Ashley Fox MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the future reforms, does the Minister not accept that when House of Lords reform was discussed in 1998-99, the hereditaries were retained as a temporary measure, yet the Labour Government never came forward with the second stage? Does she appreciate that many of us are slightly cynical about this Government’s ever bringing forward a future stage, so the solution might be to delay commencement until they bring forward proposals?

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member spoke about the need for consensus. Has he read new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which would remove the bishops from the upper House? I am sure that is something on which there is great agreement on the Government Benches. Does the hon. Member feel able to support new clauses 1 and 2?

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party promised immediate reform of the House of Lords in its manifesto and set out several steps that it would take. However, the Government have introduced just one of those steps—the step that is most politically convenient for them. Is it a coincidence that their proposals would remove 84 hereditaries who do not take the Labour Whip? They seem reluctant to take the other steps. Very few Government Members seem to want the 26 bishops to stay, but perhaps their remaining is convenient because when the bishops turn up, they vote with the Labour party more often than not. I object to the Bill because I have a genuine fear that there is no second stage. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is right: it will be this Bill and nothing else for the rest of the Parliament. Labour Members will wait in vain for the second stage. That is what happened when the Blair Government tried to reform the House of Lords. They ensured that the 92 hereditaries remained as a permanent reminder of the need for proper reform. Now the Government are removing the hereditaries, but not making clear any time scale or further proposals. I therefore tabled amendment 24 and new clause 19. I want to pause commencement of the Bill unless and until the Government introduced legislative proposals for second-stage reform. Amendment 25, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) tabled, goes one better than amendment 24, so I am happy not to press my amendment and to vote instead for his. It provides a guarantee that proper reform will be introduced and an opportunity to reflect on the type of upper House we want. I believe that we should have a smaller upper House, which should be wholly or largely appointed. It should not act as a rival to this place. Liberal Democrats who desire an elected second Chamber do not understand what they are letting themselves in for. Let us consider the United States, where the two chambers are sometimes commanded by different parties and very little can happen. A country with an executive presidential system can get away with that, but a parliamentary democracy could not function with a Government with a majority in this Chamber permanently blocked by an elected upper House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) has tabled several amendments that help enact the Labour party’s manifesto commitments: a retirement age, participation rates and other features that would improve the upper House. I will vote for amendment 25, which I commend to the Cttee.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to represent the Bridgwater constituency, which has both urban and rural communities. It is plain to see that those living in the countryside do not enjoy the same quality of service as those living in town. One of the greatest differences is in broadband and mobile signals. In today’s economy, access to fast, reliable internet is essential for any business, whether to receive orders or to complete VAT returns. When I questioned the Minister last month about funding for the shared rural network, he confirmed that the new Government will continue the plans of the Conservative Administration to extend access to rural communities. Since then, we have had disappointing news. Connecting Devon and Somerset, along with its partner Airband, is scaling back plans to provide fibre optic broadband to rural areas in my constituency and in others in Somerset. I have requested a meeting with the Minister on this matter, as it is of critical importance. If we are to ensure the prosperity of rural areas, investment in rural broadband and 5G must be a national priority. Another issue that disproportionately affects our rural communities is flooding, which particularly affects our farmers. When farms flood, as they often do in Somerset, the damage to crops, infrastructure and livestock can be devastating. The Government need to improve how statutory bodies work together. Joining up their efforts would help us to predict floods better and prevent agencies from being overwhelmed when multiple flooding events occur. The Government should take a more proactive role in supporting farmers with better flood prevention measures, and ensure that compensation, when provided, is fair, accessible and timely. The challenges of food security require us to invest in local agriculture and ensure that our farmers are thriving in an environment that values sustainable, reliable food production. The Government’s increase in inheritance tax for farmers will harm food production in our country. It is a poorly conceived attack on family farms, many of which are high in value—land, buildings and machinery—but produce a low return. Families who work hard to feed the nation should not be taxed out of existence by the Chancellor, but Labour’s family farm tax will make it impossible for many farmers to pass on their land to their children. If I had had enough time, I would have addressed rural bus services—or the lack thereof—rural housing, especially for young families, and the provision of small rural schools. However, I will end by saying that with better policies for food security and farming, Britain can have a strong and vibrant countryside.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Small Boat Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has said that her policy to smash the criminal gangs will reduce the number of migrants crossing the channel. Can she give the House her estimation of when that policy will start to work?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps she is taking to reduce the backlog of Crown court cases.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that the Crown court backlog is caused by a combination of covid and strike action by barristers. Will she outline the steps she will be taking to continue Nightingale court sittings and to improve the quality and number of Crown court judges sitting and able to hear cases?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  This is an old Labour Budget. It increases spending by £70 billion a year, funded by an extra £40 billion in taxes and £30 billion in borrowing—I am sure the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is very proud of the Chancellor. This will lead to higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher national debt—not my words, but the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility. If the British people had voted for such a Budget, I would not like it, but I would not complain. In its manifesto, the Labour party said it would increase spending by £11 billion. It said its proposals were fully costed and fully funded. That is the mandate on which it was elected. So where does the figure of £70 billion come from? Even if we believe the fairy story of the black hole, 11 plus 22 does not equal 70. When my party said that Labour’s plans would mean a tax rise worth £2,000 for every working family, the Chancellor called us liars. In fairness, we were wrong. The actual figure turns out to be £3,600. Ever since the election, the Chancellor has repeated the canard that her poor economic inheritance justifies these enormous tax and spending increases, but we know that Labour always intended to increase taxes and borrowing by far more than it admitted to the British public. This is a Budget of broken promises that will hit my constituency hard. Bridgwater is home to many small and medium-sized businesses. Those SMEs are run by people who work hard, generate wealth and provide employment for others in their community. Their reward from Labour is a tax rise that will cost them £758 a year to employ someone earning the new minimum wage. That will reduce the number of people employed. It will reduce private investment. Labour’s increase in inheritance tax is a spiteful attack on those with family businesses and farms. It is an attack on aspiration and enterprise. This Government have little understanding that even modest farms require a great deal of capital in the form of land, buildings and machinery. If this is taxed at 20% on the death of the owner, that will lead to family farms being broken up, which will damage our rural communities and undermine Britain’s food security. Labour’s policies will damage Britain and make us all the poorer.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  During the last election campaign, Labour candidates across Somerset said that a Labour Government would cut energy bills by £300. Will the Chancellor set out the timescale for fulfilling that promise?

