Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Dec 2025 · OBR: Resignation of Chair · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can rephrase that: the Chancellor inadvertently misled the public to justify those tax rises.

• 3 Dec 2025 · OBR: Resignation of Chair · Hansard source

  More

  For the first time in its history, the OBR was forced to correct the record about the forecasting process in the run-up to the Budget. Is not the reason that the Chancellor selectively leaked information from the OBR to mislead the public and justify tax rises?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the Chancellor increased public spending by £72 billion, financed by £40 billion of extra taxes and £32 billion of extra borrowing. That was all justified, we were told, by a mysterious black hole that only the Labour Front-Bench team could see. The OBR certainly could not find it. These tax rises were so large that the Chancellor felt it necessary to reassure the country that “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.” One year later, the Chancellor is back for more, raising Britain’s tax bill by a further £26 billion. These extra taxes will be paid by working people, like my constituent Rowena, who wrote to me after the Budget. She said: “I have worked in education for over 10 years and have only recently reached the top of the pay scale after years of dedication and hard work. I manage long hours, increasing responsibilities, and rising needs within schools, all while striving to maintain high standards for my students. I do this as I care deeply about educating future generations and also to pay my mortgage and support my three children. I do not claim any benefits, other than child benefit, and I have always taken pride in being financially independent. However, the changes announced today leave me questioning the value of this commitment. Under the new thresholds, I will be dragged into the 40% tax bracket, making additional work—such as examining during the summer—financially unviable. If I stop examining, students and schools will feel the impact. But what’s the point when 40% of that exam fee will disappear. Teachers are not high earners, yet these changes treat us as if we are. Calculators suggest I will be approximately £1,500 worse off annually. In fact, under the new rules, I would be financially better off and under less stress if I had two more children and claimed Universal Credit now that the two-child cap has been lifted. That is a deeply troubling message for hardworking professionals. I also want to share a personal perspective: my 15-year-old daughter is in Year 11 and about to take her GCSEs. I encourage her every day to work hard and aim for a successful career. But what is the purpose when she sees her parents struggling and effectively penalised for being hardworking? What message does this send to the next generation?” I hope that the Secretary of State will answer Rowena when she winds up. Twelve months ago, the Chancellor was opposed to removing the two-child benefit cap. It was too expensive and not the best way to tackle child poverty, and seven Labour MPs had the Whip removed when they voted against that. So what has changed? Well, nothing, except the collapse in the Prime Minister’s authority. He is buffeted by events because he has no principles and no vision for where he wants to lead our country. He is raising taxes on Rowena, and others like her, to increase benefits, because that is what Labour Back Benchers want. Devoid of any real purpose, his Government’s only guiding philosophy is to survive, so Labour is now doing what it has always done: taxing and spending, without thought for the consequences. Taxes on working people are rising to their highest level ever, all to pay for higher benefits for those who do not work. A Budget is about choices, and Labour has made its choices, because this is a Budget for “Benefits Street”.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  The closure of the ExxonMobil plant is bad news for the whole of the UK economy, and it is the direct result of Labour’s economic and energy policies. Does the Minister accept that by pushing up taxes and energy prices, his Government are making the UK an uncompetitive environment for energy-intensive industries? What policy changes will he make to ensure that this is not the first of many such closures?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The decision by Liberal Democrats on Somerset council to cancel the Cross Rifles roundabout upgrade in Bridgwater has left residents facing severe congestion. Combined with a new one-way system on Salmon Parade and East Quay, it has left Bridgwater gridlocked, and my constituents now face longer and more costly journeys. One resident, Sadie, told me that because of the one-way system, her weekly taxi fare to the supermarket has risen from £7 to £20. May we have a debate on how we can hold councils to account when they cancel Government-funded infrastructure projects without offering an alternative for local people?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I would suggest two reasons. First, our economy has slowed down as a result of the very tax increases that the Chancellor has imposed. Secondly, the feral Labour Back Benchers have made them lose their nerve. