Speciality Steel UK

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response. I particularly appreciate his words for the Prime Minister, which I know he will appreciate, as will his family.

The shadow Minister began with a long list of neglect regarding the policy, operations and ownership of this particular set of steel businesses. The obvious question is why the Conservatives did not do anything about it when they were in power—it certainly was not for want of requests to act from Labour Members. He has asked for reassurances about the workforce, and I am happy to give those to him. The cost of funding the official receiver, both to date and ongoing, is essentially the wages of the staff. They are in a position where they will be paid, which is paramount.

The shadow Minister talked about the business environment. I say politely to all Conservative colleagues that they left us with the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That was the legacy—it is not due to any policy changes made by Labour. What do our industrial subsidies mean? For a sector such as steel, where an electric arc furnace is obviously incredibly energy intensive, the supercharger package—not the BICS package, because the supercharger package applies in this case—will bring down average electricity prices from approximately £168 per megawatt-hour to £86 per megawatt-hour. It is not just about being competitive with peers; that is a genuinely competitive position with our rivals. We introduced those subsidies because we were aware that the business environment we inherited from the Conservative party was not satisfactory. We had to act, which is why we have done so.

Turning to wider measures, yes, we have activated a substantial trade defence policy. That is not just about maintaining domestic production; it is about being a country where the rules of the game apply. If we want people to be based here in the UK, they have to be able to take advantage of effective trade remedies when they are facing unfair competition. I know that that is an issue for the downstream users, but it is the position that I think the country has to take. What the shadow Minister has said about carbon border adjustment mechanisms is, I think, a new policy since I was last Secretary of State—the Conservatives are perhaps disowning the policies they had at the end of the last Government, because they were certainly committed to CBAMs then. Of course, CBAMs are fundamentally about trying to maintain fair competition between carbon-intensive sectors in developed countries such as ours and the rest of the world, so there is a little bit of incoherence there, to say the least.

On the issue of working capital, the opportunity presented to us by Speciality Steel UK is that previously, the business only produced when the customer effectively supplied working capital—a highly irregular position, but one reflective of the opaque and byzantine financing arrangements under the previous owners. I believe the opportunity exists to operate a successful business in this space. There is nothing ideological about this; my ideal is for the business to be run in the private sector. The shadow Minister has asked why we could not take forward the preferred bidder. I will not go into the details, but when I come to this Dispatch Box I have to be satisfied that any public support given meets the reasonable conditions we would expect, such as that taxpayer money will be protected and will not be spent without delivering the outcome for which it has been granted. If I cannot do that, I cannot grant that subsidy, which I think is the position any Secretary of State would have to take.

What is the barrier to a private sector solution? Effectively, it is risk—the fact that this was left so long without activity from the Conservative Government and the workforce have not been making steel. The customers are therefore in a position where that is a big, substantial challenge for any private sector entity to take on. If we do end up with a public ownership position, I think the state will be better able to take on that challenge, but it is the legacy of neglect that has been the barrier. That is exactly what this Government are determined to resolve.

Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.

As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.

We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.

[Bradley Thomas]

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?

[The Chair]

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is a member of the Committee. She is not on that list, but she is properly a member of the Committee.

Question put,

Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.

As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.

We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.

[Bradley Thomas]

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?

[The Chair]

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is a member of the Committee. She is not on that list, but she is properly a member of the Committee.

Question put,

Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 General Committees

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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?

[Kate Dearden]

I welcome the shadow Minister to his role and to the Committee. I look forward to working with him and debating many issues—this one in particular. He spoke a lot about industrial action. I always find it quite rich when the Opposition talk about strike days, because on their watch they did absolutely nothing to further good industrial relations in this country. That is a real shame, because it is a detriment not only to those employers but to trade unions, our society and our economy as a whole. That is why this Government are absolutely acting responsibly.

I will come to the issue that we are debating today, but let me first say that we recognise the need to make sure that our wider industrial relations framework is functioning so that we can resolve disputes in the workplace early. That is good for businesses, employers and trade unions, so enforcement and ensuring we have negotiation skills across the workplace are really important.

What the Government are doing to reset industrial relations is responsible. We are modernising our wider framework, alongside passing lots of legislation, including the instrument that we are discussing today, and helping to usher in a more co-operative and constructive approach among employers, workers and their unions. I think that is a really good thing.

[Bradley Thomas]

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

Summer Jobs

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

Let me make some progress for the moment.

It is clear that something is not working, as we have all been saying, so we have to try to understand and explain why that is the case. We should not need to point this out, but higher taxes and more regulation are simply not conducive to economic growth or higher employment. If we consider what a business must now weigh up before looking to hire somebody, first, of course, there is the jobs tax—a tax that targets not profit or success, but the very basic act of employing another human being.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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.

