Bradley Thomas
MP for Bromsgrove · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
“We know that higher-level apprenticeships are now out-earning the average degree, according to the Centre for Social Justice. The right qualification at the right time can alter the trajectory of an entire family for generations, but we must also be honest that warm words alone will not create a single apprenticeship place, and with level…”
“It would: scrap real interest rates on plan 2 student loans so that balances can no longer rise faster than inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their careers; create 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 for every Britis…”
“That aspiration is welcome, but aspiration without delivery does little for young people looking for an apprenticeship today or for the small business struggling to recruit for today and tomorrow.”
“That is why I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced T-levels, degree-level apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, helping people to climb up the ladder of opportunity and fortify their careers with the in-demand skills that businesses ne…”
“This is long overdue, and so I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing this forward and for the tone in which he has delivered it. I would like to raise the case of Jenny and Scott, two constituents who I have been supporting in recent months. They have been fostering a child called Alfie for six years.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Bradley Thomas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. What rings in my ears are the words from the Chancellor just a few months ago when she said that businesses need to cut their cloth accordingly. I go back to my initial point: Government must also cut their cloth accordingly. The default position of the Government in supporting business should be to spend taxpayers’ money—the funds generated by the very businesses we are talking about—in the most efficient way possible, so that we can have the lowest possible tax base in our economy to make the UK a great destination for inward investment.”
“The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is a good one, in that he demonstrates that his party believes philosophically that it has to either tax or cut. The Government have no appreciation of the fact that money could be spent more effectively in the first instance. It is a fundamental ideological weakness of the Government.”
“I will finish by saying that I will always be proud to stand up for small businesses in Bromsgrove and the villages, and across the country.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in hospitality rate relief and the lower earnings threshold, which he has just acknowledged, create a perfect storm for hospitality businesses—not just because of the additional rate pressure, but because they will be less incentivised to recruit part-time workers? As has been acknowledged by other Members, that is often a route for young people into their first employment opportunity.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are discussing demonstrates quite a perverse contradiction, in that the sums are huge for the businesses involved—as he describes, they are catastrophic—but the overall net receipt to the Exchequer in the grand scheme of the Government Budget is so small, and that that is further testament to the Government’s lack of economic and political nous?”
“My right hon. Friend touches on the point about the ICJ. Does he agree that the ICJ decision is not only non-binding but perverse? Two of the judges on the court—Kirill Gevorgian, who is a key acolyte of Putin, and Xue Hanqin, a Chinese official—voted against condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and do not represent anything other than the interests of our adversaries.”
“In a world where our adversaries are intent on blunting our national security and prosperity, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and thank him for his commitment to increase defence spending. Can he update the House on what actions the Government are taking to discourage BRICS nations and other emergent high-growth economies from advertently or inadvertently doing anything that would assist Russia in its pursuit of its invasion in Ukraine?”
“Rising energy costs affect not just households but industry. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has said that deindustrialising Britain is a false economy because it “shifts production and emissions elsewhere”. Can the Minister tell the House what is more important: chasing an arbitrary target or protecting industry and jobs?”
“Have Ministers or officials in the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office or the security services raised any concerns with the Department over the possibility of offshore structures in British waters being used for Chinese intelligence-gathering technology? If there are sensitive matters that cannot be discussed in the House, will she commit to holding a private briefing for Members on the security implications of energy infrastructure from China?”
“The Secretary of State agrees that the threat to critical undersea infrastructure is serious, so will he prioritise development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, including under pillar 2 of AUKUS, and will he increase research and development investment into systems that could protect that critical undersea infrastructure?”
“Does the Minister agree that there is a double standard in the Government backing Heathrow expansion to drive economic growth, but not providing the maximum possible support for our domestic oil and gas industry?”
“Surely they did not flee a devastating situation of persecution and desperation, and leave their loved ones behind to suffer.”
“The lack of such testing significantly increases the pull factors, and the Bill also creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants, which provides a direct new incentive for people to come here illegally. The truth is that, in many cases, those who travel via illegal routes and seek to claim asylum in the UK travel through numerous safe countries throughout Europe before they arrive here. We have heard from other Members that this issue is global, and I implore the Home Secretary and Ministers across Government to raise it at every single meeting with foreign Governments. The stark reality is that 87% of those arriving via illegal small boats are young men in their 20s. That begs the question: where are their wives, partners and children?”