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor therefore cannot control public expenditure in any way at all. The British people are already paying the highest tax burden in 70 years and Labour wants to increase it further. It is sad to say that this Government have no clue as to how the economy works. I genuinely believe that their Front Benchers want to reduce unemployment, but have they ever considered that if they increase employer national insurance charges and the cost of employing labour, businesses might use less of it? If they pass an Employment Rights Bill that increases the cost of labour, might businesses use less labour? Might that be why unemployment has increased every month since they took office? Is that why unemployment increases under every Labour Government? Labour is just as ignorant on the effects of taxes and spending. If the Government tax entrepreneurs, there will be less enterprise. If they increase benefits, they should not be surprised if it becomes more attractive to claim them. Unfortunately, Labour’s answer to every question is more spending because, of course, it is what they do best: spending other people’s money. We never hear about its plans to improve efficiency or get better value for the taxpayer because there are no such plans. Labour’s higher taxes and borrowing are leading to higher unemployment and lower growth. We are in a doom loop created by the Chancellor, and if we are to revitalise our economy, the first step is for the Government to control public expenditure. That is why we have outlined our plans to reduce expenditure by £47 billion. We will reduce welfare spending by £23 billion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and other high-spending left-wing parties, we would keep the two-child benefit cap. We would reduce the size of the civil service to where it was in 2016, saving £8 billion, and reduce overseas aid by a further £7 billion. We would use those savings to cut both borrowing and taxes to bring about a new spirit of enterprise and confidence in our country. It is ironic that it is the Conservatives calling today for the Government to stick to their manifesto promise not to increase taxes. The British people will notice if they break that promise for a second time.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Government in 2010 with the Conservatives. We inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010—11% of GDP—and it took 10 years, to 2020, to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. For all the moaning and whining from the Labour Benches about austerity, what we were trying to do—as a coalition Government for five years and as a Conservative Government for the remainder—was to live within our means, and that is tough. That is really difficult. It is about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. We see that most successfully in the field of education. In England we have seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and the standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. That compares very favourably with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms did not take place. The skill of government is in improving public services without always spending more money. The Liberal Democrats used to have a few Members who were called “Orange Book” Members. It is a shame there are so few of them left. Who does the Chancellor think she is kidding when she says she has not increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they are not working people, or the young family where both parents work and are saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home. As Labour Members will recall, that first Budget was not well received, so to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said: “We’ve now wiped the slate clean. It’s now on us. We’ve put everything out into the open, we’ve set the spending envelope for the course of this Parliament. We don’t need to come back for more.” Except we know that that is not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  During the general election, the Labour party said that it would not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It repeated that it would not increase taxes on working people. In its manifesto, it said it would increase spending by only £9.5 billion and that that was to be paid for by £7.3 billion in extra taxes and £3.5 billion in extra borrowing. That was a modest plan with a prudent margin. It was a plan put forward to the electorate to show that the party could be trusted with the public finances. My constituents might be surprised to learn, however, that if they now look on the Labour party website, that manifesto is rather more difficult to find than it was a couple of months ago. It is fair to say that we Conservatives did not believe them, so we were not entirely surprised when, within weeks of moving into Downing Street, the Chancellor told the country that she would have to raise taxes after all. She had apparently found a magical £22 billion black hole. I say “magical” because nobody other than the Government seemed able to locate it—certainly, the Office for Budget Responsibility could not find it. It was, of course, a fiction to give the Chancellor cover for what she always intended to do, which was a massive increase in taxes, borrowing and spending, because that is what Labour does. Dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour increases taxes, borrowing and debt. In her first Budget last year, the Chancellor did not raise taxes by the £7.3 billion promised in the manifesto. She increased taxes by £40 billion. She increased borrowing not by the promised £3.5 billion, but by £32 billion. And believe it or not, she did not increase spending by the promised £9.5 billion. She increased it by £72 billion. The Chancellor imposed £40 billion of extra taxes on our economy. She increased employer national insurance, stamp duty and capital gains tax and she imposed extra taxes on family businesses and family farms, then she pretended that none of those were taxes on working people.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this very long lead-in period for the Budget has caused enormous uncertainty for businesses, which have faced a string of briefings in the media about every possible tax rise, and that the very date that the Chancellor has chosen for her Budget is itself causing more uncertainty and delaying investment decisions?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Would my hon. Friend agree that what has actually changed is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to control their Back Benchers, who now feel free to demand whatever public expenditure they think is convenient?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about excessive tax inhibiting entrepreneurship, I visited Ned Awty and his family, who run the Oatley vineyard in Cannington in my constituency, and they pointed out that it is perverse that the United Kingdom has a duty relief scheme for small brewers and distillers but no similar scheme for small vineyards. Does my hon. Friend agree that a small duty relief scheme for small producers would help English wine producers—and that we could all raise a glass to that?