Ashley Fox MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point, and I agree with her. That is why I started my speech with a reference to electricity being rolled out to the last few villages in the 1940s. We would think that was extraordinary nowadays. The Government certainly have a duty to roll out broadband to the whole country. The previous Government had a good record on rolling out gigabit broadband throughout the UK. In 2018, full-fibre coverage stood at 6% of UK households; today, the proportion is 78%, which is a remarkable transformation. But the Minister will be aware that we need that to go up to 100%, and I hope he will outline how this Government will complete the journey.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I think the word “shambles” is harsh; I would say that “patchy” is a more accurate description. Going from 6% in 2018 to 78% today is an achievement, and the hon. Lady should give some credit for that. The Conservative Government made a deliberate and strategic choice about the future of digital infrastructure. We chose a pro-competition, pro-investment regulatory framework that was designed not to crowd out private capital but to attract it, and that choice has delivered real results across the length and breadth of Britain.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the time taken to install gigabit capable broadband on rural communities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Broadband is now an essential part of daily life. Families, businesses and communities all rely on a good connection. The fact that most of us managed without it for most of our lives is irrelevant; times change, and we change with them. I recall family friends talking, when I was a child, about electricity coming to their village in the 1940s. We would not now think it tolerable for any village not to have a reliable supply of electricity, because the provision of electricity is a basic service—a utility that underpins almost everything in daily life. In many ways, that is what broadband is becoming. I represent a beautiful Somerset constituency that is part rural and part urban. I can see the different issues that persist in different areas, and the gap in service between those who live in the town and those who live in the countryside. Last year, I conducted a survey of the rural areas in my constituency and asked residents to rate the quality of their broadband service. I asked them to give scores out of 10 across customer service, internet speed, reliability and value for money.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who anticipates a section of my speech on farmers. I am going to make a little progress, if I may. Those in the most remote rural areas of my constituency reported the worst service. For example, residents of Broomfield rated their service at 2.6 out of 10; in Lyng, it was 2.2 out of 10; and in Durleigh, it was an average of just 1.5 out of 10. When I am out on the doorstep, access to reliable broadband is one of the most noticeable gaps between the experience of those in towns and of those in small villages.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have perhaps similar constituencies, in that we have one large dominant town and a hinterland of many small villages and hamlets. Those in the town often have a very good service, while those in the small villages do not. A lack of reliable broadband limits productivity, increases stress and makes it harder for rural businesses to compete on an equal footing.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Problems with internet connectivity and mobile connectivity often affect the same areas. This debate is specifically about broadband, but I would be happy if the Minister chose to touch on mobile signals as well. The lack of reliable broadband is not just inconvenient; it is actively damaging to business.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He is right that time that should be spent running a business is often wasted waiting for files to load, forms to submit or video calls to reconnect. My constituent Sue Felstead runs a restaurant at Greenway farm in Wembdon. She had ongoing problems with the farm’s internet service, which had a hugely negative impact on her business. She relied on broadband for the card machine, the music system and other devices, but had a download speed of only 2 megabits per second. That meant that customers who were waiting to pay by card could not pay their bill because the internet would crash, and that music would be cut off midway through a song. The issue got so bad that BT told Sue she would be better off using Starlink. That is an extraordinary thing for BT to tell her, and I hope the Minister will comment on that. In the end, it cost her £1,500 to have Starlink installed.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. We are waiting for the Government to respond to a consultation. I will now make some progress so that the Minister has time to respond. The objective of the previous Government was simple but ambitious. It was to reduce reliance on a single incumbent network and instead create the conditions for alternative network providers to emerge, scale and thrive. The results—that transformation from 6% to 78%—speak for themselves, but we cannot be complacent because, if we are serious about closing the digital divide and ensuring that gigabit connectivity reaches all rural communities, we must continue the momentum. That will depend on a stable, competitive regulatory regime that gives investors the confidence to commit capital for the long term. It will also require action to remove the remaining barriers to roll-out, including planning obstacles that can cause unnecessary delays, particularly in rural areas. In Somerset, we have had particular issues with the roll-out. Airband was contracted to roll out fibre-optic broadband to more than 55,000 homes in Devon and Somerset. In the end, it descoped thousands of properties, committing to deliver only 27,000 homes, which is fewer than half of its initial target. More than 3,000 properties in my constituency were descoped. While Openreach has now taken up the contract for the majority of those properties, my constituents are still being left with unacceptable delays. Many villages are still looking at waits until 2030 for