Bradley Thomas MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Special educational needs and disabilities provision and access to education, health and care plans continues to be a worry and concern for many parents in Worcestershire. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the adequacy of SEND provision in Worcestershire, and what steps are the Government taking to improve it? If she does not have a comprehensive answer, perhaps she could write to me.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps her Department is taking to support apprenticeships.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. The Government are right to focus on the importance of parity between vocational education and academic education. However, when comparing the academic year 2025-26 with 2023-24, the number of people who have started apprenticeships has dropped by 9% and the number who have completed has gone down by 17%. With reference to the Minister’s point about vocational pathways, will he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they are linked with the needs of industry, so that this in itself does not become an academic exercise?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Speciality Steel UK · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of Conservative Members, I send my thoughts to the Prime Minister, following the tragic passing of his father. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In her statement to the House following the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK in September last year, the then Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated that the Government would pursue every avenue to keep the company’s sites producing, as part of the Government’s wider work to grow a resilient domestic steel industry. We can all agree that the compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels created a great deal of uncertainty, especially for the more than 1,000 workers employed there. I am keen to hear how the Government have kept their promise to stand by the entire workforce throughout this process, including while overseeing bids to sell former assets. Will any redundancies follow nationalisation? However, continuous operational failures have already pushed businesses into a state of chronic uncertainty; a failure to file accounts for more than six years led to a separate prosecution by Companies House, and there was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. The Secretary of State said that the official receiver wanted to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors in the period leading up to the liquidation. Can he give an update on any investigations into conduct that the Government have undertaken, and on any steps taken to recover money belonging either to the business or to the British taxpayer? Despite the rhetoric about the Government supporting the UK steel industry, all that the industry has experienced is increased pressure and apprehension. From the steel strategy, which is likely to lead to ever higher costs for taxpayers, to the introduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which fatally weakens our national resilience, the survivability of steel producers is becoming more difficult. Indeed, a manufacturer in my constituency told me some months ago that it will likely dissolve by Christmas if the Government do not change course. Energy prices are also a significant hurdle for steel plants. The Government’s Clean Power 2030 action plan risks making things worse; it could force rapid change without ensuring the infrastructure or investment to support it, while increasing costs for manufacturers and threatening jobs in key industrial communities. Nearly 92% of global steel production faces no comparable carbon pricing. Only the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand, covering just 8% of global output, apply prices in the £30 to £70 per tonne range, but we expect our industry to compete with countries that pay a fraction of that, or nothing at all. The Secretary of State will say that the Government are helping to address the burden of high bills for manufacturers via the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but unfortunately their efforts are too little, too late. Having a strong steel industry is vital to our national security and resilience. Traditional bulk commodity steelmaking is vital to our national infrastructure, and modern advanced steel manufacturing is a vital foundation for sectors such as aerospace, defence, nuclear and automotive, all of which are critical, given rising geopolitical tensions. I understand that another issue facing Speciality Steel UK was having the capital to buy raw materials that would allow the continued production of advanced steels, such as the landing gears produced at Stocksbridge. Could the Government therefore outline what support has been given to maintain site operation through this process, and whether advanced steel manufacturing will be a priority following nationalisation? Circling back to the Government’s commitment to pursue every avenue, can the Minister explain how much consideration has been given to private investment as a solution? How much was spent on private sector solutions before the decision to nationalise, and what was the main basis for that decision? Considering that a preferred bidder had been identified, it is surprising that the Government have moved away from this completely. Indeed, at the Business and Trade Committee on 22 June, the Department’s director for materials and industry noted that “significant investment” was required, and stressed that the majority of this should come from the private sector. Other than a new Prime Minister who is ideologically committed to nationalisation, what has changed? Will the Minister outline the terms asked for by the private bidder that the Government were not willing to agree to? If the business has unique capabilities and demand is there for its products, does that not imply that the barrier to a viable private sector buyer is either the Government’s own ideological obsession with nationalisation, or an economic climate in which it is increasingly impossible to run a successful manufacturing business in Britain?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Bromsgrove continues to grind to a halt because of Worcestershire county council’s disastrous delivery of a local transport scheme, BREP—the Bromsgrove route enhancement programme. The scheme is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding. I recently wrote to the Transport Secretary with 34 questions that my constituents want answers to, and I received a reply that, frankly, did not answer a single one. I have resubmitted a letter to the Transport Secretary imploring her to answer questions. I am sure that I am often an irritant to the Government—whether through my campaign to protect Bromsgrove’s green belt or on this matter—but I make a plea to the Leader of the House: will he press the Transport Secretary to support me in seeking answers in the interests of my constituents?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Air Traffic Control Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  This is clearly a very unfortunate incident, and full transparency is essential. Does the Minister have a view on what the overall cost of the incident was to the UK economy? If the Government do not have that figure at the moment, will he update the House on that separately? What plans do the Government have, working with industry, to compensate affected passengers? There will have been all manner of costs borne by those who were unable to fly, and I am sure that collectively, they run into millions of pounds.