Sir Ashley Fox
MP for Bridgwater · Conservative · United Kingdom
“In my constituency of Bridgwater in Somerset, there is a chronic shortage of rented accommodation. I am concerned that this expensive and cumbersome system will deter further private landlords from renting their properties.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister says that the Government are building new prison places, yet she will be aware that there are fewer prison places today than on the day Labour took office.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Waste crime and fly-tipping affect rural communities across Somerset. While I welcome the action that the Government are taking, does the Minister agree that the very substantial increases that we have seen in landfill tax enable rogue waste operators to undercut legitimate businesses?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am glad that he is brave enough to take an intervention from a Member from Somerset. He is absolutely right to emphasise our commitment to scrapping the family farm and family business tax, but does he agree that the fertiliser tax that this Labour Government will introduce on 1 January, a…”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The quality of life of many local people in Bridgwater is being undermined by a small minority who show little regard for others with street drinking, drug misuse, shoplifting and other forms of intimidating and antisocial behaviour.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Farmers across Somerset have been left without certainty and support by this latest DEFRA snafu, and they will not be consoled by the thought of a workshop. How does the Minister envisage farmers being able to plan financially for the year ahead if they do not know when the next round is or how the funds will be allocated?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
787 held · 620 searchable for Sir Ashley Fox. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“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?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.””
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By pledging to remove it, we are signalling that we believe in growth, in enterprise and in enabling every citizen to build their future.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our golden rule means that, for every pound we make in savings, half will go on reducing the deficit and paying down our debts. We will reduce spending by £47 billion a year, and have announced plans to do so. About half of that will come from cutting the welfare bill, including stopping the ballooning bill for Motability cars for those with mild mental health issues. Some £8 billion of savings will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was before the pandemic. We will save money by closing asylum hotels, reserving other benefits to UK nationals, and coming to a more credible position on net zero. By taking those tough choices, we can cut taxes and help the economy. We estimate that abolishing stamp duty will cost £9 billion, which is set against the savings we have outlined.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, I am amazed to hear that the real economy is growing by 10%. That must be a forecaster I have not heard of! We believe it is possible to cut welfare spending. In fact, a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman’s party believed it was possible. The Government put forward a modest proposal to reduce welfare spending by £5 billion, which had our support, yet, unfortunately, at the first whiff of rebellion, the Chancellor caved. That shows that the Government have no idea how finance works, how business works or how confidence works. They undermined their credibility by being unable to undertake even the smallest reform. We can announce the abolition of stamp duty because we have promised to put Britain on a different track.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to his new responsibility for skills. The Government recently reduced the amount of funding for level 7 apprenticeships, so can he tell the House what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of this reduced funding on the number of nurses in training?”
House of Commons27 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is outrageous that Kebatu was not deported at the end of his sentence. What is worse is that the number of prisoners released by mistake has more than doubled under this Government. If the Justice Secretary is determined to release thousands more prisoners early, how confident is he that this mistake will not be repeated again and again on his watch?”
