Early Release of Prisoners

Debate between Ashley Fox and John Hayes

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is right. We are perfectly entitled to make that request of Government, as he has done in eloquent terms. It seems to me that the plan to release up to 6,000 criminals in September needs to be stalled, so that we can think again. There is a good argument for removing sex offenders, rapists, those guilty of manslaughter and those involved in grooming children from the list of those to be released. That is the least that could be done, and the opportunity is there to do it. If I may say so, the fact that a Member as senior as my right hon. Friend has made that suggestion should in itself carry significant weight.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Government put forward their proposals, they said that the most serious and heinous crimes would not be affected by the scheme? The reason we are in this position is that statements made at the Dispatch Box were, to put it mildly, inaccurate. In fact, very serious and heinous criminals will be released in September unless, as he suggests, the scheme is paused, and paused it should be.

[Sir John Hayes]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Sentencing Act facilitated early release. Did we not ask then for clarity about what that meant, in the terms that he describes? What kind of criminals would be released? What damage might they do? What assessment had been made of the risk of this policy? It is not as if the Government were not pressed on all those things, but there has been a remarkable lack of clarity—for example, the Prime Minister said, “It is impossible to say who will be released, where and when.” Frankly, you cannot get less clarity than that, can you, Madam Deputy Speaker?

We need to know that more innocent people will not be put at risk. The very least we should do is deal with the issue of serious sexual offenders and, in particular, those responsible for abusing children. I make no apology for quoting particular cases. Shabir Ahmed, the Pakistani ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, was freed despite warnings that he was “unsafe” to be released into the community. He was jailed for 22 years for 30 child rape offences. The parole documents that reveal that he was deemed unsafe for release into the community include his belief that it was

“acceptable to sexually abuse children”.

That is a chilling thought, and I know that decent people across this House, and across this country, will be shocked by it.

A woman groomed and raped as a child by a friend of her family has appealed to the Government to abandon their plans to free him nearly two years early. Jade Belgrove waived her anonymity to describe the Government’s early release scheme as an “absolute disgrace”. Her case highlights that women and children are at risk from rapists and sex offenders who are freed early. She was raped aged 14. She deserves justice, if justice is indeed “truth in action”, as Disraeli said.

I differ from the Minister on the purpose of criminal justice. I believe that the treatmentist perspective that has dominated for a very long time needs to be challenged; I believe that just retribution should be at the core of how we deal with the wickedness that I have outlined. However, let us put all of that to one side. Those are issues of principle, and although there may be differences of principle between us, the Minister did not come to the Chamber to advocate for a principle. He did not say, “We are doing this because of some high-minded view about how we should deal with crime”; he said, “We are doing this because we can do nothing else—because of practicalities.” Therefore, as we are dealing with practicalities, let us look at what can be done to fix the problem, and let us do so early, so as to find a solution to it before September.

In doing so, let us broadcast a message from this House today that people need not walk in fear because dangerous people are going to be released on to the streets of their village, town or city; Parliament has said that that cannot be so. If we were to do that, public faith in Parliament would be a little stronger, a little restored. That is the request that I make of the Minister, because I stand by and for the people, having been chosen by the people to do so.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Debate between Ashley Fox and John Hayes

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Since being elected by the people of Bridgwater, I have sought to be a strong voice for local families, small businesses and community groups across my constituency. I am saddened that, during those two years, life has got more difficult for so many people. The cost of living is rising faster than two years ago, unemployment is higher and small businesses are struggling.

The reason for these problems is that this Government are making life harder for people who work hard and do the right thing, and too often they reward those who do not. Labour is taxing and spending and borrowing too much. It is taxing those who work, those who employ people, those who save, those who invest, those who create jobs, and those who build up a family farm or family business and want to pass it on to their children. It seems that the only people better off under Labour are train drivers and those on benefits.

Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out the borrowing plans of the last Conservative Government. We planned to borrow £323 billion in the five years from April 2024. This Labour Chancellor is planning to borrow £583 billion over the same period, which is an 80% increase—an extra £260 billion borrowed over five years. All that extra borrowing must be paid for.

Poor economic management and chaos within the Labour party mean that Britain is now paying 5.1% to borrow money for 10 years.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

King’s Speeches are partly about what a Government do, and partly about what a Government do not do. The omission in this King’s Speech is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests: a macroeconomic approach, particularly to productivity. This is a huge drag on our economy, and one might have expected further measures to be announced dealing with that macroeconomic problem, for it relates closely to the problems that he has set out in his speech already.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

The rate that Britain is now paying is higher than at any time over the last 20 years—in fact, it is the highest rate since the last time Labour was in office. Britain’s finances are in a precarious position precisely because Labour is doing what it always does: spending other people’s money like there is no tomorrow.

The Government announced a holiday tax in the King’s Speech. This will enable councils to tax holidays taken in this country even more than at present. Most people who take their holiday in Britain are British. They already pay VAT at 20% on their holidays, and Labour wants to tax them further. This will hit local businesses in Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Many families who holiday in Somerset are not wealthy. A tax of £2.50 per person per night will take £70 a week away from a family of four. That is money taken out of their pocket that they cannot spend with local businesses.

It has been interesting to watch Liberal Democrats in Somerset squirming over their plans for a holiday tax. While their colleagues in Bristol and Bath have welcomed the tax, calling its introduction a victory for Liberal Democrats, those in Somerset do not quite know what to say. No doubt they will make their position clear before next year’s local elections.

Welfare Spending

Debate between Ashley Fox and John Hayes

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right about the cost of benefits, but he is also right to suggest that they need to be directed to those in the greatest need—the most deserving. That is what we all want across this House. Sadly, because of family breakdown and the fragmentation of communities, the state has stepped in to do what was once done, in my early life, by families, individuals and communities. It is really important that this welfare reform is seen in that broader context, and that we direct the money to those with the greatest need.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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.

UK-EU Summit

Debate between Ashley Fox and John Hayes

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate.

In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit.

The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.

I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people.

When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy.

Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My right hon. Friend is correct. While I was in the European Parliament, opinion poll research was conducted into whether people could name their Member of the European Parliament, and only 2% of British people could name any Member of the European Parliament—regrettably, it was not me.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Ashley Fox and John Hayes

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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.

[Sir John Hayes]

Last time we debated this issue, I talked about legitimacy, continuity and dignity, and nothing I have heard today refutes the arguments I made then. Of course it is true that this House’s authority is drawn from the democratic legitimacy that enables each of us to speak for our constituents. We are chosen by them and answerable to them. However, that is not the only form of legitimacy.

When the Liberal Democrat spokesman offered her views on the subject, I was minded to ask, “Where do you stand on the Head of State?” Our sovereign is chosen by birth, not election. A Head of State is critical—at the apex of our constitution. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for whom I have great regard, as he knows, was appointed by the monarch, as I was when I became a Minister.