• 28 Oct 2024 · International Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister comment further on paragraph 22 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government statement to which the Prime Minister put his name? It states that the Heads of Government, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice…agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.” “Based on equity” is the language normally used by those seeking compensation. Can the Minister explain what it means in plain English? Does it mean parting with taxpayers’ money, and if not, what does this statement mean?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Social Housing Supply · Hansard source

  More

  There are private developers in my constituency in Bridgwater that have obligations to build social homes and are ready to do so. The difficulty they face is that there is no social landlord available to take those units. What steps will the Deputy Prime Minister take to ensure that those units can be built to house local people?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement. In the first wave of early releases, 37 prisoners were wrongly released. What steps is she taking to ensure that those mistakes are not repeated? Does she agree that the best way to reduce reoffending is to ensure that released prisoners are able to participate in the labour market, and what will she do to improve education and training within the prison system?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Mobile Phone Reception: Bridgwater · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps his Department is taking to enhance mobile phone reception in the Bridgwater constituency.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Mobile Phone Reception: Bridgwater · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Bridgwater has a mixture of urban and rural areas, and many of my constituents in the rural parts complain of almost non-existent signals. The O2 signal in Burnham-on-Sea is non-existent. In Pawlett, the Vodafone and EE signals are non-existent. In Chedzoy, the EE signal is non-existent. [ Interruption. ] Can he confirm that the Government intend to continue funding the shared rural network, so that we can improve coverage for all our constituents?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are scrutinising the Government’s proposal. That is the job of the Opposition. The Minister said in his opening speech that hereditary peers are indefensible, and I agree, but so is granting 26 bishops the right to vote in our legislature. For some reason, the Minister does not seem quite so opposed to their presence. Could this be because, almost whatever the subject, the bishops can be relied upon to vote with the Labour party? If he was consistent, he would want to remove the bishops as well as the hereditary peers, yet he is silent. The whole point of the remaining hereditary peers, and their occasional inconvenient by-elections, is that they are a constant reminder of the unfinished business of Lords reform. They are a reminder of the promises that Labour made 25 years ago, which have still not been fulfilled. The reason Labour wants to remove the remaining hereditary peers is so that the reform can be forgotten. This is a bad Bill. It weakens the upper House, it reduces scrutiny of the Executive, and it gives more patronage to the Prime Minister. That is why I cannot support it.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell).

