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 4 of 12.
“Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?”
“Does this not suggest that when a deal was presented to the then Conservative Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she declined to sign it because she judged it not in the British interest? It does rather seem as though this Government have rolled over on this key point, which will allow Indian firms to import Indian workers in preference to British ones.”
“Next year, the Government will spend more money on education in prisons, yet they will actually commission 25% less education by way of quantity of service. Why are they doing such a poor job of commissioning education on behalf of the taxpayer?”
“Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?”
“They stopped representing working people a long time ago, and they now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their re-election. Why has the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), supported scrapping the two-child cap until so very recently? Voters in my constituency, some even sympathetic to his cause, have been horrified. I think the answer is that he is chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour voters. That instinct for higher spending shows that Reform UK is wholly unserious about governing our country. Britain needs a Government determined to deliver the changes we need: controlling public expenditure and reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.”
“They make that choice based on a number of factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Those in receipt of benefits should face the same choices as those in work. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child benefit cap, and it is why I believe it should be retained. Under the pre-2017 system, there was a fundamental element of unfairness. A family in receipt of benefits saw them increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family not in receipt of benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work? I understand why Labour Members are in favour of more welfare spending.”
“The benefits system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship, but a fair system must balance that with the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by the taxpayers of today or, if the money is borrowed, as is so often the case with this Government, by the taxpayers of tomorrow. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on the taxpayer, and that cost is growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of the decade. It is a mark of Labour’s irresponsibility that it presents a Bill today to increase welfare spending further. I believe in personal responsibility. Not only should our country live within its means, but every individual and family should do so too. Many thousands of couples every year think about whether to have children.”
“We need to reduce the size of the state so that it does less but does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing—who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who build a more prosperous country for all of us.”
“Let me remind Labour Members that before the election, they said repeatedly that they would “not increase taxes on working people”. That was accompanied by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion, but in the 18 months since they were elected, the Government have actually increased spending by £100 billion—10 times more than they promised. They have increased taxes by £66 billion, and borrowing by an extra £40 billion. This is what the Labour Government do best: spending other people’s money. It is in their DNA. They do not care about getting better value for the taxpayer; their only thought is about how to spend and borrow more, as if that were a sign of caring. I am proud to have a leader with the backbone to tell the truth to the British people.”
“If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would know that I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton. That, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter. The Government seem to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The Prime Minister did, of course, try to produce a package of modest reforms last year. He set out to save £4.5 billion, but was forced into a humiliating U-turn and ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. He now says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”. Does anyone believe him? There is not a thought for the taxpayer, and not a thought about the extra debt that the Government are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it.”
“At the risk of delivering more “flim-flam”, I should say that the hon. Member has just told us that it was the Water (Special Measures) Act that announced the ban on company bonuses. Would he concede that that was actually introduced, in regulations, by the last Conservative Government? In fact, his Government have just put a regulation into statute; that did not actually change the law at all.”
“That is disappointing, given the detailed and thorough examination of the sector by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review. The Government have said that their transition plan will be published this year. When she responds, can the Minister guarantee that it will actually be published this year, and that it will be published when Parliament is sitting, not on the last day before a substantial recess—or, in fact, during a recess? Will she also acknowledge that, for all her Government’s talk about improving water quality, the Water (Special Measures) Act, which they passed last year, consisted of regulations already announced by the previous Conservative Government that they repackaged as a statute.”
“It is thanks to that progress that we now understand the scale of the problem. In terms of their ecological health, only 15% of our rivers enjoy “good” status. That is not good enough. There are various reasons for pollution, including sewage treatment works, waste water, storm overflows, agricultural pollution, and urban and transport run-off. Invasive species are also threatening native animals. Between 1960 and 2019, the number of non-native freshwater species more than doubled, from 21 to 46. I invite the Minister to comment in her response on what work the Government are doing to support the restoration of wetland or freshwater species, which have experienced a decline. Despite their promises to fix the water system, the Government’s recent water White Paper was surprisingly slim.”
“The previous Government started the process of improving the health of our rivers, but there is much more to be done. Their plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. The Environment Act 2021 introduced legally binding targets to reduce the length of rivers polluted by harmful metals from abandoned mines, to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture in the water environment by at least 40%, and to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated waste water by 80%. We also substantially increased the monitoring of water quality. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; today, that figure stands at 100%.”