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  This code of practice grants a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces with more than 21 workers, and it poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager-employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It is therefore concerning that a recent survey found that one in four workers believe that managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. That would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the Government suggest. The Government should focus on action that is guaranteed to improve employment relationships actively, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year, rather than rolling the dice on a policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy. The cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million. Increasing that cost through more frequent strikes, which we know are linked to greater union presence—as I demonstrated to the Government yesterday—and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No Government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses; yet here we are, discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate. To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption. Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones that will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs which are estimated to reach almost £600 million. The Government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. What they fail to account for is that thousands of small businesses will be left in a precarious position. A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees. The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported—small businesses that are already struggling and with trust in the Government to support them being at an all-time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the Government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more? The UK needs small businesses. We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the Government appear to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly. The UK should be proud of our small business community; they consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy. Rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British businesses and the economy, the Government need to take a simultaneously pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living. It is for those reasons that we will vote against the instruments. For those same reasons, I also ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  This code of practice grants a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces with more than 21 workers, and it poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager-employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It is therefore concerning that a recent survey found that one in four workers believe that managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. That would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the Government suggest. The Government should focus on action that is guaranteed to improve employment relationships actively, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year, rather than rolling the dice on a policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy. The cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million. Increasing that cost through more frequent strikes, which we know are linked to greater union presence—as I demonstrated to the Government yesterday—and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No Government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses; yet here we are, discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate. To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption. Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones that will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs which are estimated to reach almost £600 million. The Government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. What they fail to account for is that thousands of small businesses will be left in a precarious position. A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees. The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported—small businesses that are already struggling and with trust in the Government to support them being at an all-time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the Government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more? The UK needs small businesses. We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the Government appear to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly. The UK should be proud of our small business community; they consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy. Rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British businesses and the economy, the Government need to take a simultaneously pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living. It is for those reasons that we will vote against the instruments. For those same reasons, I also ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that in settling trade disputes, the Government should emphasise increases in productivity, not just blanket above-inflation pay rises?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities · Hansard source

  More

  On the surface, this revision introduces the legal right to reasonable paid time off for union equality representatives, ensures that representatives can hold multiple positions—thus increasing the provisions under which they qualify for more time off—puts a greater onus on employers in tribunals, and legally requires employers to provide reasonable means to support representatives in carrying out their jobs. Yet it does far more than that: it burdens businesses with yet more regulatory red tape, further decreases employment opportunities and compounds the hardship that employers already face. Higher employment costs through increased administrative expenditure, unaffordable additional paid leave and legal tribunal expenses are a fast track to job scarcity. A recent survey of more than 1,000 business owners found that one in five lacked confidence in the new trade union rules. Furthermore, 69% of employers believed that trade unions still have the power to cause serious problems for the UK economy, while 62% believed that the UK is entering a new, more unstable period of employment relations. Yet rather than heed those warnings and work with businesses to create a viable solution, the Government persist with such policies, despite being aware of the risks. This is a tough time for employers and workers. Employers are seeing rising costs all around them, and workers are watching their budgets get stretched thinner as the cost of living continues to mount. A solution is needed, but this approach will only create new challenges. The increased presence of trade unions is anticipated to escalate the number of strikes taking place across the economy. Data from the European company survey shows that strike incidence is directly higher in establishments where trade union density is greater. Furthermore, trade union membership in the public sector sits at 48.5%, compared with only 12.1% in the private sector. Research shows that since 2000 the number of days lost to strikes per worker has been 30 times higher in the public sector than in the private sector, despite public sector earnings rising faster. In a scenario of escalating industrial action, who is likely to be profoundly impacted? A persistent casualty demographic is the general public. It is unacceptable that the Government are looking to create a set of circumstances conducive to increased strikes, which burden the British public—and at the taxpayer’s expense, no less. That is why we will vote against this draft code. Rather than expand the scope of paid time off for union representatives, the Government should scrap this legal burden on employers and redirect important taxpayer funds to frontline priorities such as the NHS and national infrastructure. Businesses have already suffered harmful setbacks under this Government: increases to national insurance contributions, mounting energy bills, business rate modifications and the Employment Rights Act, which 86% of industry leaders warned would harm UK growth. The Government claim to be pro-worker yet continue to enact policies that shrink workforces and empty the public’s pockets. I am both pro-worker and pro-business, and so is my party. We are steadfast in our belief that we must support businesses and entrepreneurs, who not only prop up our economy but take risks needed to provide employment. I also firmly believe that the Government must support workers by ensuring that they can keep as much of their own money as possible. That is how to truly bolster UK business and meaningfully assist the hard-working taxpayer simultaneously. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plan to ensure that their policies on trade unions do not lead to further job losses? If not, will they accept our suggestions?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and for securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that there is a particularly predatory aspect upon the death of a resident who has occupied one of these properties? I would like to use this moment to pay tribute to Alex Roll, a constituent of mine whose mother’s estate has been crawled all over by predatory management companies that have seen an opportunity to effectively seize the assets of someone who worked tirelessly through their life. This system urgently needs reform—it is desperate for it.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department has effective strategies for prioritising housing densification in urban areas.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  I just heard the Secretary of State say that there should be a brownfield-first approach, but what is going on in Bromsgrove, and in many other constituencies, is contradictory: an 85% increase in the housing target in a constituency that is 90% green belt. I challenge the Secretary of State to think again and prioritise urban densification, which is fundamental to the redevelopment of towns, cities and urban centres that are in desperate need of renewal. Why does she not just admit that she has got this wrong and change tack?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  This process has been a complete shambles from start to finish and has failed to have Worcestershire’s best interests at its heart. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether this is actually being paused or whether, in reality, the can is being kicked down the road, under the veil of the process being delayed, rather than the Government admitting embarrassment? If it has been paused, and she is going to revisit the decision, will the evidence base be revisited, and will there be a new consultation with stakeholders, including residents? If so, will the Secretary of State meet me, as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, before she takes a decision? I think she said earlier that the Government had allocated £63 million to support councils across the country in this process. How much of that £63 million has been spent so far?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  On a day when Jaguar Land Rover has announced 4,000 job losses, how many more jobs have to be lost before the Government change course?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Far too many communities across the country are blighted by Travellers and Gypsies who seek to circumvent the planning system and build without first seeking permission. I have two instances of that in my patch, in Dodford and Hagley. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should not be a two-tier approach in the planning system, and will he allow for a debate in Government time on strengthening the planning system, so that councils get the powers that they need to resolve this issue? Will he also stress to his colleague the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government that she should not have removed local councils’ powers to prevent such development on the grounds of environmental damage?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Building Homes and Renewing Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The Government appear to be very inconsistent in their approach to local government reorganisation. Worcestershire is being split into two, Gloucestershire is being kept whole and the boundary of Leicester city council is expanding outwards into the surrounding areas. Can the Secretary of State rule out further expansion of Birmingham city council into the surrounding areas, including Worcestershire?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. He knows the importance of protecting local green belt; indeed, he made it a key part of his by-election campaign in Makerfield. It is incredibly important in my constituency too, where there has been an 85% increase in the housing target and we are 89% green belt. The Prime Minister says that he wants to do things differently and share the burden across the country, so will he meet me to discuss a new path forwards?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The draft regulations extend the period during which the Government may exercise the existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022. Specifically, they extend the Secretary of State’s power to fund a proportion of the renewables obligation costs attributable to domestic electricity supply from 25 April 2026 until 25 October 2026. No new powers are created through this instrument; it simply prolongs the exercise of powers that Parliament has already granted. The Minister has explained that the purpose of the extension is to support the Government’s policy of reducing domestic energy bills by transferring 75% of renewables obligation costs from consumers to the Exchequer, claiming that it will reduce household energy bills by an average of £150 from April 2026. However, the measure is solely another exercise by the Government in moving costs from one pocket to another. Households may pay less through their energy bills, but they are still expected to meet those costs through general taxation. It is also worth reminding the House of what the subsidies are funding. The renewables obligation provides long-term support to renewable generators, with consumers now bearing the brunt of the cost. The Government are not, as they are claiming, tackling the underlying drivers of high energy prices; they are simply shifting the burden from energy bills on to the public finances. The Minister speaks of a commitment to lowering household energy bills by £300, yet household energy costs are now higher than when the Government entered office in 2024.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is experienced in these matters. I would have thought that question would be in the 101 of presenting this instrument to the House. We are pleased to see the Government finally adopt our Conservative party policy of abolishing the carbon price support on electricity generation, but their plan for the promised £300 savings is still nowhere to be found. While Labour transfers the cost of renewable subsidies on to taxpayers, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the underlying cost of energy for households. That plan would abolish the renewables obligation altogether, accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power by cutting unnecessary planning barriers, remove VAT from domestic energy bills for three years and abolish the carbon tax. Together, those measures would reduce household bills by around £200—not simply move costs from one bill to another. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s plan for cheap power is, and if not, whether they are willing to accept ours as a solution? Finally, when, if ever, will households receive the £300 reduction in energy bills, as promised at the last general election?

• 1 Sept 2026 · China: Threat to UK Interests · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the level of threat China poses to UK interests.

• 1 Sept 2026 · China: Threat to UK Interests · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to hear the Minister acknowledge that China is a threat. The directors of GCHQ and MI5 have been clear that China presents the most significant state-based threat to the UK. The Government have previously talked about their China audit; will they commit to publishing it in full?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that is perhaps the most corrosive consequence of all? Businesses have all the pressure that is bearing down on them, and so many are telling me that it is just not worth it. The correlation between effort and success is being depleted, their self-confidence is being eroded and, as a result, our economy is being sapped of any desire to contribute because the effort does not reap any reward.