“We have heard that there are no easy answers to the topic of tackling illegal immigration, but as Members of this House, we have to find within ourselves the collective will to succeed. Since July, 24,586 people have crossed the channel, compared with 19,300 in the same period the year before, which represents a 28% increase since the election. That shows clearly that the Government need to go further with legislation to strengthen the nation’s response to illegal immigration. I cannot understand why the Government are seeking, through the Bill, to abandon X-ray assessment of asylum seekers to validate their age and prevent a surge in false applicants. All other major countries on the continent, including France and Germany, make use of medical tests to determine the age of applicants.”
“My constituents are not anti-immigration, but they want to see a system based on control and fairness to the UK taxpayer. I implore the Government to rethink the Bill, focus on reducing the pull factors to deter illegal migration, and invest the savings into our communities.”
“We owe it to the future of our country to ensure that we have a controlled, measured approach to mass migration, and to respond with every legal, social and economic lever that we have to protect against the unmitigated erosion of our identity. We must ensure that those who are granted the privilege of leave to remain in the UK are net contributors—that is, they pay more in taxes than they cost the UK taxpayer—and that the customs, traditions and culture of our country are respected. We must make the distinction between those travelling illegally and asylum seekers travelling to the UK via recognised routes of asylum, such as those who travelled to the UK from Ukraine when Putin’s illegal invasion commenced three years ago. It is a falsehood that the UK can become home to millions of people without any qualifying criteria.”
“Part of that is down to us, as shopping habits go online, but, as reported in The Times today, there has been an increase in illegal workers in retail roles across the country, as cash-only vape shops, tanning salons, convenience stores, barbers and car washes start to litter our communities, with no social benefit to enrich our towns and villages. Not only are such businesses widely considered to be a front for money laundering, but they are linked to illegal immigration and people smuggling. They are a dangerous lure for young people who risk being drawn into county lines-style linked criminality.”
“Many migrants perform valuable roles, particularly in public services such as the NHS and the care sector, but it is critical that the Government focus for the long term on rebalancing our economy in order to once again make all manner of roles attractive to UK citizens, and reduce our dependency on long-term migrant labour. Mass migration, especially by those who skipped the queue and arrived illegally, does not just impact us economically, but affects the social identity of our communities. The identity of many cities, towns and villages across the UK is changing.”
“Not at the moment. Furthermore, many of them pay thousands of pounds to smuggling gangs before they make the journey. These false cases do huge damage to public trust in the asylum system, as well as to the cases of genuine asylum seekers. Over the past two decades, our economy has become addicted to mass migration, and we have been sold the idea that our economic prosperity hinges on the notion that mass migration will deliver prosperity. We were wrong on mass migration. It has instead placed undue pressure on public services, and housing in particular.”
“T5. Can the Minister assure the House that as the Government push to decarbonise the electricity grid, the vast majority of new electricity generation and transmission infrastructure will be built in the UK, not imported from foreign countries, including China?”
“Yesterday, Bromsgrove received the devastating news that it is about to lose both its Lloyds and Halifax bank branches in the town centre. Those banks are a lifeline to many small businesses, particularly those run by independent small entrepreneurs, as well as many residents who use their banking facilities on probably a weekly or daily basis. Does the Minister agree that banking hubs can be part of an ongoing solution to retain banking services in our towns? Will he support my campaign for a banking hub in Bromsgrove? Will he meet me to make that a reality?”
“Constituents across Bromsgrove and the villages are sick and tired of violent criminality and lawlessness creeping over the border from Birmingham into our constituency. In the past year, Romsley Co-op and Wythall post office at Drakes Cross—both of which are on the northern fringe of my constituency—have been raided, and it is hard to believe that proximity to Birmingham is not a factor in that. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that prosecutions are pursued and custodial sentences are given in the first instance, to crack down on crime and make our area safe again?”
“Can the Minister explain why the review appears to focus on the symptoms of extremism rather than its underlying root causes? Can he assure the House that that mindset is not directing policy in the Home Office?”
