Sir Ashley Fox
MP for Bridgwater · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Too many coastal towns suffer from poor transport links, economic inactivity, seasonal employment and the loss of young people seeking opportunities elsewhere.”
“I hope the Minister, when she sums up, will consider the effect of the right to guaranteed hours on businesses in coastal towns. Has she considered that, when those businesses take on seasonal workers during a period of good weather, they are compelled to offer those hours for the next reference period, whatever the weather might be?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Britain’s coastal communities are among the most beautiful parts of our country, but behind that picture postcard image lies a reality that too often goes unnoticed—isolation, hidden deprivation and a lack of opportunity.”
“The Leader of the House is a decent and honourable man, and the fact that he is so clearly rattled this afternoon shows how uncomfortable he is with the statement that he has delivered to us. As he knows, the purpose of that Opposition day debate was to have a vote to delay recess by one day to scrutinise the new Prime Minister.”
“I want to give the Minister the opportunity to comment on how the right to guaranteed hours affects seasonal workers. We are enjoying some beautiful weather in Somerset.”
“Bridgwater high street has many excellent independent businesses, such as Styles Menswear, Soda & Rye, and Alise and Louie, but there are also too many dodgy Turkish barbers and criminal enterprises selling illegal cigarettes.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Sir Ashley Fox, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“This Finance Bill implements the 2024 autumn Budget. That was a bad budget and this is a bad Bill. It punishes businesses, discourages entrepreneurship and raises taxes on those trying to make a living. It will lead to job losses, reduced investment and higher prices. It will lead to higher interest rates and higher Government debt, which will lead to lower growth. If we wanted to make a list of things that our economy did not need, this Finance Bill would be a good starting point. The Bill is built on broken promises. The amendments tabled try to help the Government to keep their manifesto promises. During the election, Labour told the public that its plans were fully costed and fully funded.”
“This rise, which breaks Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise national insurance, will cost SMEs £732 more per year for every employee earning £20,000. This tax on jobs will stifle growth and lead to higher unemployment. The rise in national insurance is especially damaging to those in the healthcare sector, and the proposed amendments will help to assess the damage that that causes. Last week, representatives from the social care—”
“I am sure that there are one or two good parts to this Finance Bill, but the hon. Gentleman was elected on a manifesto pledge to increase spending by £11 billion, and that was fully costed, yet this Finance Bill increases spending by £70 billion. I just wonder why he and his hon. Friends did not have the courage to put that before the British people at the election. Small and medium-sized enterprises and the hard-working entrepreneurs who run them are the backbone of our economy, and they are the victims of this Finance Bill. In constituencies such as Bridgwater, where SMEs are key to local prosperity, the Government have imposed a huge national insurance hike that will make it more expensive to employ people.”
“I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. People in the social care sector in Bridgwater were particularly concerned that the national insurance contributions rise had not been subject to an assessment. Assessing the damage that it and the other tax rises will do is therefore critical to the successful implementation of this Finance Bill.”
“Labour’s response to our farmers has been to sneer at our rural communities. The Treasury offered a Minister to farming representatives, who then spent that time telling them that there was not a problem. This is bad not just for farmers but for rural economies and our nation’s food security. This Finance Bill increases taxes, spending and borrowing. It makes our public sector larger and the private sector smaller. It does exactly the opposite of what is required. If we want a prosperous society, we need to encourage enterprise. We need low and simple taxes that incentivise people to work hard, to invest and to grow their businesses. This Finance Bill does exactly the opposite, and that is why we will oppose it this evening.”
“I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, combined with the rise in the minimum wage and Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, the contents of this Finance Bill seem to deliberately set out to harm small businesses. The Labour Government’s plan to introduce inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses is more evidence, if it were needed, that they do not understand how farms and small businesses work. Under this Government, a family farm with land, buildings and machinery worth £5 million will incur inheritance tax of £400,000 when it passes to the next generation. That same farm might produce a return of 1%, or £50,000, in an average year, so the Government are proposing to take all that family’s income for the next eight years. I have a question for the Minister: how does he expect that family to live in the meantime?”
“I invited the Minister to explain how the Budget would improve the lot of farmers. In particular, I gave the example of the £5 million family farm that would incur an inheritance charge of £400,000. How will that family pay that out of an annual income of about £50,000? That is eight years’ income, with nothing to live on.”