[Gareth Davies]

Time and again, we in the Opposition try to make the point that it is not the result of any one particular policy; it is the overall environment. We do not, as a state or as a Government, create jobs; it is businesses that create jobs, and they need to know that the Government are behind them. They need to know that there is an environment in which they can invest in people. Right now, for a combination of reasons, that is not the case.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Energy security is a matter that impacts all of us. It allows us to reliably meet daily demand without concern for supply disruption or price spiking. It ensures that families can heat their homes, that schools and hospitals can continue to serve the community, and that drivers can stay on the road.

Energy security is intertwined with everything we do. In a state of emergency, it guarantees a resilient power source, allowing essential service operations to continue unimpeded, and upholds our national security—indeed, energy security is national security. It should not be controversial to say that our energy security should be a high priority for the Government, yet here we are, turning our back on the North sea oil industry, all in the name of ideologically driven targets, irrespective of global context or the will of the British public.

Time and again, it has been highlighted that the UK emits less than 1% of the world’s global emissions, while the top three nations together emit over 50%. Rather than acknowledge that context, the Energy Secretary continues to push a deadline that is 10 years ahead of the largest emitter and that precedes the third by 20 years, before the second has even set an official target. Twenty years! That time could be spent on ensuring a balanced transition that does not push the UK into a scenario where energy demand exceeds supply capabilities.

Instead, the Energy Secretary insists on maintaining our weak bargaining position by pursuing his relentless targets, ignoring our preparedness levels and dismissing the genuine needs and wants of the nation. From the opportunistic solar farms being sprung up at the expense of our agricultural sector and rural communities, to reaching strike prices of £90 to £95 per megawatt-hour in the latest wind auction, which far exceeds the wholesale gas price at £55 per megawatt-hour, the sacrifices being made, including the interests of the British people, evidently know no bounds.

The argument is not about whether oil and gas will still be needed for years to come, because the Climate Change Committee and the Government themselves have already acknowledged that. Instead, it is a question of where our oil and gas come from. Believe it or not, a Government should support domestic production. A Government should be against deindustrialisation, especially at a time of rising political tension and subsequent volatility. Energy security and economic stability are two sides of the same coin.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I fully support more drilling in the North sea and the granting of more licences—I believe that is important for energy security—but I think it is important to be straight with the British people. As things currently stand, that would not lower their bills, because the oil and gas are sold on the international markets. Would it not be better to follow the example of Norway and put this under public control, which actually would lower people’s bills?

[Bradley Thomas]

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.

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.

A recent poll found that, although 60% of people across the UK support reducing emissions, 68% of those supporters believe that reducing energy bills should be the first priority. That result was echoed in another poll, which found that 71% of people who support reducing emissions do so on the condition that it does not increase their energy bills. The undeniable fact is that these inflexible targets are driving up energy bills.

As a democratically elected entity, the Government’s first priority should be to represent the nation and act in its best interests, but the public are being hung out to dry. It is not only the bill payers paying the brunt; thousands of oil and gas workers are also on the chopping block. Giving rising unemployment, it would be reasonable to presume that the Government would abandon any policy that compounds the issue further, but of course that is far too sensible a suggestion. They appear to prefer to allow 1,000 jobs a month to be lost from the oil and gas sector in places that rely on the industry such as Aberdeen, rather than admit they are on the wrong path.

I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to his place. He emphatically won a by-election last week with almost 50% of the vote, which is a vindication of the fact that the public—particularly workers in places dependent on the oil and gas industry for employment—reject the pace and scale of the Government’s net zero agenda.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clear message that the people of Aberdeen sent last week was that they support the oil and gas sector and the jobs that come with it, and that it is much better that we produce oil and gas ourselves? It is much better for our jobs, our economy and the environment if we produce more in this country, rather than relying on imports.

[Bradley Thomas]

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.

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 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.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

About 90% of the reserves in the North sea have already been extracted. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the analysis of how expensive it is to reach the rest of the reserves? One reason they are still there is that it is far more expensive to extract them. Has he seen whether there is an economic case for doing so?