“John Cross, a Bromsgrove pharmacist who believed in the importance of vaccines, took his own life after suffering paralysing complications after receiving the covid vaccine. John’s widow Christine and their children have been campaigning for justice in his memory, including seeking compensation from the vaccine damage payment scheme. Unfortunately, their claim has been rejected. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on the Floor of the House about the vaccine damage payment scheme in relation to covid vaccines? Will she assist me in brokering a meeting between the Cross family and the Health Secretary?”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the Listed Places of Worship Scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. There are around 20,000 listed—”
“At present the scheme, which spends only around £30 million per year, is due to close on 31 March 2025, and no extension or alternative is yet known about. If the scheme is cancelled or scaled back, it will be devastating for these historic buildings, local communities and the heritage construction sector. What a travesty it would be if, for the sake of £30 million to the Exchequer, the Government exacerbated the decay of our historical, spiritual and social heritage, with no upside.”
“There are about 20,000 listed cathedrals, churches and chapels in use across the UK, belonging to a wide range of denominations, together with a number of important listed synagogues, mosques and temples. The buildings are valued for their architecture and history and for the economic and social benefit they bring to the communities they serve. These beautiful buildings, with storied histories, serve both as sacred spaces for the religious community and as spaces for the wider public. The listed places of worship grant scheme supports faith communities by allowing them to reclaim the full amount of VAT spent on eligible repairs, alterations and additions to their building. That includes vital repair works to roofs and stonework, and improvements to facilities such as kitchens and toilets and to the thermal performance of the building.”
“I agree wholeheartedly that this is not just about the social value. There is a profound economic value that goes beyond the £30 million I referenced. The Church of England alone has a backlog of repairs to parish churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with the annual need estimated at £150 million per year. Large-scale closures are also sweeping across Scotland and Wales. There are 969 places of worship on Historic England’s 2024 heritage at risk register, and more than 60% of MPs in England have a church, chapel, meeting house or cathedral in their constituency that is on the register. The listed places of worship grant scheme is the only regular financial support the Government provide to help those looking after these buildings. By “financial support”, I mean simply a refund of the tax already paid to the Exchequer.”
“It was launched in the House of Lords in December 2001 by Baroness Blackstone, who stated: “This new grant will provide much-needed public support for these historic buildings. The scheme underlines the value this Government place on our important historic environment.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. WA129.] I plead with the current Government to recognise that.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting Christchurch priory. I am certain that he will be the strongest advocate of the proposal he puts forward on that Friday. Refunding the tax our places of worship have already paid is vital because in the UK, unlike in the rest of Europe, they depend overwhelmingly on local people to raise the funding for their buildings. In France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, by contrast, such buildings are either owned by the state or supported by special taxes. The scheme was introduced in its current form by the Labour Government in 2001, when the right hon. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognised the harm that changes to VAT could cause these buildings.”
“We all have at least a dozen, 20 or maybe more churches or listed places of worship that are under threat because the Government have not committed to £30 million.”
“They include Christ Church in Catshill, Holy Trinity and St Mary’s church at Dodford, St Leonard’s church at Frankley, St John the Baptist church at Hagley, St Kenelm’s church at Romsley, St Bartholomew’s church at Tardebigge, St Michael and All Angels at Stoke Prior, St Laurence church at Alvechurch, the church of St John the Baptist on St John Street, the church of All Saints on Birmingham Road, St Leonard’s in Clent, St Leonard’s in Beoley, the Roman Catholic church in Bromsgrove, St Catherine’s church in Lickey and Blackwell, St Mary’s church at Wythall, Holy Trinity in Belbroughton, St Michael and All Angels in Cofton Hackett, the church of St Wulstan and St Oswald in Clent, St Godwald’s church, and St Andrew’s church in Barnt Green.”
“Residents raise money to repair their local place of worship and keep it as a community asset to pass down to the next generation. We are merely custodians of these assets. St John’s is just one example, but there are more than 20 listed places of worship in my constituency that benefit from the scheme, and I want to highlight a few of them.”
