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 2 of 13.
“It is no secret that households across the country are struggling with their energy bills. The UK currently has the highest industrial energy prices among developed nations and the second highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world. That stark fact is evident to anyone paying energy bills, and it is about to get worse. The Ofgem cap for July to September has risen by 13%, reaching £1,862, which is £294 more than when the Government came into office in July 2024. I am not sure where the Energy Secretary’s promise to decrease energy bills by £300 has gone, but it looks like he actually meant an increase. There is nothing complicated about these figures. The cost of energy is rising, and households and businesses across the country are feeling the impact.”
“I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports continued activity in the North sea, and I will address that point later on in my remarks. Increasing reliance on imports and blaming unstable global markets regardless of the product, when we have the ability to produce it domestically and help stabilise the market, is not just reckless; it is madness. That is not to mention the fact that offshoring our carbon emissions, such as importing from the US, does not help the planet; it simply allows the UK to portray lower emissions in national statistics, while facilitating the generation of three times higher emissions via this method of supply. We should be supporting any domestic production that reduces product cost, generates jobs and has the potential to add billions more into our economy.”
“I predict what the rebuttal point will be: it does not matter how many barrels come from the North sea because it is all sold on an international market and therefore will have no impact on our energy prices, which are dictated by global pricing.”
“I have one question for the Government: what do they say to the thousands of workers who risk losing their jobs or have already lost them? The Government will claim that clean energy is providing 100,000 jobs, but have they shared the detail on the quality of those jobs and the pay cuts that the workers are having to take? Why has that not happened? Because it means that the Government would have to take responsibility for a mess that they are compounding. The bottom line is this: if we want to support those workers, we must support the North sea oil and gas industry. The ban on new oil and gas licences is leaving at least 2.9 billion barrels of oil in the ground—billions in monetary value that could be added to our economy, thousands of jobs that could be secured and millions of homes powered.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his first spoken contribution as an elected Member. He is already demonstrating his resoundingly strong voice on behalf of the people of Aberdeen South, many of whom are employed in the industry and terrified about what the scale and pace of what the Government are doing represent for their futures. It appears that the Government would rather ignore warnings that their refusal to replace the energy profits levy is putting 200,000 jobs at growing risk than delay their ideology for even a few years. They would even rather ignore the Scottish Affairs Committee’s warnings that clean energy jobs are not keeping pace with oil and gas job losses, rather than give up on this net zero legacy.”
“It is time to do what is best for our country and support the North sea industry that provides employment, helps to regulate global pricing and protects our national energy security.”
“Why, then, is a 1.5% share of the global market considered too small to be worth pursuing? The answer is that it does not serve the “net zero by 2050 at any cost” narrative. The fact that our energy security and our North sea industries are in a crisis is not new information. We all know it. Members across this House know it. Tony Blair knows it. Even the Energy Secretary himself knows it; he just will not admit it. It is time to put personal ambition and ideology aside. People need their bills reduced and jobs secured now. They are tired of being left to the whim of global market fluctuations, when the Government are not acting to stabilise the market by increasing supply and securing jobs.”
“Underpinning so many of the decisions taken by the Government is a fundamental lack of appreciation for how businesses take investment decisions. They are not incentivised to do so. Allow the market to operate by restricting regulation and financial pressure on it, and businesses will innovate. They will invest to extract resources that are viable because they can be sold on the international market. It is basic economics that the more product they have to meet demand, the more substantial the price reduction. Scarcity drives cost. The Labour party loves to argue that our North sea industry produces too little to have a significant impact on the global market, but less than 1% of global carbon emissions appears significant enough to dictate our national energy strategy.”
“I implore the Minister to reflect on his words about the opportunities that have been missed in the past to strengthen the refining sector. I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said across the House today as they think about the role that North sea oil and gas can play going into the future. There was an emphasis on ensuring that drilling can continue, abandoning the energy profits levy, and doing whatever the Government can to work with industry and workers who currently have those jobs, so that we do not have a moment of regret in the future and wish that we had done more now to prevent job losses and a further reduction of our energy resilience.”