[Bradley Thomas]

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. 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. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

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. 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.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I thank everyone for a very respectful debate. It was important that it happened as it did.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I reiterate the point that the action that the Government have taken has been to correct an issue in the market. We have taken wide representation. In fact, we amended the list as a result of some of that representation. The shadow Minister’s point about inflation goes exactly back to the point that I made earlier. This country cannot be in a position where we say that we are prepared to buy the cheapest thing, wherever it is made in the world, to the sacrifice of our own industry. We cannot allow foreign Governments’ industrial policies to drive our own industrial policy. That is why we have taken this action—similar action to that taken by the EU. It comes down to a question of whose side are you on. Are you on the side of British industry, like the Government, or are you on the side of overseas industry? That seems to be the case being prosecuted by the Opposition.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to support pubs in Bromsgrove constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

Pubs in Bromsgrove are vital to the local economy, supporting jobs and bringing communities together. I welcome success stories such as the Gate at Bournheath being named Bromsgrove and the villages’ pub of the year 2026, highlighting the strength of the sector. The Government are committed to backing pubs with permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and an additional 15% relief for pubs. We have also significantly increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million to help businesses invest, grow and remain resilient. That fund will help more than 1,000 pubs to diversify their business models, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector, and support people who are furthest from the labour market to move into jobs in hospitality.

[Bradley Thomas]

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?

[Kate Dearden]

I understand that rising energy prices and the wider supply chain effects can place particular strain on sectors such as pubs and the wider hospitality sector, which often rely on that discretionary spending, and operate on tight margins. I have met lots of such businesses up and down the country over recent weeks, and I know that the current situation with energy prices, especially given what is happening in Iran, is causing a lot of concern. Across Government, we are considering carefully this area as part of our ongoing assessment of economic conditions and support mechanisms. We absolutely want to support our pubs and the hospitality sector, as they are vital to our local communities and high streets. It is vital that we provide the economic stability that we have shown this year, ensuring that the economy can keep growing, wages can rise, and people can have money to spend to support our pubs and our hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. The UK Government have a support package for England, with £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers. The Barnett consequentials provide support for Scotland, but where the UK Government are supporting businesses, the SNP is choking off investment and risking jobs.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I am happy to meet. Maybe we should organise a meeting for several companies and several hon. Members. I am very happy to do that as soon as possible. I do not want to extend the transition period, for the simple reason that the EU, the United States and other countries are introducing very similar measures, and the danger is that we would just be dumped on. There will be a review mechanism after a year. I am very keen to meet colleagues to explain the trade-offs we are having to make.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that his efforts to transmit their dissatisfaction have been heard at the highest level. If there is a prize for dark irony, I think he has probably just won it. It is because we want this situation to improve as quickly as possible that we are taking the action that I have described, and continue to put on the pressure.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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.

[Blair McDougall]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have communicated exactly the frustration that he describes, which I have heard from so many hon. Members, to Royal Mail, and I will communicate it to Ofcom later as well.

Employment Rights Bill

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards]

We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on.

Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out. Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The impacts of the Bill in its current form are already being felt: 71% of businesses have raised serious concerns, with over 90% of small business owners expressing deep worries, resulting in 67% of companies preparing to halt recruitment. We already know that the Government do not understand business. That has been demonstrated clearly through the string of damaging policies trailing behind them, from the national insurance changes that are crippling the hospitality sector to the family farm tax that is undermining our national food security. Aspects of this Bill are no exception, the prime example being the complete removal of the employment tribunal cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards.

As of June 2025, 515,000 open claims were in the system, and the numbers continue to rise. The employment tribunal system is inundated. It is overwhelmed and debilitated by cases, leaving thousands facing intolerable delays. Rather than addressing the issue through action that would significantly help working people—

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Member accepts that, as a number of colleagues have drawn to the House’s attention, the current system has a perverse incentive that pushes people towards a more complicated tribunal system that seeks to identify discrimination, rather than a simpler system of unfair dismissal, because of the cap. This measure is more likely to keep claims within the simpler, more streamlined and quicker system of unfair dismissal, thereby helping with the very problem that we all accept is real.

[Bradley Thomas]

I was just about to get to the point that I wanted to make: removal of the cap will make matters significantly worse. To put it plainly, it will open the floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims that will further congest the courts. For many companies, the dismissal process for senior executives is fundamentally different from that used for other employees, in many cases as a result of strategic complexities relating to board involvement. Unlike the structured procedures applied to the wider workforce, senior leaders are seldom afforded opportunities such as performance improvement plans before removal. The Bill creates a significant liability and establishes a direct financial incentive for senior executives to pursue employment claims.

[Paul Waugh]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the moment, compensation for racial, sexual and disability discrimination, and for whistleblowers, is uncapped? What is the difference between that and being unfairly dismissed?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make progress.

The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.