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would not dare to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I fear that this Government are not motivated by a desire to improve the legislature, and that they have brought this measure forward for party political advantage. They want to be rid of the hereditary peers because 42 of them are Conservative and only four are Labour. Once they have driven this Bill through Parliament, their desire for further reform will cool just as rapidly as it did 25 years ago.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The House of Lords plays an important part in our legislative process. It revises legislation and, just occasionally, causes us in this House to think again. I support reform of the House of Lords, but I want that reform to lead to a better upper Chamber. This Bill does the opposite. In 1999, the Labour party sought to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords. To get its legislation through, it struck a compromise with the upper House. That compromise—the Weatherill amendment —enabled 92 hereditary peers to remain until the Government came forward with a comprehensive plan for House of Lords reform. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, said that “a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.] Twenty-five years later, the House of Lords is unreformed. Despite winning majorities in 2001 and 2005, the last Labour Government did nothing to bring forward stage two of House of Lords reform.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would vote in favour of the removal of the hereditary peers as part of a package, but not so that the Government can remove them and then do nothing, which is what they did 25 years ago. I would like the Minister to explain how he believes his reform will improve the functioning of Parliament. Who will the Government put in place of the hereditary peers? More former MPs, perhaps? Donors or trade union officials? Perhaps some former councillors? The upper House already has a surfeit of all the above. If we want an effective upper House, we need diversity of experience: perhaps some people who have worked in the private sector or run a business could help the Front Bench. The upper Chamber has quite enough former politicians without the Prime Minister appointing more people to buy him suits and glasses.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Therein lies the problem, in that we now want to talk about stage 2. Although the Minister promises a second stage of reform, that is exactly what you promised 25 years ago, and then you did nothing. Our fear is that you will get rid of the hereditary peers and that the issue of further reform will then get delayed because there is never enough parliamentary time and actually, there will never be a stage 2. Put quite simply, we are cynical about the promises that are being made. We think you will take the hereditary peers and then do nothing.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams · Hansard source