“I thank all hon. Members from all parties across the House for participating. There is clearly lots of passion and enthusiasm for this topic, as well as much concern. The debate was conducted in a very pragmatic fashion, which recognises that there is no climate denial across the House. Members recognise that there needs to be a fair transition that supports existing oil and gas jobs, and does what it can to strengthen those jobs and to ensure that the UK maintains an energy security position where we are able to tap into natural resources while focusing on the jobs of the future. I was pleased to hear jobs, taxation and the importance of prosperity in Scotland emphasised in the debate, given the role that the region plays in our national security. I was pleased to hear the emphasis on refining.”
“8. What assessment she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of her Department’s policies on levels of youth unemployment.”
“Some 42% of employers have cut back on graduate recruitment, and across Bromsgrove and the villages there has been a 25% increase in youth unemployment over the last two years. With unemployment undoubtedly weighing heavily on the Chancellor’s mind, does she regret the choices she has made and the impact that they are having on young people’s futures?”
“Looking out to 2028-29, there is a £2 billion gap between what the Government say they will be spending on SEND and what the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that SEND spending will be in that period. That will risk children across Worcestershire being forced to fit into a box that does not fit their needs. What steps will the Government take to address that?”
“Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the serious topic of the impact of steel tariffs on companies and jobs across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister gave me a rather evasive answer—I suspect because he did not expect to be addressing the House of Commons today. He did say that the Prime Minister would be raising the issue at the G7, so can he update the House on what was discussed with regard to steel tariffs? Will he take the opportunity once again to try to answer the question as to what steps the Government are taking to avoid this economic disaster, which will occur in less than two weeks?”
“Across my constituency, from Hagley to Wythall, from Cofton Hackett to Belbroughton and in the villages in between, it feels as if there is a barrage of speculative planning applications from developers who have been emboldened by this Government. There are around 1 million long-term empty homes in England alone, which would go a long way towards helping the Government alleviate the pressure on the green belt as they seek to deliver their housing target. Can we please have a statement from the Housing Minister on the Government’s long-term empty homes strategy as soon as possible?”
“Q10. May I associate myself with the tributes paid to Jo Cox? In two weeks’ time, new steel quotas and 50% tariffs will come into force, which industry has said will cost jobs. UKF steel in my constituency has been clear that without a change of course, it will almost certainly cease trading before the end of the year, and that will cost 50 jobs in my constituency. Last week, I attended a cross-party roundtable, and it was clear that my concerns were also shared by many Labour MPs who are concerned about job losses and further deindustrialisation. What action is being taken at the very top of Government to mitigate the effects of what will be an imminent but avoidable economic disaster?”
“This is a really important topic and a really important announcement about children’s health, safety and wellbeing, and I wish the Government well as they navigate some very thorny topics in bringing it into effect. Can the Secretary of State give any indication as to what accountability will look like for the platforms that will be tasked with enforcing this?”
“The Government are missing a huge opportunity by not pushing development on brownfield land over green belt. My constituents believe this, and many Members across the House acknowledge it. In fact, if the Government wanted to, they could meet their housing target by prioritising development on brownfield land first. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is of the utmost importance, and that it should be debated on the Floor of the House at the earliest opportunity?”
“13. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the use of Chinese-manufactured solar panels by Great British Energy.”
“The Xinjiang Uyghur region of China is estimated to provide 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon. An estimated 68% of UK panels come from China, and two thirds of NHS trusts are dependent on Chinese solar. The Government have said that GB Energy is committed to having a supply chain free from slave labour by spring 2025, but a Politico investigation has revealed that five out of seven of the contracts that GB Energy has provided for schools cannot guarantee that they are free from forced labour. The GB solar stewardship initiative pledges to ensure that there is no slave labour, but there is no guarantee of 100% elimination of slave labour from the supply chain. What will the Government do to reduce slave labour in supply chains and wean the UK off Chinese-made infrastructure?”