“Labour has introduced a £25 billion jobs tax that will increase the cost of hiring workers. It has also increased business rates by £2.7 billion. Under the Conservatives, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors received a 75% relief on their business rates; Labour has reduced this relief to just 40%.”
“I am pleased the Opposition are using our time today to debate the importance of businesses large and small. It is the private sector that creates the wealth on which our society depends, and it is the taxes businesses pay that fund our NHS and other important public services. The policies of this Labour Government, from raising taxes to imposing additional regulations, are putting those businesses at risk. Having promised during the general election not to increase NICs, the Chancellor immediately broke that promise in the Budget. This national insurance hike will cost employers £900 for every employee earning the average salary. The tax rise disproportionately affects employees on low wages. Someone earning £9,000 a year will cost their employer an extra £600 a year in tax. This is not just a tax on businesses; it is a tax on jobs.”
“Having spent 11 weeks going through the Employment Rights Bill line by line, I know just how damaging it will be to SMEs in Bridgwater and elsewhere. Let us take just one example: the so-called day one rights. These rights would mean that if, after less than a week, it became apparent that a new employee was the wrong fit for a company, a complicated process would have to be followed to dismiss them. Speaking as a former—though fully qualified—solicitor, I know that this will have a disproportionate effect on small businesses without an HR department. If they do not dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s, they will be left exposed to being taken to court for unfair dismissal.”
“It is extraordinary that Labour has found a Chancellor less sympathetic to businesses than Healey. This decision is a blow to those who have worked tirelessly to build and sustain their businesses, and will force families to sell their businesses or take on crippling debts just to pay the taxman. For many, this will be the end of their family businesses. The Employment Rights Bill will require employers to spend £150 per employee on additional administrative costs to comply with new rules, including a ban on zero-hours contracts and potential liabilities for third-party harassment. At a time when businesses are already under strain, this is a further unnecessary cost, especially for small businesses that do not have the resources to navigate the red tape.”
“My hon. Friend is right: all Labour’s measures will increase unemployment. Although Labour will say it has reduced the multiplier of business rates, this does not fully compensate—it leaves an average pub paying an additional £5,500 a year. This is not a sustainable burden for many businesses that are already struggling with inflation and rising costs. These taxes add up, and will lead to closures, job losses and harm to our communities. Another troubling decision from the Labour party is the reduction of the cap on business property relief. BPR, introduced in 1976 by Denis Healey, was designed to protect family-owned businesses from being broken up and to ensure these businesses could continue to provide jobs and contribute to the economy across generations.”
“No, they will not—and legal consequences will follow. We on the Conservative Benches believe that businesses are at the heart of the economy and that they should not be punished by Government policies that stifle growth and investment. It is important to note that, when it comes to business, this Government’s track record is deeply troubling. Just one member of the Cabinet has ever started a business. When decisions are made by those who do not understand the pressures faced by small business owners, it is no surprise that the policies are so harmful. The Labour Government that we face is not a new Labour Government in the Tony Blair model. It is very much an old Labour Government of the 1970s, addicted to taxing, spending, borrowing and regulating. I regret to say that we will see unemployment rise.”
“The hon. Gentleman would be correct if, in fact, there was a written contract that included a probationary period. What he forgets, however, is that many small businesses will conclude that contract on a handshake and a verbal agreement—there will not be a formal probationary period. It is exactly those small businesses that do not use a written contract that will be liable to legal action. Let us take another example. Should a business fail to notify a new employee of their right to join a trade union in writing, it may be liable to pay an additional four weeks’ pay as a compensatory award. In what world is this system really going to work? Do we believe that those running a corner shop, pub or fishmonger are going to give their employees written notice that they have the right to join a trade union?”
“Would the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties is that employers cannot spend the money from the apprenticeship levy easily, and that too much of that money is retained by the Treasury? Will she undertake to speak to the Chancellor to see whether she could make it easier for employers to spend that money on training?”
“When decisions are made by civil servants without the input of those on the ground—those directly impacted by these decisions—we risk losing touch with the realities of the skills landscape.”
“The Bill removes the requirement to publish regular reviews of occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. The Government say that removing this duty allows for much greater flexibility, but they are doing so without ensuring that the views of employers, educators and other relevant bodies will continue to be heard and considered. The Bill grants the Secretary of State power to determine the standards and assessments that will be used to measure progress in technical education. No longer will these decisions be made by a broad group of stakeholders, including employers and sector specialists. What does all this mean for our workforce, and what does it mean for learners? It means that we are at risk of creating a system that is more distant, less responsive and potentially less effective.”