“The Parrett hosts an abundance of species, from heron to eels—anyone who is lucky may even see an otter. It is also important for the wider ecosystem, including roe deer, which we are fortunate enough to enjoy having in Somerset. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to support a local campaign in my constituency to save the Pawlett Hams in the first weeks after I was elected to Parliament. Pawlett Hams is a beautiful natural habitat, bounded on three sides by the Parrett, which impacts that environment. I was pleased that that campaign was successful in defeating EDF Energy’s proposal to create an unwanted saltmarsh there. I raise this because I understand the importance and beauty of our rivers, and I know how passionate many of our constituents are about preserving and protecting them.”
“Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) described the beauty of the countryside as one of the joys of life. I am with him on that, even though he and I may not agree on many other things. I congratulate my Somerset constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, on leading for her party in this debate. She said that farmers are “custodians of the natural world”, and I agree. Next time she speaks on water, I hope that she will give us the price tag for her party’s policy of renationalising the water industry. The River Parrett flows through my constituency. It is rather too high for comfort at the moment. Some of my constituents are watching the water level with concern. I sincerely hope that their homes are not flooded over the next few days.”
“If it is to pay compensation, how much and who pays for it? Dare I say, that is an error that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), also fell into. She said that she was in favour of a radical policy, but did not explain how she intended to pay for it. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I agree with him on the need for more dredging of our rivers. It is unacceptable that the Environment Agency has withdrawn from main river maintenance. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) described rivers as amazing ecosystems, and I agree with him. I also agree that when water companies break the law, they should be punished swiftly and severely. The hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate; it is a welcome opportunity to talk about the importance of our rivers and the vital need to protect and restore them. He is right to say that we need to improve the health of our rivers. This has been a good debate. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). She is correct to describe our rivers and streams as the “veins and arteries” of our environment. I noted she said that she wants water companies to be taken into public ownership, but she did not say how she would pay for it. I am left wondering if it is Green policy to confiscate those assets from the shareholders, or to pay compensation.”
“Many other boats were left grounded. I understand that the cause of the breach is still being investigated, but what assessment has the Minister made of the age and structure of the UK’s canal network, and the impact that have on the natural environment? Is she satisfied that the current funding is adequate? To conclude, Britain’s rivers and waterways are an integral part of our environment. It is important that we improve their quality, and we will scrutinise the Government to ensure that they keep the promises they made at the election.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not think it is for the Government to regulate the salaries of the private sector. It was the Conservative Government that introduced the necessary regulations that enabled those water companies that were failing to be prevented from paying dividends and bonuses. He might argue that we came to that a bit late, and I might agree with him. However, he should acknowledge that we were the ones who took that action, and it is those regulations that form the basis of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about our canals. Members may have seen the recent incident involving the collapse of a canal embankment in Shropshire. Two narrowboats were left at the bottom of a trench in the canal bed, with a third left hanging over the edge.”
“I thank the frontline staff at the Environment Agency, drainage board and council who are working hard to tackle flooding in Somerset. This year, water levels have risen faster than they did in the 2013-14 floods. Currymoor used to fill in 10 days; this week, it filled in four. Communities in Fordgate and Moorland are watching nervously as water levels continue to rise. Can we have a debate on how the Environment Agency approaches these incidents? Why is it using out-of-date trigger points to dictate its response? Why were the emergency pumps at Northmoor operational only last night? Why is the EA actively withdrawing from main river maintenance, and why are we allowing building on floodplains without proper mitigation?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the release of prisoners will depend on their behaviour while inside. Can he confirm that his definition of good behaviour will include mandatory attendance at education and training, which should result in reduced reoffending, and can he advise the House how he will achieve that, given that the Government will commission 25% less education in the coming year? He says the reason for that is that the price has increased. Well, that is because the Government only contract very large quantity contracts. Were he to delegate those budgets to prison governors and give them the freedom to use local suppliers, rather than relying on two or three enormous providers that have the Government over a barrel, the price would fall.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The hon. Member anticipates much of my speech, and I thank him for that intervention. Unsurprisingly, in my survey those in larger villages reported the best service, and those in the most remote rural areas reported the worst.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The lack of reliable broadband discourages innovation and investment, and pushes people towards cities and towns—not because they want to leave their beautiful, rural life, but because they feel they have no real choice. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) anticipated my next point: it is not only businesses that suffer. Families struggle to access online education, healthcare services and remote work opportunities. Young people are placed at a disadvantage simply because of where they live.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I referred to Openreach’s comments to me. It said that it did not believe there is sufficient funding in the spending review for the Government to meet their target of 99% by 2032. Does the Minister believe he has sufficient funding to meet that target?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”