the roll-out of broadband, and I worry that some might have to wait even longer. Openreach has shared with me its concerns that there is a shortfall in funding from the last spending review, meaning that there is a risk that the Government do not meet their 99% gigabit-coverage target by 2032, which is already an unacceptably long time for my constituents in remote rural areas to wait to be connected. It would be intolerable if it were to be delayed further. Will the Minister clarify in his response whether he believes he has sufficient funding to meet the 99% target? When will the Government bring forward their statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom, which is a critical step to shape the next phase of the UK’s digital infrastructure journey? The Minister will know that the consultation on this ended in September; we await his Department’s response. This Government are quick to issue a consultation, but they seem rather slower to act. My constituents in remote rural areas feel let down by this Government. They have had to deal with the family farm tax and the uncertainty that has created. They have had to deal with the sustainable farming incentive being withdrawn without any notice whatsoever by an utterly incompetent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As such, this issue of rural broadband is very important if my residents are to have confidence that they can live, enjoy life and run thriving businesses in the remote rural areas in Somerset. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I agree with her and hope the Minister will respond. We cannot expect businesses to survive, let alone grow, if they are cut off from the digital world that the rest of the country takes for granted. For farmers and small business owners, the issue is especially unfair. They are required to interact with Government agencies, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and with banks almost entirely online, yet many are forced to do so with unreliable connections, painfully slow upload and download speeds, and constant disruptions.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the Secretary of State well with this initiative, but does he share my concern that as his Department seeks to reduce youth unemployment, the Chancellor is doing everything she can to increase it, with her jobs tax increasing unemployment? Of the 170,000 payroll jobs lost since the election, until November 2025, some 45% involved young people. This Government have cost young people 150 jobs per day since they came into office. How does his scheme cope with that?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are already concerned that Avon and Somerset constabulary is dominated by Bristol and that far too few resources are devoted to Somerset’s smaller towns and villages. How will the Home Secretary ensure that her new, larger regional forces police our rural communities properly?

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement, and ask her for two points of clarification. Does she believe that it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence services to determine what information is provided to an investigation, or should that be determined by someone else, and does she accept that in the early stages of the Bill, the Government were clear that it would not be possible to make the Bill applicable to individual agents? How can the House have confidence that we can now do that without creating unacceptable risks to national security?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake)? In the village of Cossington, there is a small housing estate that had the misfortune to be managed by FirstPort. My residents had to put up with unexplained charges, poor service and a complete lack of transparency. While my residents have wisely changed to a new management company, the incompetence of FirstPort continues to afflict them. Despite repeated requests, including from my office, FirstPort has failed to provide the financial information required to allow my residents to complete their statutory accounts. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement on how the Government will enable residents to hold failing management companies to account?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are opposed to digital ID, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn—I look forward to him being given responsibility for jury trials as well. The problem is that digital ID will have no effect on illegal working or illegal migration, because employers that ignore the system at the moment will continue to ignore the new system. The real problem is that the Government are not deporting those illegal migrants they catch.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is going to pay a floating wind farm £216 per megawatt-hour. Can he explain how that will lower fuel prices for my constituents?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A Budget is the most important set of choices that a Government can make, and introducing clause 10 is a choice by this Government. I oppose clause 10 because it extends the freeze on the personal income tax allowance and the basic rate limit for a further three years, from 2028 to 2031. That means that rates will have been frozen for 10 years. The choice in this Budget, as in all others, was clear: will spending be controlled or will taxes be raised? For the second year running, this Labour Chancellor chose higher taxes. In 2024, the Chancellor said that to extend this freeze would be to break her manifesto commitment not to raise the level of income tax, but at this Budget, she did it anyway. At the last election, the Government promised growth. They promised not to raise taxes on working people and to fund public services through a stronger economy, but from the moment that they took office, they have done the opposite. Labour have expanded welfare without reform, handed out huge pay deals without productivity gains and piled costs and regulations on to employers. When the inevitable bill came, what did they do? They reached into the taxpayer’s wallet. These tax rises are a political choice. The consequences of these choices are clear. Taxes on working people are at record highs, growth is sluggish and unemployment has risen consistently since the election. Record numbers are now trapped outside the labour market on benefits, with no requirement and no incentive to seek work at all. Those who do the right thing, who work hard to provide for their families, now face higher tax bills to fund an ever-larger welfare state.