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  Two days before Kaddour-Cherif was released, the Justice Secretary said he had “introduced the strictest checks ever seen in our prison system to stop similar unacceptable errors in future.” Were they not implemented, or are they not strict enough?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to move the motion and introduce this debate on Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. This issue affects every household and small business in the country. The postal service is a vital part of our communities. Its future and the changes to the universal service obligation, or USO, particularly affect my constituents. Our postmen and women are among the most remarkable workers in the country. Out on their routes, come rain or shine, they are often well loved in their communities. The pandemic showed us at first hand the impact that a good postie has—especially for elderly or vulnerable people who were shielding or who had little other human interaction in that period. People in rural areas rely on the service to stay connected.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. We can all agree that Royal Mail faces real challenges. Many people now communicate primarily online and fewer letters are sent, which impacts revenue.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed it should. We have evidence of poor management and, dare I say, occasionally unco-operative unions.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady. I know that there are plenty of local problems, but I also want to look at the national picture. In the first quarter of this financial year, Royal Mail’s performance under the existing USO targets fell well short of expectations. The target for first-class deliveries is 93%, meaning that 93% of first-class post should arrive the next working day. In practice, Royal Mail managed only 75.9%. For second-class deliveries, the target is 98.5% delivered within three working days, yet only 89.3% were delivered on time. That is millions of items delayed across the country. When we look at daily deliveries, the story is even more concerning. In 2024-25, the proportion of daily routes that were delivered was 87.8%. That is against a target of 99.9%. On any given day, more than one in 10 routes were simply not delivered at all. That explains why locally, even within a small village, some people appear to get a good service while others get next to no post at all. A constituent in Spaxton wrote to me to let me know that his postie had complained of severe staffing shortages and that the new contracts being offered were making the jobs unattractive to new starters.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will find that if only 20% do not get next-day delivery, they are doing better than average; that does not speak highly of Royal Mail. Since I was elected last year, many of my constituents have told me that Royal Mail is not working as it should. After hearing those concerns first hand, I visited the sorting office in Bridgwater. In January, I ran a sample survey to ascertain the scale of the problem in my constituency. I ensured that each town and village was sampled, as I wanted to ensure that every area was covered. I had hundreds of responses. Only one in three got a delivery every day; 15% said they received post once a week or less frequently. In North Petherton, a constituent repeatedly received a bundle of letters delivered once a week, with no Royal Mail van spotted during the rest of the week. I had a report of no deliveries in Othery for more than a fortnight. My constituents had to travel to the sorting office in Bridgwater to collect post personally. In Cossington, a constituent’s weekend magazine subscription went missing for seven weeks in a row. No one area had a wholly good or wholly bad service. In Burnham-on-Sea, 48% of respondents gave Royal Mail 10 out of 10 for reliability of service, and 30% gave it zero out of 10. It seems that if a household is on a route with a good postie, it gets a great service, but if that route is not allocated, the letters sit in the rack for days on end with nothing happening. That is simply bad management.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman stays, he will find that I answer most of those points in the remainder of my speech. Since 1840, the principle of the USO has been simple: everyone in the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, should have access to a reliable and affordable postal service. It is a promise of fairness. If I post a letter in Bridgwater, it costs the same to deliver to an address in Inverness as it does to one down the road in Taunton.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the Communication Workers Union press release. I did refer earlier to bad management and occasionally militant unions. I think good management will overcome the problems, but I do not think the solution lies in more regulation of other private operators. I want to make a little progress now. The national figures that we see represent a consistent decline in performance over several years, despite the clear legal and moral obligations that come with being the nation’s postal service. Ofcom has noticed. In 2022-23, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. The following year, 2023-24, the fine almost doubled to £10.5 million. In 2024-25, it more than doubled again—a staggering £21 million penalty for failing to deliver the service that the public expects and deserves. In the face of mounting pressures, changes to the USO have been adopted. I must admit that I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been made. If I asked many of my constituents whether they would rather have post delivered consistently every other day, they would gladly accept, but I worry that that will not happen. Under the changes being discussed, the number of delivery days would be reduced, meaning fewer days on