“Last week I met Sophie and Matt, two young entrepreneurs aged 24 and 19 who have bucked the trend and opened Toploaf Bakery, but they are already terrified about the long-term viability of their business. I hear this time and again from entrepreneurs who say they have nothing left in the tank—pressure put on them by this Government means that they are at risk of closing their business. When are the Government going to start listening to those who actually employ people?”
“I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that the picture she paints is not one that pubs across my constituency will recognise. A typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 in additional costs a month compared with two years ago, because of a rise in energy costs, employment costs and business rates. If the Minister is serious about supporting the hospitality sector, will the Government look at a permanent cut to business rates for pubs and exempt pubs with accommodation from the overnight levy?”
“T8. The Government’s new steel tariff and quota regime, due to come in in a few weeks, means that many businesses face a cliff edge. One in my constituency recently got in touch to tell me that it faces either a slow death or a swift death, and that it faces calling in the administrators before Christmas. Will the Minister keep an open mind about extending the transitional period, and will he agree to meet me and a very small number of my constituents who will be affected?”
“Having worked in the oil industry, I understand the flow of oil products around the world quite well, and it is unquestionable that the Government have eased the prospect of Putin’s oil flowing into the UK’s oil market—that is beyond doubt. I have three questions for the Chief Secretary. Can she explain the Treasury’s calculation of the extent to which this move may benefit UK motorists? Can she explain why the Government have decided to do this, and can she tell us what she thinks the cost will be to the Government’s integrity and whether it is worth it?”
“16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates announced in the autumn Budget 2025 on the retail, hospitality and leisure sector.”
“I recently met Chris, the owner of Chapters Hair in Bromsgrove, who told me that current conditions are the most difficult he has faced in 25 years of trading, which he attributes directly to the decisions taken by the Chancellor. Why is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government across the board are riding roughshod over what business owners think—the people who know best how to run their businesses—and when will the Government get off their backs and get on their side?”
“The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. On cosmetics, does she share my concern about the continued use of botox in the non-surgical aesthetic treatment industry? Botox occupies an unusual, but perhaps not unique position in the market: because it is used for medical purposes, it falls under the medical definition and animal testing is allowed. However, it is increasingly being used in the cosmetics sphere—a loophole that needs to be addressed. For the record, I am wholly opposed to animal testing in all its forms; I believe it should be phased out across the board to the maximum extent possible.”
“The European Union currently allows for food production methods that are either banned or being phased out in the UK, which is undercutting British farmers. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure parity of welfare standards so that British farmers are not priced out of the market?”
“For far too long, mobile phone connectivity across Bromsgrove and the villages, Worcestershire and, frankly, the rest of the country has been woeful. I find it shocking that humanity can send a rocket to loop around the moon and back, and yet we cannot get reliable mobile phone signal. This morning, I read in The Times and The Telegraph that Vodafone, Three, O2 and EE are considering rationing mobile phone connectivity in the light of surging energy costs. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the adequacy of mobile phone connectivity—not just in rural areas, but across the whole country?”
“If I had had the chance yesterday—lots of Members wanted to speak and I understand why I did not get an opportunity—I would have loved to have asked the Prime Minister whether he had considered resigning at any point, and if not, why not. How many more people have to be blamed or scapegoated before this becomes a situation where the Prime Minister does the decent thing and resigns? How many more twists and turns does this saga have to follow before the Prime Minister does the right thing? I can tell the Minister—he is looking somewhat uncomfortable; I commend him for coming to the Front Bench today—that my constituents are sick and tired of the evasiveness of this Prime Minister. They want him to do the decent thing and to resign.”
“I have a direct question for the Minister: is he aware of whether Peter Mandelson had access to sensitive information prior to the security clearance recommendation coming through? If the Minister is not aware of that, what review is being put in place to ascertain the level of that information, and what risk management will be put in place to mitigate the effects of the exposure of any sensitive information that Peter Mandelson may have obtained before the security clearance came through? There is another question of accountability. Many of us in the House, and people in the country at large, would love to know why the bar of personal accountability is so low for everyone else, yet impossibly high for the Prime Minister.”
