Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I do not accept that at all. This surge is entirely due to the Chancellor losing control of public expenditure, and the increased cost of servicing our national debt adds further pressure on the British taxpayer. Having presented her Budget, the Chancellor said: “We’re not going to be coming back with more tax increases, or indeed more borrowing.” The problem is that no one believes her. The markets do not believe her, and Labour Back Benchers certainly do not believe her. They now know that they only have to threaten to rebel on any item of public expenditure and the Chancellor will cave. We saw that on the welfare reform Bill, which was brought forward to save a modest £4.5 billion. What happened? The first whiff of a rebellion, and the Bill was gutted, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the cost. In that context, over the summer we saw briefings from the Treasury testing the water on a whole series of potential tax rises: higher rates of council tax, a land value tax, capital gains tax on family homes, lowering the thresholds for inheritance tax and an annual property levy on the family home. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is being so careful about which of her many homes is her primary residence. The Chancellor is clearly desperate to raise more money. It is a cruel irony, is it not, that having invented a £22 billion black hole to justify her taxing and spending, the Chancellor now finds herself facing a black hole entirely of her own making? It is her jobs tax and other tax rises that have caused the economy to slow and unemployment to rise. Her increase in public expenditure has fuelled inflation, which has led to higher wage demands and increased benefit costs.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend accept that speculation about all those new additional taxes causes more uncertainty, which itself causes the economy to slow further?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  This Government were elected on a manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion. That was to be paid for through £7.3 billion of extra taxes and £3.5 billion of extra borrowing, all of which was set out in the Labour manifesto. It was a modest plan with a prudent margin—exactly the sort of plan one might expect a party in opposition to put forward to show that it can be trusted to run the public finances. Labour Members might reflect on the fact that had they implemented the plan, the British economy would be in better condition than at present. In its first Budget, Labour increased public expenditure not by £9.5 billion, but by £70 billion. 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. 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.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. It is the threat of higher taxes that is causing the economy to stall. Rather than reducing the size of the state so that it is affordable, the Government give every indication of wanting it to grow further. The fundamental reason that this Government need to raise taxes is that they are incapable of controlling the fiscal incompetence of their own Back Benchers. At their core, Labour MPs genuinely believe that the state can spend our constituents’ money better than they can spend it themselves. They do not believe in thrift or self-reliance, and they see no limit on the size of the state. Opposition Members know that it is businessmen and businesswomen across Britain who create wealth and growth. Success is the result of hard work, taking risks, satisfying customers and employing neighbours. The Government should provide the environment for those businesses to thrive, rather than threatening every part of the economy with higher taxes.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary wants to pay a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to Mauritius to lease back a military base that we already own. Why is he afraid of holding a vote on this policy?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Employment: Trailblazer Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State accept that the reason that unemployment is higher today than the day she took office is the jobs tax, which increases employers’ costs by £25 billion? What hope does her trailblazer programme have when the Chancellor is working against her?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I will not take any more interventions. Many thousands of couples think every year about whether to have children. They make that choice based on several factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Under the previous system, pre-2017, there was a fundamental element of unfairness in the system. A family in receipt of benefits saw those increase automatically every time they had another child. That is not true for a family not in receipt of benefits. Why is it that someone on benefits should not have to make the same choices and sacrifices as someone in work? Why should a taxpayer who is unable to afford to have more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work? The welfare bill in this country is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Unemployment is rising, thanks to the action of the Government, and more people than ever are receiving disability benefits, but this Government seem completely powerless to do anything to reverse that trend. The Prime Minister says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”, but the truth is that he was forced into a humiliating U-turn by his own Back Benchers and has had to totally gut his plans. Scrapping the Government’s PIP reforms means that the welfare Bill will make no savings at all—indeed, the total package will end up costing the taxpayer about an extra £100 million a year. What a fiasco! The Government set out to save £4.5 billion, and have ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. No thought was given to the burden on the taxpayer, or to the extra debt that the Government would incur and the interest that will have to be paid on it by our children. The fact that so many Labour Members want to remove the two-child benefit cap is testament to the irresponsibility with which they treat the public finances. Their solution is always to spend more money—preferably belonging to someone else. Now, we have the spectacle of the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), saying that he also supports scrapping the two-child cap, despite having been an outspoken supporter of it when it was introduced. Reform supporters in my constituency are rather puzzled by his decision. It suggests that the hon. Member is not guided by any political principle, but is chasing votes in the red wall, where he hopes to win seats from the Labour party. In my view, that confirms that he is wholly unserious about governing this country. There is only one party in this House that is serious about sound money, and that is the Conservative party. We are the only party that is serious about stopping the creeping reliance on welfare, and that cares about taxpayers keeping more of the money they earn.