[Graham Stuart]

Labour colleagues shake their heads as my hon. Friend lays out the blindingly obvious. That goes to show why introducing a measure at the last minute during ping-pong is inappropriate and precisely why the House of Lords is right to say that we must consider this fully. It is quite obvious that Labour Members do not want to understand it; they obviously do not understand the implications.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently, as usual.

The Government must abandon the measure. If they are really on the side of workers, the best thing they can do is abandon this measure—and abandon the Bill in its entirety.

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role.

The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses. This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.

Seasonal Work

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that a typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 per month more than it was 12 months ago? Let me briefly put that into context. Assuming that couples go in and spend £100, pubs have to clear 25 additional sittings, just to clear their costs. How are they going to survive?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I think the increase in costs for the average pub over the next few years—I have the figures and will come to them in a minute—is equivalent to needing to serve an extra 10,000 pints. How many pubs will be able to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes. I had the pleasure of visiting a café in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I sincerely hope she is not referring to the one that we visited. This is a common theme across the country, and we hear it on way too many occasions. What is interesting is that the owners of these often very small business feel guilty that they cannot employ people in the way that they would want to—they cannot provide Christmas jobs and so on. They should not feel guilty about that; the Government should feel guilty about that.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the tax rises and the additional cost burden that is causing a lack of confidence? That lack of confidence is in itself probably the most corrosive aspect of all, because once that is entrenched it is very hard to unpick, particularly when businesses repeatedly face a Government who are doing the exact opposite of what they pledged in their manifesto.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes. My hon. Friend knows that confidence is a major driver of economic activity. When the public, consumers and businesses do not have confidence, things fall apart. Without a significant change of direction, I am afraid I cannot see confidence returning. As I said, I do not get any joy in saying that. I want the Government to get their act together. I want them to be economically competent for the sake of our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

Yes, absolutely. I also find it disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition suggested this week that we should freeze the minimum wage. That would mean that, in later years, the workers who are going to keep the lights on this Christmas in the gift shops, the pubs and the restaurants would be entitled to less as inflation went up—[Interruption.] Well, they are part of the economy. If we did not have the workforce keeping the lights on in the first place, there would be no restaurants, no pubs and, sadly, no Christmas custom. That is the experience of far too many people in hospitality.

This is the fourth Christmas in my working life that I am going to be able to spend with my family instead of working in the hospitality industry. If any of those on the Opposition Benches can share their experiences, I would be very interested to hear them, considering how much experience in business they utilised earlier in the debate. Throughout the progress of my career in this place and the votes that we make, I am not going to forget the workers I pulled pints beside and served tables with. I have heard too many stories about kids being bullied, belittled and booted out of the workplace by bad bosses during the first two years of their working lives. I do worry—and I have shared my concern with Ministers—that, especially in the seasonal work sector, this will now simply happen before the six-month mark. We should return to and address that later in the Parliament.

I expect nothing from Opposition Members but an apology to the 1.5 million people who were put into in-work poverty during the shambolic 14-year tenure of the Conservatives. They built a low-wage, insecure, low-productivity economy, all while practising austerity, and now they have come back to this House with essentially the same ideas but with 200 less MPs.

[Bradley Thomas]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to the 89,000 people who have lost their hospitality jobs over the last 12 months?

[Euan Stainbank]

An extensive amount of hospitality jobs were lost over the previous five years as well. I speak to small businesses in my constituency every week, and I do not deny that they have been hard pressed for a number of years. I know, because I was there—I was working in the industry.

[Bradley Thomas]

Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Euan Stainbank]

It is important that we back our hospitality sector, and I said earlier that I think there should be more to come. Small businesses in the hospitality sector have talked to me about their energy prices.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way a second time?

[Euan Stainbank]

I will give way, given the hon. Gentleman’s insistence. Maybe he will mention some experience of hospitality workers as well.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me a second time. Some 89,000 hospitality jobs have been lost during the past 12 months. Youth unemployment is up, with 12% of 16 to 24-year-olds currently unemployed. There are an estimated 40% fewer seasonal jobs this year—the biggest decline in 15 years. Energy costs are up. Business rates are up. Confidence is down. Regulation is up. Does he acknowledge that it is not a coincidence that all that is happening at the same time, and that it must, at least in part, be related to the really poor choices made by this Government?

[Euan Stainbank]

Although I do not accept the premise, I think it is important to recognise that hospitality has struggled over a number of years. I am not in any way denying that. However, I do not know why the Employment Rights Bill is mentioned in the Opposition Day motion, given that its provisions have not yet come into place.

It is important that we listen to hospitality and give feedback, but it is also important not to discourage young people from seeking job opportunities in the first place. That has happened for far too long—for the past 14 years under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.