“The pressure placed on the Foreign Office when clearing and appointing Mandelson has become apparent over the past few weeks, particularly this morning following the testimony of Olly Robbins, and it is frankly reprehensible. We heard that Olly Robbins was told to get that done at any cost: effectively to ride roughshod over good moral conduct to deliver the will of the Prime Minister. We are starting to hear glimmers that certain people at the top of Government—perhaps in the Cabinet—advised the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office that they were not comfortable with that, but the Prime Minister was completely ignorant of it throughout the whole process. We now know that Peter Mandelson was effectively appointed and given access to sensitive security information before his security clearance was granted.”
“As many Members have said, it seems that that happened because he was seen as a particularly slick operator at the top of the Labour party, and he was seemingly untouchable to so many. It is a great shame that it has got to this point, with this ongoing debacle and scandal, and the Prime Minister’s evasion, to cause the downfall of Peter Mandelson. Unanswered questions remain, including a really simple one that has been asked many times, although we have not had an answer. I would love to know, as would my constituents and many in this House, what seemingly virtuous qualities of Peter Mandelson warranted the on-balance very serious risk that the Government took in pursuing his appointment.”
“The corrosiveness of this Government and their incompetency is borne out in all the decisions they have U-turned over—I think we are up to 18 U-turns in two years. We have seen the corrosive effects of Government policy across the board, whether it is on the economy or on the price that businesses are paying, as a result of questions that the Government have not asked. That begs the question about the Prime Minister’s general incuriosity about seemingly everything—least of all this, the most serious of issues. Peter Mandelson was known to be a paedophile-adjacent character at the time that the Prime Minister took the decision, seemingly at any cost, to appoint him as ambassador to the United States.”
“This is a particularly sorry saga. It is corrosive for not just this Government and the Labour party, but the entire political class and politicians as a collective body and it is certainly corrosive for the country. That is because a theme has emerged from this episode and others under this Government around competency—or what the public would probably see as a general theme of incompetency. It is frankly ludicrous and laughable that we have got to this point. For the best part of two decades, Peter Mandelson’s name has been a byword for sleaze and incompetence, and that is before we knew about the risks that he could continue to pose to our national security if he were given a position.”
“I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she plan to provide any additional resource or funding to the Prevent programme? If so, does she have any initial idea as to where that may be targeted?”
“Entire industries are being reshaped or phased out, and energy systems built over decades are being dismantled in a matter of years. And who bears the cost? It is not abstract. It is households facing rising energy bills, businesses struggling with higher operating costs, and manufacturers deciding whether to stay in Britain or to relocate to countries with cheaper, more reliable energy.”
“Net zero is a socialist dream, because it epitomises centralised control, Government interference in daily life and redistribution. When an idea becomes immune to scrutiny, it is precisely then that scrutiny is most needed. That definitely applies in the case of Britain’s rush to net zero, because in our haste, we risk undermining our economy, our energy security and, ultimately, the resilience we will need to face the future. Caring for the environment is necessary, reducing pollution is noble, and innovation in energy is essential, but pursuing an inflexible target at any cost without regard for the consequences is madness. First, take the economic reality. The UK is attempting one of the most rapid energy transitions ever undertaken by an advanced economy.”
“Norway understands something that we would do well to remember: energy independence is not at odds with environmental ambition; it underpins it. The UK risks increasing its dependence on imports, even as domestic resources remain available.”
“That brings us perfectly to the North sea, which is one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Beneath those waters lie opportunity—reserves of natural gas that could provide reliable domestic energy for years to come—yet the Government are choosing to turn away from it. The argument often made is that extracting more gas contradicts our climate commitments and locks us into the past, but that overlooks a crucial fact: the UK will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come. That is where the comparison with Norway becomes so instructive. Norway is often held up as a leader in environmental responsibility, and it has chosen not to turn its back on North sea resources. It has done the opposite: it has increased gas extraction, recognising both the economic value and the strategic importance of domestic supply.”