“They are the visual centre for tens of thousands of communities. St John’s in my constituency is a grade II listed church in the centre of the town. The top section of the spire needs replacing to ensure that the church remains structurally safe and continues to be a beacon for Bromsgrove. The parochial church council and the Friends of St John’s are in receipt of nearly £250,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, plus match funding from trusts, foundations and local fundraising, to meet a total project cost in the region of £430,000. If a VAT bill in excess of £80,000 becomes unclaimable, there is a risk that the project could become untenable. Members from across the House will have stories from their own constituencies.”
“I wholeheartedly agree that the scheme should be extended, given all the economic and social benefits my hon. Friend touched on and the many others that Members will cite. It is a no-brainer that the Government should pursue this. Since 2004, the scheme has been renewed by every Government, but now a new commitment must be made, because the current commitment comes to an end in just a few weeks’ time. Since 2001, the scheme has supported 13,000 places of worship, safeguarding the future of some of our most important local heritage. In addition to their architectural significance, cathedrals, churches and chapels form the nation’s largest art collections, including sculpture, stained glass, wall paintings, woodwork, metalwork and vernacular art. Church buildings also form a vital part of the identity of Britain’s landscapes and townscapes.”
“They foster talent, and musicians including singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran and leading violinist Tasmin Little began their musical careers by taking part in church music.”
“Churches, chapels and meeting houses in the UK host and run vital support services—everything from Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to mental health support and parent and toddler groups. The saving to the NHS from delivering this kind of facility to communities is estimated as £8.4 billion a year. The contribution that churches and cathedrals make to our creative industries and to tourism is also very significant. Some 9.3 million people visited English cathedrals in 2023—a staggering 17% increase on the year before—with many of those visitors coming from overseas. In that sense, churches, cathedrals and places of worship are a UK export. Churches are also by far the largest base for amateur music-making by choirs and orchestras, as well as housing thousands of professional performances each year, ranging from pop to classical music.”
“The hon. Lady has summed it up perfectly, and I thank her for highlighting the example of St Paul’s in Chichester. That is a perfect segue into the point I was just about to make: it is not just heritage and religion that are at risk if the scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are hubs of their local communities. Church of England churches alone support over 35,000 social action projects, including food banks, community larders, and debt, drug and alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups. In recent years, during which we have seen energy prices rise, churches have acted as warm spaces, and at times of extreme weather events they have been gathering points, providing the safety and hospitality required by communities seeking refuge from flooding and other weather events.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and for highlighting the significant cultural importance of Salisbury cathedral. He is spot on: volunteers across our communities sweat everything they possibly can out of fundraising endeavours. This is not a case of going to the Government in the first instance; this is people simply asking for support that ultimately enables churches to be net economic contributors to the communities in which they operate.”
“The damage done to parish churches across England will come at a difficult time, when our communities are becoming less united than ever. The past 50 years have seen unprecedented change, with mass immigration, enhanced social mobility and evolving social attitudes. All of those factors have changed and pushed our communities in different directions and made society less cohesive. Instead of attacking one of the last few community spaces left, I ask the Government to continue funding the scheme. I urge the Government to look now at making the scheme permanent, and not just at giving it a temporary reprieve. A permanent scheme would enable the larger places of worship, such as cathedrals that plan their repair work over five to 20 years, to commit to long-term projects with certainty that VAT costs will be covered by the scheme.”
“I hope that that puts into perspective what excellent value the listed places of worship grant scheme is for the long-term preservation of those assets. That is £2.4 billion of value for a scheme that costs just £29 million a year. Clearly, that amount of money makes no material difference to the country’s £1 trillion expenditure, so I simply cannot understand what is under threat. If the Government were not to renew the listed places of worship grant scheme, the task of keeping church buildings in good repair and open for people to use would be made much harder. More money would need to be raised by local people to pay VAT to the Government, on top of money for skilled labour, materials and other project costs.”
“Although I raised major projects earlier, the potential loss of the listed places of worship grant scheme in the places I have just mentioned—which may claim only a few thousand pounds per year—will determine how much maintenance and repair can take place. At worst, it could be the difference between being solvent or not, and determine the long-term survival and preservation of those buildings. Places of worship are the very essence of place-making and community. They provide enormous value to society—value that our country would be immeasurably poorer without. The National Churches Trust’s “House of Good” report calculated that the total UK-wide economic and social value of places of worship had a market value and replacement cost of £2.4 billion per year.”