which post must actually be delivered. But that is not all. The performance targets have been watered down. On first-class mail, the target is set to drop from 93% to 90%. For second-class post, the target drops from 98.5% to 95%. The post will now come less frequently and Royal Mail expects to deliver even less of it on time. In my local survey, residents scored reliability at an average of only five out of 10—some, of course, scored as much as 10, and others, zero. They already experience an unreliable service. These changes will not improve either the perception or the reality. Let us be clear about what the situation means. This is not just a few percentage points on a chart; it is millions of people waiting longer for vital letters—legal documents, hospital appointments, prescriptions and personal correspondence. It is small businesses waiting an extra day or two to deliver goods. It is rural communities, already struggling with connectivity and transport, being pushed further to the margins. It also sets a dangerous precedent: instead of holding Royal Mail to the standards it has committed to, we simply move the goalposts to make failure acceptable. A constituent in Bridgwater complained that his letters were being delivered in bundles of 16, 18 and, once, 23 at a time, and up to four weeks late. Does the Minister think these changes will reassure that constituent? The Government and Ofcom need to remember that the universal service obligation is not just a technical regulation; it is a public promise. It is what makes Royal Mail more than just another delivery company and gives it a unique place in British life. Reducing delivery days, reducing targets and accepting lower standards risks eroding that promise. Once lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore. It is important to ask ourselves what message is sent when a national institution misses its targets so widely, is repeatedly fined, and instead of being required to improve, is allowed to relax the very standards it is meant to meet. If the argument is that letter volumes are falling, which they are, let us have an honest conversation about how that service can adapt. Right now, targets are being missed and the answer should not be, “Water down the targets until they are met.” Royal Mail’s decline in performance is not inevitable. It is the result of choices about investment, priorities and accountability. The choice before us now is whether we accept decline or demand better. I urge Ofcom, the Government and Royal Mail to consider whether the changes, in the long term, will really improve services. Or do they, in fact, represent another step backwards? The last time this matter was debated in Westminster Hall, in 2023, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who was then the shadow Minister for business and consumers and is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, said that “Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users…We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.” —[ Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 324WH.] Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend? What do the Government think of these changes? Has Labour forgotten the promises it made only two short years ago? I conclude by referring once more to my local survey. Of those who did not use the postal service regularly, over a third said that was because it was too slow or too unreliable. My residents already consider the cost of posting a letter to be too expensive. The new system risks being slower, more expensive and less reliable. That is not a way to attract new custom. In April 2025, Royal Mail was acquired by the EP group, a Czech-based company owned by Daniel Křetínský. I wish the new owners well, and hope that the acquisition leads to improved levels of service and efficiency so that we have a postal service that serves everybody, everywhere. Mr Křetínský can be assured that we will watch him very carefully.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Britain’s welfare system was created as a safety net. It is a system designed to protect people who face hardship through no fault of their own, but today, that net is becoming a trap—for individuals, for families, and for this country. Any welfare system must be fair, providing support for those who truly need it and a reward for those who do the right thing—who get up in the morning, go to work and provide for their families. Right now, too many people feel that doing the right thing is punished, not rewarded. Under Labour, Britain has stopped working, because for too many, it has stopped making sense to work. There are good fiscal reasons why we Conservatives plan to cut welfare spending by £23 billion, but there is also a moral argument. By making work pay less and welfare pay more, the Government are incentivising welfare over work, which is profoundly unfair. One of the best examples is the two-child benefit cap. We all know that the Chancellor is going to announce its removal in the Budget, and will no doubt be supported by the Liberal Democrats, by Reform UK and by other high-spending left-wing parties. She will do so because she and the Prime Minister are terrified of their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now says that the welfare reforms he is carrying out strike “the right balance”. Who does he think believes that? He is like brave Sir Robin in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Brave Sir Keir ran away—bravely ran away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled; bravest of the brave, Sir Keir. He was forced to retreat and turn a Bill designed to save money into one that actually cost the taxpayer more. Why are we Conservatives committed to keeping the two-child benefit cap? It is not just because there is a limit on what the state can afford; it is also a question of fairness. Millions of families across Britain make careful choices about whether or not they can afford a child. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford a third or subsequent child be asked to subsidise one for someone who is not working?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?