“We only have to speak to businesses across our constituencies, and they will tell us about the reality of the economic calamity caused by decisions taken by this Government and the costs bearing down on them. The reality is that choices made by this Government continue to hollow out our industrial base, not because we lack skill or ambition but because energy, which is the lifeblood of industry, has become prohibitively costly. Energy security is not a theoretical concept; it is the difference between stability and vulnerability. It is the ability to heat our homes, power hospitals and keep the economy running, no matter what is happening anywhere else in the world. Yet at this moment, when we should be strengthening our domestic energy supply, we are choosing to restrict it.”
“We are increasingly dependent on China because of decisions taken by this Government. The pursuit of renewables-based future energy infrastructure is increasingly dependent on countries that are adversarial to us and pose a risk to our long-term energy security. The hon. Member is right on that point. This is not just about energy; it is also about jobs and public finances—something the Government know only too well, following their economic choices. The North sea has long been a vital source of revenue for the Treasury, creating billions of pounds that support public services and infrastructure. Analysis by Offshore Energies UK shows that there is £165 billion of estimated economic value in the North sea, should the Government muster the political will to seize it.”
“That is why we have to get the balance right. True leadership from the Government lies not in symbolic gestures but in practical solutions that can be adopted globally. The pursuit of net zero, as currently framed, risks becoming an exercise in self-imposed constraint—one that weakens our economy, compromises our energy security, threatens jobs, reduces vital tax revenues and lowers living standards for all, while delivering limited benefit.”
“The general secretary of the GMB has described the Government’s stance on oil and gas as “madness”. Unite the union has warned plainly that such policies will put jobs at risk. Even Juergen Maier said that extracting more gas and oil from the North sea would boost jobs and tax revenues. Those are not voices that the Government usually say are opposed to progress; they are voices that represent working people, so why on earth are the Government choosing to ignore them? We have to consider the global context. The UK accounts for a relatively small share of global emissions. Even if we were to reach net zero tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be limited. Meanwhile, major economies that compete with us continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels as they balance growth, development and transition.”
“I will not give way any further. To accelerate the decline of that sector without a fully viable replacement is not just economically risky but fiscally short-sighted. At the same time, we must consider the livelihoods tied to the industry, as colleagues across the House have stressed. Tens of thousands of skilled workers depend directly or indirectly on oil and gas. These are not abstract numbers; they are engineers, technicians, supply chain workers, families and, more importantly, whole communities. If we move too quickly without a realistic transition plan, we do not simply phase out an industry; we create unemployment, lose expertise and weaken entire regions. That is happening right now. This is not just a theoretical concern; it is raised by those who are closest to the issue. Trade union leaders have been clear.”
“Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the comments made by Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, who said that importing LNG has a greater carbon footprint than extraction from the North sea? Does he also agree that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now acknowledging that the renewables market is itself not competitive?”
“While I welcome the Minister’s statement, my constituents and I have a few questions. How many households does the Minister project that this will be applied to? What does he foresee the average amount of support being? Is there a qualifying criterion in terms of benefits or household income? Will the fund be disbursed via the upper tier or lower-tier council, and should my constituents apply to Bromsgrove district council or Wiltshire council for support?”
“I pay tribute to the posties across Bromsgrove, but not to the management of Royal Mail. My constituents need action, not more platitudes, like Royal Mail saying to me that it is “very sorry” that letters have not been received. I implore the Minister to get together with the management of Royal Mail and Ofcom to deliver an action plan, for which Royal Mail is accountable to us, via the Minister, so that we see an improved service for all our constituents.”
“My constituents have been incredibly vocal in telling me that they do not want this. Frankly, because trust in the Government has eroded so much, this scheme is dead in the water. If the Government go ahead with it, what will they do to ensure that there is no single depository containing the data of millions of citizens that could present a single point of failure from a security perspective?”
“My constituents want the Government to get off their back and get on their side, rather than using their hard-earned taxpayers’ money to spend up to £40,000 on removing illegal asylum seekers. Will the Minister rule that out?”