Poundland

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

For thousands of Poundland workers, the question today is simple: “Will I still have a job?” Behind every store facing uncertainty are workers—real people with bills to pay and families to support. As a west midlands MP, this issue hits close to home—the headquarters are in the region. For thousands of shoppers who rely on this store to make their money stretch further as the cost of living worsens, the question is also simple: will they still have a local, affordable place to shop as Christmas approaches?

Workers and customers deserve clear answers about what happens next. Why was a proposed management-backed rescue bid rejected? Can an agreement still be reached? If individual stores are sold, will their employees keep their jobs? When will communities learn whether their local branch has a future?

The current economic landscape is hostile to British business. Given the stifling red tape, skyrocketing energy bills and surging employment costs, another well-known British brand being in trouble feels less like a surprise and more like an inevitability. Rather than admitting that their own vindictive policies have driven the cost of doing business to an unsustainable breaking point, the Government are instead locked in a desperate squabble with Reform over who can intervene the most to engineer a state-sponsored rescue. The reality is clear: increased political interference is a failed strategy that offers nothing but false promises to workers and consumers alike. True security cannot be micromanaged into existence by Whitehall.

If the Government genuinely want to revive our economy, they must start dismantling the barriers to growth that they have put in place since taking office. Running a business should be an ambitious pursuit, not a high-stakes gamble against state-induced risks. That is why, rather than looking to interfere in yet another business dispute, the Government should focus on slashing the unnecessary red tape that is suffocating businesses; lower business rates, which hinder high street growth; reduce the cost of employment and make it rewarding to invest in people; deliver the lower energy prices that businesses across the nation are calling for; and get tough on the wave of shoplifting plaguing our high streets. Rather than looking to stifle businesses’ every move, we must protect workers’ livelihoods by allowing businesses to get on with driving economic growth and employing people.

[Kate Dearden]

I must say that I am quite disappointed by the tone of the shadow Minister. Vindictive economic policies and a squabble with Reform—is that his answer to the 12,000 people and the thousands of suppliers across the country whose jobs are at risk in the run-up to Christmas?

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government should stop interfering with another business, but that is exactly not what we are doing; he would know that if he had listened to my statement. We are not interfering with the auction. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about this private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process or comment on individual bids, as I said. It is legitimate for the Government to ask a business whether it is doing everything that it can to protect employers and suppliers, in order to get clarity about its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—in this case, 12,000 of them across the country. It is right for us to put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.

We are clear as a Government about our expectations; we are taking a responsible approach, not a “sit by and do nothing” approach. What would be the point of politicians and Government if we took that approach?

Performance of Royal Mail

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), my constituency neighbour, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I know feels strongly and passionately about this issue. Indeed, we have spoken many times outside the Chamber about our mutual woes over the lack of performance on the part of Royal Mail.

We are all aware of the importance of a reliable postal service. It keeps isolated and digitally excluded people connected, sustains relationships between loved ones during special times, and serves as the foundational communication network for vital public services such as the NHS. Hearing Members on both sides of the House speak about Royal Mail with such great concern, I was struck by the fact that it has become a topic that unites the House.

Last week in Westminster Hall, Members heard about the array of problems that constituencies across the country are experiencing with Royal Mail. In my own constituency, residents of Bromsgrove and the villages are experiencing critical disruptions to their mail deliveries, the most prevalent being weeks of no post, only for them then to receive a bundle of outdated and expired letters. The problems range from missed NHS appointments and bank cards being reported lost to elusive household bills and overdue birthday cards. I think we also heard about a missed job opportunity as a result of postal delays. This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it is a matter of profound disruption that could and should have been avoided.

Shockingly, in a survey that I conducted in my constituency, 87% of respondents believed that the service they were receiving was not reliable, and 96% believed that Royal Mail's postal delivery service needed improvement.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I wonder whether that 96% of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would agree with me that perhaps his party’s privatisation of Royal Mail was a mistake in the first place. Perhaps he would like to apologise for that.

[Bradley Thomas]

We have heard a great deal about nationalisation this evening, but I am pretty sure that my constituents believe the state should not be the actor that, in the first instance, provides the vast majority of services. The state does not have the best track record of providing everything. In this instance, it is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to ensure that Ofcom and Royal Mail are held to account, and that we see a tangible improvement programme.

I know, as well as Members on both sides of the House, that people in north Worcestershire are experiencing comparable problems. Having made that further reference to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Redditch, I will cut across north Worcestershire to the other neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). People there are experiencing those problems as well—I know that, because I spoke to my hon. Friend today—resulting in financial losses for some of his constituents, and missed appointments as well.