  More

  I will leave the Minister to answer those points, if I may.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the environmental impact of the proposed salt marshes at Pawlett Hams and other sites. It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to her place. I am grateful to have this opportunity to move the motion, which concerns an issue of great importance to my constituents in Bridgwater. I asked for this debate to discuss EDF’s plans to establish a salt marsh at Pawlett Hams in Somerset. The proposal was highly unpopular with the local community. In fact, it was difficult to find anyone who thought it was a good idea, and when I met representatives from EDF, even they seemed a little half-hearted about it. Why, one might ask, does EDF, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station a few miles down the coast, want to flood 800 acres of beautiful Somerset countryside and turn it into a salt marsh? The answer is complex. When EDF was given planning permission to build Hinkley Point C, it was required to take measures to mitigate damage to marine life caused by the water intake pipes, which are situated in the Bristol channel and, as one might imagine, there is a risk of harm to fish, which might get sucked into them. EDF originally set out three proposals to minimise the risk of harm to marine life. The first involved designing special low-velocity, side-entry water intake pipes, with a capped head design. These reduce the number of fish that are sucked into the pipe as they swim past the end. The second was a fish recovery and return system, which means that a good proportion of the fish that swim into the intake pipe are returned to the sea, with minimal injury. That is not a perfect system, but it is certainly one that will save the more resilient species. The third was that EDF was required to install an acoustic fish deterrent, or AFD. This involves the installation of a number of underwater sound projectors that play a constant loud noise that is designed to stop fish approaching the area of the intake pipes. EDF now says that it is unable to install the AFD, because of engineering difficulties and health and safety risks to the divers who would need to maintain the system. To deviate from the AFD proposals, EDF has to submit a material change application. As part of the application, it is working with the Environment Agency to agree several compensatory habitat measures to deliver benefit to the estuary’s qualifying habitat. EDF says that it is putting forward a mosaic of mitigation measures. Some of them seem sensible and beneficial to the natural ecosystem in and around the Severn estuary: for example, the creation of several hectares of seagrass in the estuary and a commitment to delivering 15 hectares of kelp forest. It is also considering upgrades to several weirs to benefit migratory fish. The most significant proposal, however, and the one that brings us to Westminster Hall today, is the creation of 800 acres of salt marsh. At the beginning of this year, EDF consulted on the salt marsh being established in Pawlett Hams, in my constituency. Pawlett Hams is a precious ecosystem. EDF’s plans to flood the area with saltwater would endanger not just the land itself, but the myriad species that call it home. It would transform the biodiverse habitat into barren, species-poor salt marsh and tidal mud. What is most extraordinary about EDF’s plans is that the Hams is an area of great ecological importance. It forms part of the Bridgwater bay site of special scientific interest, which was first declared in 1989 and recognises the area as one of particular interest to science, due to the rare species of flora and fauna that it contains. There is a lush, biodiverse habitat for many animals in the Hams, including lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, great crested newts and yellow wagtails. Those species would be driven out if the area was turned into a salt marsh. The Hams provide valuable grazing for local farmers that would also be lost. EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost. I made my views abundantly clear to EDF over the months, so I was delighted when, a day after making a request for this debate, it announced that it is pausing its proposal. EDF says that it is now considering four other potential sites for salt marshes in the Severn estuary, at Kingston Seymour, Littleton, Arlingham and Rodley.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady anticipates the next part of my speech. As a new MP, it is tempting to believe that this change of heart by EDF is entirely due to my persuasive powers, but that is not the case. All credit must go to the Pawlett Hams Action Group, a genuine grassroots campaign that sprang up to defend the Hams. The group demonstrated the significance of the Hams by conducting wildlife surveys and collecting personal and historical testimonies. It also raised awareness of the issue through petitions, social media, community events such as a photography competition and collaboration with local schools. I pay tribute to the group’s co-ordinator, Judith Ballard, and to the other leading members, Moira Allen, Rachel and Molly Fitton, and Joy Russell. There are many others who worked hard to save the Hams so that it might be enjoyed for generations to come. I thank them all—perhaps they can help the hon. Members for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) in resisting unwanted salt marshes. Although my constituents and I welcome EDF’s decision not to proceed with the plan, several outstanding questions need to be answered. My first question relates to the inclusion and, now, the planned removal of the AFD in the development consent order. That was included at the request of the Environment Agency. I want to know why it was included if, as we are now told, it is unsuitable for conditions in the Bristol channel. Related to that question, what was the process between the Environment Agency and EDF on agreeing that it should be removed? To my local community, the process looks opaque. Some of my constituents believe that the AFD should remain as a condition of EDF being allowed to operate Hinkley Point C. I do not claim to have the technical knowledge to know whether it is a practical option or not—and the Secretary of State has yet to make formal decision—but it seems to me that EDF and the Environment Agency are putting together a package of mitigation measures in the hope that the deal will be signed off. I want to know why, once the decision to explore the establishment of a salt marsh was made, Pawlett Hams was designated as the preferred site. As I said earlier, the Hams is recognised as a wetland of international importance. Turning it into a salt marsh is not a mitigation. It would be an intentional decision to cause environmental harm. It is a completely illogical and extraordinary choice by the Environment Agency. The view of many of my constituents is that the Environment Agency chose Pawlett Hams so that it could flood the land and save money on maintaining flood defences. I want to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain all the flood defences on the River Parrett. Finally, I want to ask the Government to consider whether there might be a better way of delivering environmental improvements than through the Environment Agency. It was the Environment Agency that wanted to include an AFD in the initial development consent order. Now it apparently agrees that it should be removed, and is the prime mover behind this unwanted salt marsh. Having retreated from Pawlett Hams, it now wishes to inflict this on other parts of the countryside. If an acoustic fish deterrent is truly impractical— I remain to be convinced—I would like to see the money saved, which would be tens of millions of pounds, put at the disposal of the local community to fund genuine environmental improvements. I want to see those decisions taken by democratically accountable bodies, such as Somerset Council and the local town and parish councils. In my view, they are more likely to spend the money wisely than the agency that thought that turning Pawlett Hams into a salt marsh was a good idea.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Nuclear Power Plant: Wylfa · Hansard source

  More

  8. What the Government’s policy is on the proposed nuclear power plant at Wylfa.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Nuclear Power Plant: Wylfa · Hansard source

  More

  The last Government announced the biggest expansion in nuclear power for 70 years, including the commissioning of Hinkley Point C in Somerset. Does the Minister agree that a new nuclear power plant at Wylfa is vital to the UK’s energy security, and can she give a timeline for its development?