“This Bill is important for the future of technical education and apprenticeships in our country, and I accept that the Government’s intention is to streamline the governance and management of skills. However, I believe that, in its current form, the Bill threatens to centralise the system to such an extent that it may undermine the independence and effectiveness of our skills system. The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education was established with the clear purpose of ensuring that apprenticeship standards and assessments were determined with the input of employers, education providers and industry experts. I fear that by abolishing this body in favour of a group of civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State, the Government will make technical education less responsive to the needs of the labour market.”
“In conclusion, while I understand the desire to create a streamlined, more efficient system, the Government must be careful not to sacrifice the effectiveness and independence that have been the hallmark of our apprenticeship and technical education system. This Bill, in its current form, grants perhaps too much power to the Secretary of State with too little accountability. It risks diminishing the role of employers and learners, and weakening the checks and balances that have served us well, so I will continue to scrutinise this Bill as it proceeds through Parliament.”
“It has strong partnerships with employers of all sizes, ensuring that its apprenticeship programmes meet local and national skill needs. While BTC welcomes the streamlining of the management of apprenticeships, it is clear that these changes must not reduce the quality of education and support provided to apprentices. As it rightly points out, it is crucial that these changes do not compromise the wellbeing of students or the high standards of education they have come to expect. I hope that the new framework will continue to uphold these standards and ensure that the needs of both students and employers are met effectively. It is this type of local, industry-focused and employer-engaged approach to skills training that we should be fostering.”
“This was to recognise that, for many young people, apprenticeships represent a better way to enter the workplace than some university degrees. Bridgwater and Taunton College, based in my constituency, is the UK’s largest provider of apprenticeships, supporting thousands of learners in achieving their career ambitions. With over 120 apprenticeship programmes, the college offers exceptional opportunities for individuals to gain hands-on experience and develop the skills needed for today’s competitive job market. BTC’s success is reflected in its recent achievements, such as its registered nurse degree apprenticeship, which recruited 53 apprentices in the 2023-24 academic year alone. The college’s commitment to employer engagement and industry-aligned training is at the heart of its success.”
“The pandemic clearly had something to do with that reduction. I would not say the system is perfect, but I fear that replacing it with a committee of civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State is likely to be less successful still. Amendments have been made in the other place to address some of these concerns. Specifically, a one-year delay was added between the establishment of Skills England and the commencement of the Bill, which would allow for a more effective transition and give Skills England a better chance of getting up and running. It is crucial that we do not damage the very real progress that was made on technical education under the last Government. During the general election, my party pledged to raise the number of people in high-skilled apprenticeships by 100,000 per year, representing a 30% rise.”
“Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be easier for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour if they had more support for special constables? The number of special constables has fallen in recent years, particularly since the pandemic. Will she agree to consider amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring special constables within section 50?”
“Bridgwater railway station has a bus stop that has remained unusable since its construction due to road layout and safety issues. Despite this being a relatively small fix, Somerset council has yet to take action. What additional support can the Government provide to ensure that buses can stop at the station safely and improve connectivity in my constituency?”
“Bethany’s family do not believe that that reflects the severity and heartbreak of his crime. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on sentencing policy?”
“Ben and Amy Branson are my constituents. Their daughter Bethany was 19 when she was killed by a drunk driver on 8 November 2022. The driver crashed his van into a car and fled the scene, before skipping a red light and crashing a second time into several cars, one of which was carrying Bethany. At the scene of his arrest, the driver admitted guilt and said: “I hope I killed someone. Oh well, you know what, I will get three, four, five years. Hopefully I killed them.” Despite his admission of guilt at the scene and there being no doubt as to his crime, he was still entitled to a one third reduction in his sentence as a result of his guilty plea, so 15 years were reduced to 10 years, and with good behaviour he could serve as little as six years and eight months in prison.”
“Open banking benefits 12 million customers every year by allowing them access to their data. It has been a great success. Does the Secretary of State see that as a model for how citizens can access their data held by the state?”
“How will the Secretary of State ensure that veterans who served their country with distinction will not be hounded through the courts over events that may or may not have happened decades before?”
“The Government are not in control of the borders, so we Conservative Members will reject the Bill. Our reasoned amendment will give Members a chance to say that we want strong action on illegal immigration.”
