance, I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time so that we can discuss these issues and the Environment Agency’s effectiveness at preventing flooding.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Grenfell Tower Annual Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the funding that the Secretary of State has announced to support the memorial commission. We have a shortage of skilled builders, plumbers, electricians and other construction workers in this country. Is he confident that we have a sufficiently trained workforce to carry out all the remedial works in the timescale that he has outlined? If not, what additional steps can the Government take to ensure that the works are completed on time?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and welcome his commitment to maintaining a minimum network size of 11,500 branches and all six geographical access criteria. Currently, 79% of the network is a full service branch, so why have the Government set the new 50% requirement, which is so much lower than that? Is that to allow the Post Office to downsize by stealth?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Access to NHS Dental Services · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents continue to find it very difficult to get an appointment with an NHS dentist. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage dentists in rural areas, so that my constituents can have access to an NHS dentist?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree with the concerns raised by the Highbridge, Huntspill and Burnham District Wildfowling Club in my constituency that aligning these licences will put an undue burden on shotgun owners and suppliers, and put increased pressure on our rural communities?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Does this not suggest that when a deal was presented to the then Conservative Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she declined to sign it because she judged it not in the British interest? It does rather seem as though this Government have rolled over on this key point, which will allow Indian firms to import Indian workers in preference to British ones.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman quotes a Brexit hit of 6% to 8% of GDP. Has he just invented that figure or has he got some evidence for it?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would know that I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton. That, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter. The Government seem to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The Prime Minister did, of course, try to produce a package of modest reforms last year. He set out to save £4.5 billion, but was forced into a humiliating U-turn and ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. He now says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”. Does anyone believe him? There is not a thought for the taxpayer, and not a thought about the extra debt that the Government are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it. Let me remind Labour Members that before the election, they said repeatedly that they would “not increase taxes on working people”. That was accompanied by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion, but in the 18 months since they were elected, the Government have actually increased spending by £100 billion—10 times more than they promised. They have increased taxes by £66 billion, and borrowing by an extra £40 billion. This is what the Labour Government do best: spending other people’s money. It is in their DNA. They do not care about getting better value for the taxpayer; their only thought is about how to spend and borrow more, as if that were a sign of caring. I am proud to have a leader with the backbone to tell the truth to the British people. We need to reduce the size of the state so that it does less but does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing—who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who build a more prosperous country for all of us.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The benefits system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship, but a fair system must balance that with the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by the taxpayers of today or, if the money is borrowed, as is so often the case with this Government, by the taxpayers of tomorrow. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on the taxpayer, and that cost is growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of the decade. It is a mark of Labour’s irresponsibility that it presents a Bill today to increase welfare spending further. I believe in personal responsibility. Not only should our country live within its means, but every individual and family should do so too. Many thousands of couples every year think about whether to have children. They make that choice based on a number of factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Those in receipt of benefits should face the same choices as those in work. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child benefit cap, and it is why I believe it should be retained. Under the pre-2017 system, there was a fundamental element of unfairness. A family in receipt of benefits saw them increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family not in receipt of benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work? I understand why Labour Members are in favour of more welfare spending. They stopped representing working people a long time ago, and they now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their re-election. Why has the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), supported scrapping the two-child cap until so very recently? Voters in my constituency, some even sympathetic to his cause, have been horrified. I think the answer is that he is chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour voters. That instinct for higher spending shows that Reform UK is wholly unserious about governing our country. Britain needs a Government determined to deliver the changes we need: controlling public expenditure and reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.