“My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are so many generous benefactors across the country who are giving their funds—which, in most cases, they have paid income tax on—to support churches and places that provide spiritual and social wellbeing. Government should recognise that, and I certainly hope the Minister will reference that point in his remarks. These buildings are loved by their communities, and in most cases they are also cared for by volunteers. Particularly in rural communities, the care of these magnificent buildings is in the hands of a few committed people, many of whom are later in their years. They diligently raise funds for the repair of the church building that has shaped the life of their village and community for centuries.”
“Because I am conscious of time, I will not thank hon. Members individually, but I thank everyone collectively. I am really pleased to see the extent of cross-party support here. We have approached the matter in a non-political spirit, recognising the heritage and identity of churches and listed places of worship and the spiritual contributions they make across the entire country. I welcome the Minister providing a continuation of the scheme for 2025-26, although the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was spot on when he said that the scheme was a bargain as it was. It would be a false economy to reduce the scheme and not to give it a degree of permanence. I implore the Minister to go back to his Department and consider how the scheme can be extended permanently— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).”
“The reopening of such hotels is a political choice by the Government—they chose to do that; they did not have to. They could have chosen to use alternative accommodation sites, including military barracks or the Bibby Stockholm barge. They also chose to repeal tough legislation to protect our borders. Bromsgrove has hosted asylum hotels in the recent past. Fortunately, it does not at the moment, but there have been three instances in recent years.”
“We have seen numbers go up as a direct result of the Government’s decision to scrap the Rwanda deterrent and repeal the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prevented those who came to the UK from claiming asylum. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor that more than 60% of them are granted asylum and leave to remain. That increase in the numbers means that Labour has increased the number of hotels open since the election—I think the number cited was 14. Communities across the country, including mine in Bromsgrove, have a legitimate fear that hotels are going to emerge in their area, where people have not previously seen the benefits of such accommodation being used to house illegal migrants pending the processing of their applications.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. As a Conservative, I firmly believe that people who enter our country illegally have no right to stay here. We need to have strong borders, we need an effective deterrent to stop people making what is often a perilous journey, and the Government must take all possible steps to drive down numbers of illegal crossings. I am not going to repeat all the numbers that have been cited, because I think people, in this House or in the country at large, are aware of the scale of the issue.”
“We cannot be in denial about the extent of the cost to the British state. Any migrant who comes to the UK and is able and willing to make an economic contribution will almost certainly always be welcome—we have dozens of potential growth industries that our economy desperately needs to support—but this is about getting the balance right. If the Government choose to view people as economic units, the interests of the UK taxpayer must be first and foremost. We cannot view UK taxpayers as just being there to shoulder a bill and disregard their concerns for their communities, while the Government at the same time choose to consider asylum seekers for more than just their economic value.”
“I speak to numerous constituents who are concerned about the extent of the debt that the state is accruing. We have heard about increasing dependency on welfare, and countries across the west already face a demographic time bomb and a demographic twilight as populations age and burdens on the state grow. We in the west do not have enough of a pipeline of economic talent coming in at the bottom end, so we already face what we could call a time bomb of indigenous welfare dependency, exacerbated by the additional costs of processing illegal migrants on ludicrous timescales that the general public laugh at. Frankly, they feel short-changed by the efforts of—I will be quite honest—successive Governments, who have failed to get a grip on the situation. In short, we desperately need to redress the balance.”
“It strikes me as perverse that students accrue debt while they are at university and, when they become economic contributors, that is drawn down through the PAYE—pay-as-you-earn—system from their earnings, yet we allow a seemingly bottomless pit of funds to accrue as a debt to be absorbed by the UK taxpayer. Why do the Government not explore a scheme whereby, if asylum seekers are deemed to be genuinely in fear and are allowed to integrate and remain in the UK, they repay their debt when they become economic contributors and are active in the workplace? It could be a tiered, sliding scale that recognises the cost that the UK taxpayer is expected to shoulder for people fleeing from a state of alleged persecution. We must significantly redress the balance in favour of the UK taxpayer.”