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is essential that we put Britain’s finances on a sustainable path. All benefits are funded by taxpayers or borrowing, so every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on taxpayers, or the debt we place on future generations.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. I know that he, like all Conservatives, believes in personal responsibility, living within our means and fairness to the taxpayer.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The UK’s benefits system is designed to act as a financial safety net. It exists so that people in hardship through no fault of their own can be supported. Supporting families and helping parents into work requires a balanced and fair system. It must provide meaningful support for those who need it most, while maintaining a sense of fairness for taxpayers. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit and believe it should be retained—so that people on benefits face the same choices as those in work. The welfare system is growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. The Localism Act 2011 gave parish and town councils the ability to produce neighbourhood plans, which formed policies to make decisions on planning applications alongside a wider local plan. That was strengthened by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to such plans when it came to planning decisions. That is because Conservatives believe that planning decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be made with the consent of local communities. We believe that local residents know best what they need. Neighbourhood plans are an important way to allow residents to shape development in their area in a way that reflects local needs and priorities. There are several such neighbourhood plans in effect in my constituency, in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, in Nether Stowey, in Puriton, and in Wembdon. There is even a referendum on a neighbourhood plan in Cannington going on tomorrow. I am sure there will be many hundreds of people in Cannington watching this debate at this very moment. I urge them to turn out and vote tomorrow. Neighbourhood plans are particularly important in my constituency, where Liberal Democrat-led Somerset council says it will take at least another four years to come up with a local plan that applies across the whole county. I would like to criticise it, but I understand it is fairly normal for a unitary authority to develop a new local plan. The previous Government provided funding for groups that wanted to create their own neighbourhood plan. It is very disappointing that the Government have now stopped that funding with no warning at all. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that decision? It is the latest in a series of decisions by the Government to take planning powers away from local people and give them to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for instance, seems designed to allow central Government to impose huge amounts of building in rural communities, especially those that do not vote Labour. A crucial element of the Bill is to reduce the power of planning committees, which will mean that there is less democratic accountability for development. No doubt the Minister will disagree with me, but I wonder whether he will reflect on why Somerset has had a 41% increase in its house building target while Bristol has had an 11% reduction. I am not against development. We need houses so that our children can afford a place of their own, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure, such as GPs, schools, transport links and parks. I want us to build beautifully, and in line with the character of the local area. According to a report by the University of Reading, almost 90% of neighbourhood development plans seek to improve the quality of development in their area. That is often done through policies and guidelines to influence new building design or alterations to existing buildings. My message to the Government is simple: we must support local people to properly engage in the planning process and have their say over development in their communities.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south-west the house building target for Somerset has risen by 41%, but in nearby Bristol, recently controlled by the Labour party, it has gone down by 11%?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably half of Labour Members are pleased with the enormous reductions in housing totals in their urban constituencies and those who represent rural constituencies are just too embarrassed to show their faces?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to smash the gangs. He said he would reduce small boat crossings. He said he would close asylum hotels. Why are all these issues going wrong?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  The rise in the Crown court backlog in 2024 was 7,051 additional cases; that is 588 extra cases on the backlog every month. The figures for March 2025 show an additional rise over three months of 2,300; that is 769 additional cases on the backlog every month. Not only is the position getting worse under the Lord Chancellor’s leadership, but the rate at which it is getting worse is increasing. Can she explain to the House why the rate is getting worse, and why, when in November the Lady Chief Justice offered 6,500 additional sitting days, she did not accept every single one of those?