“It has no vision for controlling illegal or legal immigration, no plan to protect our borders and no strategy to ensure that those who break the law by coming here illegally are removed quickly and effectively. The Home Secretary claimed this evening that the Government are repealing our legislation because it did not work. Did it not work when we struck landmark deals like the one with Albania, which drastically reduced the number of Albanian migrants arriving via small boats? By making it clear that they would repeal the Rwanda scheme before it started working without coming up with any alternative deterrent, the message that the Labour party has been sending to would-be illegal migrants is, “Come and have a go”. Is it any wonder that illegal crossings are up 30% since the election?”
“The Government are removing the barriers to accessing that privilege and are therefore inviting thousands more people to join the queue. That is why the asylum backlog has grown under this Government. That is why the number of people in asylum hotels has risen by 6,000 since the election. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) stated, this is a seriously under-powered Bill. It actually does very little, and it reveals the Home Secretary’s policy of “smash the gangs” to be just a slogan. Former chief immigration officer Kevin Saunders said, “You need a big deterrent to stop the migrants. Forget about the gangs—if you stop the migrants wanting to come to the UK, the gangs won’t exist.” Unfortunately, the Bill provides no deterrent. In fact, it removes the deterrents that were working.”
“They have not only reached a safe country, but have had to travel through a succession of safe countries to arrive at that beach in France. The National Crime Agency has made it clear that to stop the boats, we need an effective removals and deterrence strategy. The Bill does not deliver that. In fact, it does the opposite: it removes the key deterrents that we had put in place. The last Government were correct in passing the Illegal Migration Act, which would have stopped those who enter the UK illegally from claiming asylum or being eligible for British citizenship. Twenty days after the election, Labour put it on hold, and it is now repealing those provisions through the Bill. It is a privilege to live in this country and to apply for British citizenship.”
“Many people in my constituency are angry and frustrated at Britain’s approach to illegal migration. They see hundreds of people every week getting into small boats to cross the channel. Those people pay for a place in a small boat because they know that once they set foot on British soil, there is almost no prospect of their being deported. That is morally wrong. It brings the whole immigration system into disrepute. Earlier in the debate, the Home Secretary was invited to say how many of those she has deported in the past seven months had arrived in a small boat, and there was no answer. I suspect the reason is that the answer is zero, but no doubt the Minister can provide an answer when she responds. It is self-evident that most of the migrants standing on beaches in France are not refugees; they are economic migrants.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam was Attorney General for four years. It is just possible that his interpretation of the Act is correct, and that of the Minister’s officials is incorrect. I do not have detailed knowledge of this legislation, but I wonder whether the Minister and her Whip want to take some further time and pause before putting these regulations to a vote—that would be perfectly acceptable to us. We will not oppose the regulations, but we are cautious that if the Minister wants more time, she is welcome to take it.”
“Prior to the election, the Secretary of State promised to cut my constituents’ energy bills by £300. Would the Minister repeat that promise at the Dispatch Box?”
“Labour-controlled Bridgwater town council is increasing its council tax precept by 40%. That means that pensioners in my constituency are suffering from not only the loss of their winter fuel allowance, but an enormous tax rise. What advice does the Minister have for those of my constituents who do not qualify for pension credit, and who now face the loss of the winter fuel allowance from this Government and a huge tax rise from their Labour council?”
“Does the Minister accept that allowing biological men into women’s prisons increases the risk to female offenders? Does he further accept that only biological women should be housed in women’s prisons?”
“In November 2024, Wessex Water, which serves my constituency, was fined £500,000 for polluting two rivers, one in Wiltshire and one in Somerset. That money should be used to improve the local environment; it should not be swallowed up by the Treasury. New clause 19 states that when civil penalties are imposed, there should be an equivalent reduction in customer bills. That is important, because otherwise the water company that has been fined will simply pass on that fine to the consumers; the new clause would ensure that there was no penalty for the customer. I am curious, again, to know why the Government would oppose new clause 19—along with new clause 16—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.”
“We are told that it has four key aims: “To block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute waterways; To bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers; To impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing; and To ensure independent monitoring of every” —sewer overflow—“outlet.” I welcome all those aims, building as they do on the work of the last Government to improve our water quality. I want to speak in favour of new clauses 16 and 19. New clause 16, entitled “Establishment of Water Restoration Fund”, establishes the principle that fines should go towards environmental improvement rather than to the Treasury. I am somewhat curious as to why the Government would not support that, but perhaps the Minister can explain when she responds to the debate.”