I understand that Royal Mail, along with many other businesses, will be facing pressing issues, including surging bill costs and increased bureaucratic red tape. May I ask the Minister whether the Government have discussed with Royal Mail specifically the impact of soaring bills and employment costs on the company’s ability to deliver services, and, in particular, challenges relating to recruitment? It is clear, however, that, especially in recent years, the business has lost its way, and in the last 18 months that has become particularly acute.

Royal Mail has a rich history. It is a 500-year-old institution, but it has failed to demonstrate an ability to adapt in recent years to society’s changing needs. Royal Mail will undoubtedly press that demand has changed. This evening we have heard many instances of parcels being prioritised over letters, which should not be the case. Over the last decade, we have seen technological advances that have undoubtedly had a significant impact on the way that people and businesses communicate, but the stats for Royal Mail are not in its favour. In 2024-25, first-class post hit a 77% service level against a 93% target, and second-class hit a 92.5% service level against a 98.5% target. That was enough for Ofcom to deem that Royal Mail was in breach of its obligations. In 2025-26, we saw 75.7% of first-class items delivered the next day—short of the 93% target—and 90.2% of second-class items delivered within three days, against a target of 98.5%.

[Luke Murphy]

The shadow Minister points to the figures since 2024-25 and refers specifically to the last 18 months, but Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million in 2023 and nearly double that amount in 2024. Does he not recognise that the Conservative Government failed to grip this issue?

[Bradley Thomas]

What I recognise is that the problem is getting worse. As I have mentioned, it is incumbent on the Government to get a grip of the situation. I hope that the Government have heard loud and clear the concerns from Members across the House, regardless of political party, about what their constituents are facing, and that the Minister will address those concerns shortly.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman join calls for more granular data, so that we can ensure that every constituency is represented in the data? Some Members have talked specifically about towns and villages, where I appreciate that there is an issue, but there is also an issue in cities. A number of us who represent cities have said that we have problems.

[Bradley Thomas]

That is a point I will touch on with regard to transparency levels.

There have been seven stamp price rises in four years, with the price of a first-class stamp having doubled since 2022. It is clear that residents in my constituency, and those represented by Members from across the House, are paying a first-class price for a second-class service. If consumers are expected to pay higher prices for a service, they rightly expect such a service to deliver on its promises, yet residents face a much different reality from what Royal Mail claims. Its local performance target of 87% of first-class post being delivered the next working day was achieved in only 42 of the 118 postcode areas—a statistic that resonates with my constituents and those of many Members here today. Every industry has a level of standard that it is expected to meet, and Royal Mail should not be any different, but it is failing. It is time for accountability and material action in order to deliver tangible results.

Alongside the stark statistics that have been quoted, the House will have heard me and other Members express strong discontent in Westminster Hall last week about the report earlier this year that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late. With NHS waiting lists already too long, we cannot afford for more appointments to be missed due to late letter delivery. With the cost of living already debilitating families across the country, they cannot afford missed payment charges due to delayed bill arrival.

To be clear, and in common with Members from across the House, I do not believe that the fault lies with the hard-working posties who serve our communities. We are grateful for all that they do to keep us connected, but action must be taken by the highest levels of management to quickly address the real-life experiences that are depleting customer confidence. Management are failing and, speaking from my own personal experience, I am sick and tired of the platitudes that come from Royal Mail. I echo and share the concerns of Members from across the House.

In Westminster Hall last week, the Minister shared that she has been frank in her meetings with the chief executive of Royal Mail and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. However, with Christmas, the busiest time of year for postal services, only 60 days away, it is time for immediate action, not more meetings and passing the blame back and forth. Something that needs to be focused on is transparency around local delivery data, as has been suggested in the Chamber this evening. Can the Minister outline the material steps the Government are taking, alongside Ofcom, to ensure an improved service is delivered as quickly as possible? Do they have confidence that Royal Mail’s improvement plan will deliver the needed changes promptly? At what point is the service so bad that the Government decide that further action is necessary?

Expecting what you paid for is a basic standard, not an unreasonable demand. The public are tired of a failing service that continues to worsen, disrupting daily routines and tarnishing its former reputation for reliability. This is a matter of national importance about a national institution, and I believe all our constituents would like to know specifically how the Government are working with Royal Mail and Ofcom to take concrete steps to correct these issues to restore public confidence.

Royal Mail: Performance

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. She is clearly delivering for her constituents in a way that Royal Mail is not.

Royal Mail is clearly failing in its universal service obligation, and it is clear from comments across the House that there is universality in those failings. From my own casework, I came into this debate well aware of the widespread failures affecting our postal services and knowing that action is long overdue. After hearing the compelling story shared by Members from across the House, I believe it is undeniable that we cannot wait any longer, and that answers are well overdue.

It is only 65 days until Christmas. It is not quite time to put the tree up, but for service providers and logistics teams, it is right around the corner, and mailbags will surge. We all know that Christmas is one of the most demanding times of the year for the postal services, especially for our hard-working postmen and women. I too want to express my thanks to them. I do not think any of us are frustrated with our hard-working posties. There are failings with management. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) pointed out, all year round, posties are a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and sometimes they are the only person they will see or have social contact with.