• 4 Jul 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for introducing the Bill, which has enjoyed wide support from Members across the House. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reminded us of the need to keep control of dogs on paths and country lanes. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) stressed the importance of these improved protections for her farmers, as they are for farmers in Somerset. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) emphasised the need for responsible access to the countryside, about which I agree. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) told us about the need for strengthened police powers. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) took us on a gentle country ramble in his speech, and told us that his constituency is entirely urban and he knows little of farming. Let me tell him not to worry, because he is clearly eminently qualified to be Labour’s next Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—he could scarcely know less or do worse than the current incumbent. I pay tribute to those groups that have long championed this reform. They include the National Sheep Association, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare. As I have already mentioned once today, Britain is a nation of animal lovers and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of further improving Britain’s world-leading position on animal welfare. This Bill follows in that proud tradition, because livestock worrying is a blight on our countryside and a blight on our farmers. In a recent survey by the National Sheep Association, 87% of respondents said they had experienced a dog attack on their livestock in the past 12 months. One in 20 of those respondents said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such attacks, which is truly appalling. These attacks cause distress and injury to livestock and, in the most extreme cases, they can cause the death of animals. That is not only traumatic for farmers, but it can be expensive too. NFU Mutual data shows that insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023. Farmers have enough to worry about with this Government’s new family farm tax, without the additional burden of attacks on their livestock by dogs. The Bill makes several improvements to existing law. First, it introduces a vital distinction between livestock worrying and attacking. This change will help to strengthen enforcement where serious harm has occurred. Clause 2 expands police powers to seize dogs they reasonably expect to have been involved in such offences. This important amendment helps to close existing legal loopholes and ensures swift police action to prevent further harm. Clause 3 empowers police and veterinary professionals to take samples or impressions from wounded animals or suspected dogs to aid criminal investigations. This change will make it significantly easier to gather evidence and bring charges. The National Farmers Union has rightly championed the measure, noting that many livestock worrying incidents go unreported due to a lack of confidence in enforcement. The possibility of using DNA testing could be a game changer for successful prosecutions, and I urge the Government to support further research and work with police forces to implement the results. Clause 4 allows officers with a warrant to search properties for dogs believed to be involved in an attack. This is a crucial power to ensure justice is served and will help end the widespread perception among farmers that little can be done once an attack occurs. Another major improvement is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the legislation’s scope. Livestock are often moved between fields using country lanes. Under current rules, if an animal is attacked outside a field, the burden unfairly falls on the farmer. This Bill corrects that and rightly places responsibility on dog owners to always control their pets near livestock. The Bill broadens the definition of livestock to include camelids, such as alpacas and llamas, which are increasingly part of rural enterprises. I particularly welcome that clause, especially on behalf of establishments such as the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow, in my constituency. The Bill introduces many essential enforcement powers that will allow our police to crack down on worrying, but we must not forget about prevention. Responsible dog ownership is key. The previous Government’s working group brought together police, stakeholders and welfare organisations to improve education on how to keep pets and livestock safe. In Wales, a 64% drop in livestock worrying incidents between 2023 and 2024 has been credited to outreach campaigns, dog training courses and effective rural crime teams. We must continue to amplify educational messages such as those in the country code. I call on the Government to make sure they continue that vital work and to look at how we might further encourage responsible dog ownership. My constituency has a large farming community, and I have seen at first hand the impact of livestock worrying on my constituents. I recently met Austen Lockyer, who farms in my constituency. He told me that he struggles when irresponsible owners allow their dogs off leads on public footpaths through his fields, treating them like recreation grounds and worrying his sheep. I know the Bill will be a comfort to him and those like him and that we are acting to shift the burden of responsibility to dog owners. I am pleased to have supported the Bill since it was introduced and through Committee, and it is a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box and confirm that the Opposition support the Bill in full. I urge colleagues from all parties to support the Bill and to bring an end to the scourge of livestock worrying in rural communities.