House of Commons27 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q6. Weston Hospicecare provides an invaluable service for constituents with a terminal illness. The hospice now faces an increased national insurance bill of £139,000 a year as a result of the Chancellor’s jobs tax. The Prime Minister will know that the money he has announced for capital expenditure cannot be used for day-to-day running expenses and that the money he has announced for children’s hospices will not benefit Weston Hospicecare, so what help can he offer the hospice as it struggles under the tax burden imposed by his Government?”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentence handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a reward for those who have shattered lives beyond repair.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would ensure that the most violent and dangerous offenders—those guilty of crimes like rape, grievous bodily harm, child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving—do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions. We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals causing future harm. I fear that Labour Members do not know the consequences of the Bill, which are that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early and will then go on to commit further criminal offences. We will have to deal with those consequences in the years to come if the Bill is passed unamended.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, and was particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison estate. As a member of the Justice Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. Despite that, I do have reservations about parts of the Bill, particularly those around the early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), seeks to add an extra protection to the Bill to combat this.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome this debate. My constituents are angry about the increasing number of people crossing the channel in small boats, being rescued by the Royal Navy and brought to Britain, and then being housed in hotels at taxpayers’ expense. Before the election, Labour Members repeated the mantra that they would “smash the gangs” to solve the problem. They presented it as though there was some mysterious solution to cracking down on people smugglers that simply was not being pursued by the previous Government. But in the year since their election, the problem has been getting worse, not better. The number of people crossing the channel is up by 50% on last year. The failure to control our borders makes our country look impotent.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Instead, Labour lets them stay indefinitely. Labour is increasing the use of hotels in town centres. In June 2024, 29,585 people were in hotels; now, the figure is 32,059. The numbers are going in the wrong direction and we cannot allow that to continue. We should close the asylum hotels and deport illegal migrants.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope the Government’s policy is successful. It is just that in the 12 months since they took office, the problem has got worse by 50%. I will explain why. The large numbers of young men we see crossing the channel in small boats are not refugees; they are economic migrants. They have travelled through several safe countries before reaching Calais. The reason that people are prepared to pay to cross the channel in a small boat is that they know that having reached Britain, there is virtually no prospect of their ever being deported. This Government are guilty of self-harm in closing the Rwanda scheme before it started. Had the scheme been allowed to operate and large numbers of those crossing the channel been deported to Rwanda, the economic model of the people smugglers would have been broken.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At present, we have the morally repugnant situation that millions of people are sitting in refugee camps around the world with no prospect of being rehomed, while those who jump the queue and pay money to get into a small boat are given licence to live in Britain forever. Does the Minister think that is moral? That creates a perverse incentive, which puts lives at risk, funds organised crime and stops us controlling who we let into our country. The Government must reintroduce the deterrent of deporting illegal migrants if they are ever to solve the small boats problem.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course; that is part of creating a deterrent in which we say to those crossing the channel, “If you enter the country illegally, you will not be entitled to claim asylum and you will be transferred to a third country.” Interestingly, the European Union is now exploring that, and the facilities in Rwanda are currently being used by the United States, so other countries understand the need for a deterrent. If we want to reduce the number of refugees in hotels and temporary accommodation, we need to change the way we deal with refugees. In my view, Parliament should decide how many refugees Britain accepts each year, exactly as we did with the Syria scheme. We should then provide a safe and legal route for those refugees, who should be taken exclusively from UN refugee camps.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Gentleman has been so successful, why is the number of boat crossings up 50% on this time last year? And why are there 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than before he came to office?”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, the number was 56,000 in 2023, but the previous Government brought it down to 29,500 in June 2024. The reduction that the hon. Gentleman mentions was all under the previous Conservative Government. The number has gone up by 3,000 since he took office.”
House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The CPS decision not to prosecute leaves our nation less secure. What assurance can the Minister give the House that the Government did everything in their power to ensure that the CPS had the necessary evidence to prosecute?”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Woolavington village in my constituency, three separate planning applications, totalling over 400 homes, have been submitted, with the prospect of a fourth, even larger proposal to follow. The cumulative impact of those developments on local services will not be fully assessed, because each application is treated separately. To make matters worse, Somerset council’s temporary emergency planning measures have led to the cancellation of many planning committees, leaving local councillors cut out of decision-making processes. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House for a debate on how cumulative housing impacts are assessed and how we ensure that local democratic oversight is not undermined?”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the fact that south Bridgwater has been included in this programme. These funds come on top of the £23 million allocated to Bridgwater under the last Government’s town deal. Parts of Highbridge in my constituency are equally deserving of funding, so can the Minister advise whether there will be any further rounds of allocating funding in this Parliament?”