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman believe that increasing taxation on dividends will result in more entrepreneurs taking risks, employing people and growing the economy, or fewer?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister agree that the overall thrust of these clauses is to discourage saving and enterprise, and to hit the people who do the right thing, all to fund more welfare spending? That is not a recipe for growth, is it?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which anticipates my next point. Teachers in my constituency have written to me saying that they will be pushed into the higher rate tax bracket by 2030, paying 40% on any extra work that they do—marking exams during the summer, for example—and that doing such work is not worth it any more. Many pensioners in my constituency, who have worked and saved all their lives, and who have done the right thing, are now set to be punished too. Clause 10 will drag more pensioners with modest private pensions into the tax system. Freezing allowances will mean more pensioners paying tax on their income from savings. Anyone with income from a private pension or income from savings will now face having to fill out a tax return, and that number will grow when clause 10 takes effect. Unlike those in work, pensioners cannot put in more hours or ask for a pay rise. They are victims of this Government’s failure to control public expenditure. Where is all the extra money that clause 10 will raise going to go? Rises in welfare spending. With the uprating of universal credit, the rise in the amount of people claiming health-related benefits and now the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, more and more families are finding it less beneficial to work. Clause 10 is perverse. It discourages work and entrenches dependency. Labour says it is all about fairness and compassion, but in truth it is the opposite. The best way to alleviate poverty is through work, and that is exactly what Labour’s Budget seeks to discourage. There is another choice. Had the Chancellor chosen to control public expenditure, then clause 10 would not be necessary. She could have chosen to make work pay. She could have chosen to reduce our welfare bill, to increase productivity in the public sector, and used savings to reduce debt and protect taxpayers, but she chose not to because when faced with difficult decisions, this Government’s guiding principle is their own survival: surviving the next vote, the next headline and the next rebellion by Labour Back Benchers. This Government have now U-turned on headline policies 12 times. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, that meets the definition of serial incompetence. The people paying for the price for this incompetence are working people, pensioners, and everyone who has ever worked hard and done the right thing to provide for themselves and their families. It is no wonder that my constituents are so livid with this Government, and that is why I shall oppose clause 10, which is the cornerstone of this Budget for “Benefits Street”.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he seriously saying that increasing the rate of tax on dividends will result in more investment in this country?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree that the Government should curtail our rights to trial by jury. Trial by jury is an ancient right in England and the very essence of our criminal justice system. Combined with the Government proposals for digital ID, it reveals a very authoritarian attitude. It marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and I shall vote against it. There is a crisis within the criminal justice system and specifically with the Crown court backlog, but that backlog was not caused by trial by jury and will not be cured by its removal. Why does the Lord Chancellor believe that abolishing the right to jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do to bring down the backlog? If it is based on evidence, as he says, will he publish that as soon as possible? In the last two years, Government figures show that the Ministry of Justice, which includes the court service, lost the highest number of days per member of staff in sickness and absence in the whole of Whitehall, at an average of 10.7 days of sickness—more than two working weeks for every member of staff. That is more than 30% higher than the civil service average and over twice the UK average if the private sector is included. Were the Lord Chancellor to focus his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the system as a whole improve.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  In my experience, staff absence is normally the result of poor management. I suspect that the Ministry of Justice is managing its staff significantly worse than the rest of the civil service if staff sickness is 30% above the public sector average, which is not great to begin with. With approximately 16,400 staff in the court service, simply reducing the rate of absences to the civil service average would free up nearly 50,000 working days. That would help cut the backlog without undermining the principle of a fair trial. We know that this Government have a habit of making bad decisions, getting ambitious Back Benchers to defend them for a few months and sending a hapless junior Minister out to face the media while the Secretary of State hides in his office, only at the last minute to realise what a disaster the plans are before executing a U-turn that comes far too late for them to gain any credit. We have seen that on winter fuel, welfare reform, the grooming gangs inquiry, the two-child benefit cap and, most recently, the family farm and family business tax, so I urge Labour Back Benchers to be very cautious about supporting the Government this evening. They risk voting for something that their constituents do not want and that in their hearts, they know is wrong. Ultimately, they know that late in the day, the Government will back down, leaving their credibility in shreds.