Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  When we design welfare rules, it has to be for the whole economy and all our people, and I believe that the two-child benefit cap is fair. Under this Labour Government, unemployment has risen every month since they took office; 5,000 people a day are now signing on for sickness benefits, and, thanks in part to the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the number of graduate jobs has fallen by a third; and what is the Government’s response? It is more tax, more borrowing, more spending, and more excuses. When the Chancellor breaks her promise and raises taxes again in the Budget, what will be her excuse? Will it be 14 years of Conservative government? Will it be this mythical black hole that only she and her Back Benchers can see? The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot find it. Perhaps it will be the pandemic, or perhaps it is all because of Brexit. The Chancellor’s excuses are growing increasingly thin, and the people who elect us know that. They know that it is the Chancellor’s fault. We will cut welfare spending by focusing support on those who truly need it, not those who can work but choose not to. We will use those savings to get the economy working again for individuals and for businesses. We will scrap punitive taxes on family businesses, family farms and local shops. We will abolish stamp duty, because when people can buy a home and when businesses can hire and grow, Britain prospers. We respect the fact that taxpayers already paying too much. We respect small businesses that cannot just pass on additional costs to someone else, and we respect the next generation, who deserve to inherit opportunity and not just the debts of this Labour Government.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned covid, which is the largest single contributor to the increase in the size of the state. He also did not mention the £5 billion reduction in welfare spending proposed by the Government; the Conservative party supported that, but the Government just gave in on it. There is plenty of money to be saved.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting stamp duty will not only benefit young people aspiring to home ownership, but act as an incentive for older people to downsize, freeing up larger family homes and making them available for families that need to increase the size of the house they own?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in the south-west of England, the Government have reduced the building target for Bristol city council, which has a lot of Labour members, and have instead increased the building target for rural Somerset, where there are few Labour members, by 40%? Does she share my concern that Labour is fiddling the housing targets for political advantage?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  All of us here want to improve the lives of our constituents, though we often differ in how we might achieve that. As a Conservative, I believe we do so by working with the grain of human nature, by allowing people the maximum amount of liberty to live their lives, by supporting families, by rewarding hard work, rather than penalising it, and by incentivising entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth. As legislators, we do that by keeping the size of the state under control, keeping borrowing low and reducing the burden on taxpayers wherever possible. It is with regret that I see this current Labour Government increasing taxes, increasing borrowing, increasing the deficit and our national debt, and increasing the interest we pay on that debt. It saddens me that we have a Government whose answer, whatever the question, always seems to be more public expenditure. I am pleased therefore that not only will the Conservative party reduce taxes when we form the next Government, but will scrap one altogether. Stamp duty is a bad tax. The current stamp duty regime means that anyone seeking to buy their first home or to move house faces an additional burden at one of the most important moments in their lives. By eliminating this tax on main homes, the Conservatives would be removing a financial barrier, which for many first-time buyers or young families makes the difference between owning their first home or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) alluded to that in his excellent speech. It would mean the dream of home ownership was made more accessible. While stamp duty has been around since 1694, the current regime was introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003. When it came into effect, it charged a fixed percentage rate depending on the value of a house—the so-called slab system. It meant that when the price went from £250,000 to £250,001, people faced an enormous increase in the tax paid. The coalition Government, to their credit, reformed the tax so as to remove the tax from those purchasing a property for under £125,000. They eliminated the slabs in the model with a slice model. That made the tax better, but the core problems remain. Stamp duty makes it harder to purchase a house. It dissuades people from upsizing or downsizing, and therefore prevents a host of other economic activities associated with moving house. A vibrant housing market is vital to economic health. When more people buy and move, transactions increase, new homes are built, tradespeople are employed, and local economies benefit. The tax on each move discourages those transactions. People stay put because of the cost of moving, and that can lead to the housing market locking up. Scrapping stamp duty on primary homes will free up the market. That will have benefits not just for buyers and sellers, but for builders, developers, local services, and the whole national economy. There is a fairness argument, too. Buying a home is one of the largest investments that most people will ever make, and to tax that moment seems not just counterintuitive but perverse. Removing the tax on a main residence signals a commitment to giving people a chance to grow, to aspire and to build their lives. Those are Conservative principles, and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Manchester recognised that. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that this change will create “a fairer and more aspirational society.”

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), used to be part of the Resolution Foundation—that well-known right-wing think tank—which itself has called for the abolition of stamp duty to free up the housing market in the way my hon. Friend is describing?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  That is another valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the housing market but the jobs market, and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. This is an important measure for young people, because, as we acknowledge, they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did. To be credible, we must explain how we will pay for this measure. That is a valid question, and, unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan for delivery. The measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending discipline and growth creation. The Government were elected on a policy of “going for growth”, yet everything that they do seems designed to bring about the opposite. A jobs tax makes it more expensive to employ people; higher business rates make it more expensive to conduct business in a property; the changes in agricultural and business property relief—increasing inheritance tax—reduce investment by family businesses; and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to employ people. The Government have turned on the spending taps and levied record levels of tax, while at the same time implementing measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive. Every Labour Government has led to higher unemployment, and it is deeply regrettable that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. I do not think that the Government are malevolent; they simply have no clue about how business works.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the shadow Chancellor, he would have heard him say that half the £47 billion in savings will come from reducing welfare spend. Another significant proportion will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was back in 2016. The proposal is fully funded, and he does himself no favours by inventing other facts.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the first-time buyer, but the family moving into a larger home and the empty nesters—I am almost one—seeking to move into a smaller house.