[Anna Dixon]

In rural areas, posties are often already doing extremely long routes. Does the shadow Minister recognise that the new delivery model is breaking up some of the continuity that postal workers have with their communities and making some rural rounds less manageable for them?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is correct. The current model is not working as it should, which is having social implications and, clearly, adversely affecting the service even further. It is crucial that that is addressed.

As we get close to the Christmas period, the busiest time of the year—as shoppers complete their final online orders and families send gifts and cards to loved ones, friends and family—the country needs confidence that postal services will deliver. If they can deliver, that is one worry ticked off the list at a busy time of year, but in recent years, many of us and our constituents have found that there is a certain elusiveness to the post all year round. My constituents have the recurring experience of receiving no post for two weeks, followed by a large bundle of outdated letters, with hospital appointments missed—we have heard many stories on that theme today—DVLA reminders overdue, credit cards reported lost in the mail, and even legal issues rumbling on because court summons and other documents are not received in time.

[Jim Shannon]

On the point about health-related letters, when I met the former Health Minister in Northern Ireland, he gave us an undertaking about franked envelopes as a way forward. If Royal Mail did its job correctly, it would receive the franked letters and expedite them through the system. That seems to be working in my constituency, because, by and large, the postal workers do that very effectively. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Royal Mail and others responsible need to focus as a priority on delivering letters that are obviously medical letters, because they are franked, on time?

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the same spirit as a comment by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who mentioned an example of NHS letters being prioritised. There is a pressing need for Royal Mail to look at best practice from all parts of the country and ensure that it is part of its standard methods of operation, so that it delivers for its customers and our constituents.

We know that a malfunctioning postal service has a profound domino effect on many important aspects of residents’ lives. In March, it was announced that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late this year, despite the seventh stamp price rise in four years. That statistic will come as no surprise to the Members here today—it has been cited by many and it solidifies their constituents’ lived experiences—but predictability should not be mistaken for acceptability. Our constituents should not have to tolerate this escalating issue, so I ask the Minister to outline today a tangible plan to deliver a swift solution, rather than continuing to pass the buck to Ofcom. I am aware of Ofcom’s role as the regulator, but the Government cannot expect this nationwide problem to fall exclusively on Ofcom’s shoulders. I suspect that the Minister has received that message loud and clear from Members across the House today.

What action are the Government taking to materially address the service problem? Do they believe that Ofcom is still fit for purpose with regard to regulating postal services? Those are difficult questions to answer, but my constituents—all our constituents—want answers to them. The Minister has made it clear that frank discussions are being held with the CEO of Royal Mail, and Royal Mail has emphasised that its “Quality of Service Improvement Plan” sets out—allegedly—a clear path towards meeting Ofcom’s new delivery targets.

We saw how important this issue is when it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today. But what good are more discussions and promises if they are never fulfilled or fail to improve the service? Does the Minister believe that the operational issues with Royal Mail are being addressed quickly enough? What discussions have taken place concerning not only the implementation of the improvement plan, but the success achieved so far?

Royal Mail is a key piece of British identity, with more than 500 years of history. It has endured challenges and played a key role in some of our nation’s most difficult times. It is a service to appreciate, but such recognition is warranted only when an acceptable standard of service is provided. The purpose of this debate is to highlight the unacceptable service being supplied by Royal Mail and to fast-track finding a solution. Will the Minister share the immediate steps that she will take to ensure that Royal Mail’s service is corrected and customer confidence restored?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The hospitality sector provides around 300,000 jobs for young people every year and contributes £96 billion annually to the economy. Despite that, the Government continue to hammer it with a series of blows, to the extent that the sector has the highest effective tax rate of any sector in the economy, paying the equivalent of 82p in taxes for every £1 of pre-tax profit made. That eclipses the 50p average rate across our economy’s 11 main sectors. What steps are the Government taking to tangibly lower business costs, so that hospitality businesses can employ more young people?

[Kate Dearden]

My first job was in hospitality; I remember it fondly. It has given me skills that I have used throughout my career and life, and it supported my family when we really needed it. I absolutely know the significance and importance of this sector to our economy, and the difference that it can make to people’s lives. It is a key employer of young people across the country—in the hon. Member’s constituency, in mine and in the constituencies of colleagues across the House. It provides a rewarding route into work and is a critical sector to resolving the NEETs crisis and many challenges that we face across the country.

As we grow our economy, we want to grow the hospitality sector. I work really closely with the sector and the Hospitality Sector Council to ensure that we look at all the challenges, and at how we can work together to provide more opportunities and jobs and grow the sector in every constituency across this country. I am determined to deliver that.

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.