House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Sir Brian’s proposals to change access to jury trials represent a distinct restriction of freedom for citizens facing trial, yet he does not offer convincing evidence that that will save an enormous amount of time or speed up the trial process, and that that lack of evidence causes concern to many practitioners?”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his report; he makes interesting and important recommendations, but in the time available I will focus on one of Sir Brian’s proposals with which I disagree: curtailing access to jury trials. I support the proposal to allow defendants to elect for trial by judge alone. I do not see any diminution in the rights of a citizen in that proposal. I am concerned at Sir Brian’s other proposals, which would reduce the defendant’s right to trial by jury. I regard that right as a fundamental freedom of our country. As parliamentarians, we should be very slow to limit it.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Increasing delays in Crown court trials are a very real problem. They pose a problem for victims, witnesses and those defendants who are eventually acquitted. We have heard that remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—a population that is at capacity and needs reducing. If we could speed up the rate at which Crown courts, and indeed magistrates courts, deal with cases, that would lead to a partial solution for our crowded prisons.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The receipts and the disposals have risen only marginally since the pandemic, and yet the outstanding caseload continues to rise. I put it to the Minister that the reason for those delays is not the jury system—that is simply a misunderstanding. The problem is that the Courts Service is not working as efficiently as it should be. That might be partly due to failing buildings or computer systems, but I fear that in Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, we have a solution in search of a problem. There have always been certain judges and barristers who have never liked jury trials, and I am reluctant to accept this proposal by Sir Brian.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady makes a good point, but before curtailing that restriction further I would want to be persuaded that there are very real benefits. I am afraid that I see none, or at least I see no evidence of any. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, each of the trials under the new court that Sir Brian proposes would require a sitting judge and a sitting day. There is little evidence that removing the jury from that process will make a great deal of difference to the time it takes. In my view, therefore, the focus of the Ministry of Justice should be increasing the productivity and efficiency of our Courts Service. The House of Commons Library produced a useful document, on page 17 of which we can see the Crown court caseload in England and Wales.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In such a context, specials are not a relic of the past, but a vital part of our security and civil defence framework, and a reserve force in all but name.”
House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Special Constables Act 1831 allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to help restore order during riots and unrest. The specials were called upon again during the first world war, when regular officers enlisted to fight. Their success led to the Special Constables Act 1923, which ensured their permanent place in policing. From their inception, specials were designed to be a national contingency force: citizens stepping forward in times of crisis to strengthen the police service when needed most. That role is no less relevant today. The Government recently published a resilience plan, addressing the higher level of threat we face from Russia, global instability and multiple risks here at home.”
House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am pleased to speak in favour of the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 21, which commits the Government to reviewing whether to add special constables to the list of roles that entitle an employee to request unpaid time off work from their employer under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Special constables are volunteers who give their time freely, at no cost to the taxpayer, to support our police forces and keep our communities safe. They hold the same powers as regular constables: the power to arrest, to search and to detain. They carry the same responsibilities, face the same dangers and accept the same risks. Yet, unlike their regular colleagues, they are unpaid. The special constabulary is one of the most remarkable institutions of British policing, with its history stretching back almost two centuries.”
House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one rights because they worry that they might take someone on, only for it to become apparent within a few days that they are not appropriate for their business, and they then fear an employment tribunal for procedurally unfair dismissal, and the costs involved. The result of granting day one rights is that small businesses will be less likely to employ more people, and far less likely to employ people at the margins of the labour market, such as someone recently out of prison or someone with mental health problems. The Bill will increase unemployment.”
House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that. I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them.”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out. I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda.”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that. Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round.”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car. Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work. The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield.”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill. I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol.”
House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In December, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to adequately dredge Somerset’s rivers and maintain our drainage network. The EA has now announced that it will withdraw entirely from main river maintenance in Somerset. My constituents are concerned that without proper maintenance we may see a repeat of the devastating 2013-14 floods. May I repeat my request to her to find Government time for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to fulfil its duties?”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber?”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the highest level since 1998, and this surge in borrowing costs reflects the market’s lack of confidence in the Chancellor’s ability to manage Britain’s finances.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How those on the Labour Benches cheered with delight at the thought of all the extra spending: pay rises for train drivers, with no conditions; pay rises for junior doctors, with no strings; money for Great British Energy; and more money for the British Business Bank—all so the Government can invest in projects that the private sector does not think will make a return. We all know how this story ends: Labour will use all the business acumen that the Cabinet has at its disposal to create a modern version of British Leyland. It is what Labour does best: spending other people’s money, and borrowing yet more money that other people’s children can repay. But all this extra spending and borrowing comes at a price, and the Government are now paying 5.7% interest to borrow money for 30 years.”
House of Commons3 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