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this private Member’s Bill. As he is a veterinary surgeon, I know that this topic is close to his heart, as it is close to the hearts of many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) spoke with passion and paid tribute to Selaine Saxby, the former Member for North Devon who brought this Bill forward in the last Parliament, and I thank him for that tribute. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) quoted Mahatma Gandhi to great effect. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) rightly pointed out that the Bill extends to Scotland, and that sections 1 to 4 apply to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) reminded us how important animal welfare is to all our constituents, and the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) reminded us that while our animal welfare laws in Britain are world leading, we can always do better. Finally, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) paid tribute to those many charities in her constituency that dedicate themselves to improving animal welfare. Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of improving animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we banned the keeping of primates as pets, introduced pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increased the penalties for animal cruelty, banned the export of livestock for slaughter or fattening, and recognised animal sentience in law, through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The establishment of the Animal Sentience Committee ensures that all legislation passed by this House considers the principle of animal sentience. In 2020, we introduced Lucy’s law, which banned the third-party sale of puppies and kittens. These regulations helped to protect animals from being kept in shockingly poor conditions, separated from their mothers at a young age and deprived of human or animal interaction for most of their lives. The animal welfare Bill before us today is another example of doing the right thing to protect those pets that we all love. Many charities have been tirelessly campaigning for this legislation for many years, including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, Four Paws, Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The Bill aims to close existing loopholes that are used far too often by dishonest breeders and smugglers to disguise commercial imports of cats and dogs as non-commercial movements, in a bid to avoid compliance with existing welfare standards. I welcome raising the minimum age at which cats and dogs can be imported to six months. That will curtail the ability of unscrupulous puppy smugglers to bring those puppies into the UK. The Bill also further restricts the import of heavily pregnant animals. The Dogs Trust has seen a record 600% increase in the number of heavily pregnant bitches intercepted at the border since 2021. In preparing for this debate, I have read about the most appalling cases of pregnant animals being transported in cramped conditions to give birth, with little food or water. This barbaric practice can permanently damage the health of both the mother and the puppies or kittens. Similarly, we support the decision to cap the number of animals transported non-commercially at five per vehicle, rather than five per person as at present. That will close another loophole exploited by smugglers that allows them to transport several dozen animals in one trip, claiming ownership of five per person. I am equally glad to see this legislation ban the import of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations into Great Britain. According to animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA, incidents of ear cropping have skyrocketed twentyfold in the last decade. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ending that horrible practice. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who, like the hon. Member for Winchester, is a veterinary surgeon and a passionate advocate of that reform. Of course, mutilation is not limited to dogs, and this legislation will also outlaw the declawing of cats. That is another horrible procedure that has no medical basis, and we support that measure. This is a good Bill. Its measures are well considered, backed by experts and charities and designed to implement positive change to protect our beloved pets. I am pleased to confirm on behalf of the Opposition that we support this Bill, and I sincerely hope it will gain the support it deserves from the whole of the House.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Investment: Technology Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Britain leads the world in the gene editing of crops. This technology enables our farmers to produce disease and drought-resistant crops, reduce costs and increase food production. The UK-EU trade agreement means Britain has to follow EU rules on sanitary and phytosanitary laws. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the agreement will not slow that technology in Britain?

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  Small cider producers in Somerset benefit from a duty relief scheme. I realise that the Minister is about to conclude his remarks, but he does not appear to have touched on the subject of duty relief for small vineyards. Will he at least give a commitment that he will talk to the Treasury about that, because it seems illogical that small brewers and small cider producers benefit from duty relief but small vineyards do not?

• 25 Jun 2025 · English Wine Production · Hansard source

  More

  One of those many vineyards is the Oatley vineyard in my constituency, run by Ned Awty and his family. Mr Awty raised with me, on a recent, pleasant visit, that small brewers and cider makers benefit from a duty relief scheme to encourage production. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to extend that scheme to small vineyards?