“My constituency of Bridgwater has the Rivers Axe, Brue, Parrett and Tone within its boundaries, together with countless streams, brooks and rhynes. It is therefore of the utmost importance to my constituents that the water quality of our rivers is maintained and improved. The town of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge is a coastal resort, as are the villages of Berrow and Brean. It is important for the tourism industry, as well as the local people who enjoy those beaches, that we improve the quality of our bathing water, and I therefore welcome the Bill.”
“As we look to the future, let us continue to support the creative industries through thoughtful investment, and ensure that those in the sector have the resources and opportunities they need to thrive.”
“The creative industries also have an important role in revitalising local economies, and as the film and TV sector grows, the economic benefits extend far beyond the screen. Local hotels, hospitality and service industries all see significant boosts from the influx of film production teams. In fact, the Screen Somerset project has already contributed millions to the local economy. For all the potential, however, there is a recognition that challenges are ahead. The British Film Institute skills review this month has highlighted critical crew shortages in the UK film industry that have put stress on production schedules and workspaces. To address those gaps, the review calls for greater investment and training, and a more localised approach to production. This is where organisations such as Somerset Film play a pivotal role.”
“Its training, community engagement and career development programmes are essential in making sure that the next generation of talent has the skills, knowledge and connections to succeed. Thanks to recent investments such as £500,000 of town deal funding from the previous Government, Somerset Film has been able to expand its facilities, improve equipment and reach more young people. The expansion also allows for new creative events, including public film exhibitions and more training opportunities for people in the region. All this would not be possible without the work of its creative director, Deb Richardson, and her fantastic team. Thanks to programmes such as Screen Somerset and collaboration with organisations such as Creative England, the region has become a key player in the UK’s film production network.”
“For an example of how the creative industries are trying to weather these challenges, we need look no further than Somerset Film, which is based in my constituency of Bridgwater. Somerset Film has been at the forefront of nurturing local talent and providing access to the creative industries since 1997. The Engine Room, located right on Bridgwater’s High Street, serves as a vital community hub. It is here that young people and local residents receive training in media production from film making to digital storytelling. This is not just about creating films; it is about creating opportunities. The charity has helped thousands of individuals from all walks of life to access hands-on training.”
“The increases in national insurance contributions pose a significant financial burden for many creative businesses, and despite Labour Members’ protestations about so-called Conservative cuts, they seem unaware that the DCMS budget for next year will be lower than that for this year. As is the case for SMEs in sectors right across the country, this Budget has punished many of those who serve as our growth engine. It is estimated that more than 350 grassroots music venues are at immediate risk of closure, potentially leading to a loss of more than 12,000 jobs and £250 million across the overall economy. The Music Venue Trust outlines in its response to the Budget a clear threat to both the live music industry and the many jobs it supports.”
“I want to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have spoken about the crucial role of the creative industries in the UK economy. The Minister may be relieved that I will not be taking him to task tonight for the broadband and mobile coverage in rural parts of my constituency. The creative industries are among the UK’s most dynamic and fastest-growing sectors. In the 12 years between 2010 and 2022, the sector grew by more than 50%, compared with growth in the rest of the economy of some 22%. In 2022 alone, the creative industries contributed a staggering £125 billion to the UK economy and employed 2.4 million people. This is a great British success story. Despite the sector’s impressive contribution to the economy, it faces significant challenges following the autumn Budget.”
“The Government’s Employment Rights Bill will increase costs on small and medium-sized enterprises by £5 billion a year. It will make it easier to strike, and easier for employees to sue their employers. Combined with the tax rises announced in the Budget, is it not inevitable that this Labour Government will increase unemployment?”
“I welcome this Bill, but can the Minister assure the House that, at all times, the aim of the Government is to minimise the liability of the taxpayer? Where losses have to be sustained, they should be borne first by the shareholders, secondly by the bondholders and perhaps thirdly, and regretfully, by the deposit holders. That should be the order in which losses are sustained.”
“Since coming to office, the Chancellor has increased taxes by £40 billion and borrowing by £30 billion and her Employment Rights Bill has increased the costs of employers by a further £5 billion. Does she accept that her decisions have led to a loss of confidence in the British economy and an increase in our borrowing costs?”
“Private developers in my constituency have obligations to build social homes under section 106, and they are ready to do so. The difficulty they face is that there is no social landlord available to take those units. When I raised this issue with the Deputy Prime Minister in October, she said that she was aware of the problem and was working to tackle it. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made?”