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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

One reason why we are so keen for the supply chain for the upgrade of our grid to be in the UK is our wish to ensure that there are opportunities for factories in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, and I recently met her, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and XLCC, to discuss those opportunities. XLCC is currently changing its business model but remains committed to being part of the supply chain for cables in the future, and we will continue to do everything we can to support it.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The oil refining industry employs tens of thousands of people and is crucial to our energy security. It is also a key part of the ministerial brief. The sector is under immense pressure, so can the Minister tell the House when he will meet industry representatives directly?

[Michael Shanks]

I have met industry representatives, and when I did so they told me that it was the first time they had met anyone from the Government in 13 years. Many of the issues that are now emerging have been long in the making because of the last Government’s failure to recognise their importance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that refineries are an important part of our energy mix and our economy. We will do all that we can to support them, and I continue to meet their representatives and those of Fuels Industry UK regularly.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Industrial energy prices doubled under the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the impact of the Ukraine war on our energy prices highlighted how we are reliant on the global oil and gas market. That is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030, to take us away from that reliance and to stop such a crisis happening again.

I should point out that the crisis at Liberty is nothing to do with energy prices—it operates electric arc furnaces, so it is not anything do with carbon pricing or anything else the right hon. Gentleman might be referring to. He is right that energy prices are too high, which is why we are intervening. We will see a significant reduction in electricity costs when we extend the industry super-charger from 60% to 90%. As I outlined earlier, in a scenario where Speciality Steel is producing what it was producing a couple of years ago, that will give it upwards of £1.5 million off its energy costs. That is a lot more than the previous Government ever did.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

UK manufacturing has been undervalued for far too long. One of the best ways to support industry is to ensure that its cost base is as low as possible. Will the Minister commit to the House that, in 12 months’ time, UK manufacturers will face lower energy costs than today? Will she also rule out further national insurance increases?

[Sarah Jones]

UK manufacturing suffered under the previous Government, who had no strategy, did not really believe in it and allowed thousands of jobs to be lost across a range of different industries. This Government are taking a fundamentally different approach: we have an industrial strategy under which we intervene directly to grow the industries of the future, including foundational industries such as steel, which are so important to us for many different reasons. We are also introducing energy price reductions that, for companies such as Liberty that use high levels of energy, will mean significant reductions in their costs by next year. We are introducing an additional energy reduction for a wider group of up to 7,000 companies, which by 2027 will also receive a significant reduction. Again, that is something that the previous Government never did.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I express my regret that that business, like so many across the country, finds itself buried in red tape as a consequence of the implementation of Brexit by the Conservative party. There are technical aspects of our agreement with the European Union that need to be worked through, but businesses across the country, such as the butchers and deli he described, will be willing us on in that endeavour.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It has been nine weeks since the Prime Minister announced a deal to protect steel from US tariffs, and 10 weeks since the Secretary of State said that the India deal was “signed, sealed and delivered.” Will the Secretary of State publish the details of these important deals without delay before recess, or will he apologise for misleading the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not accuse other Members of misleading the House. A little word before that—“inadvertently”—would support that question. No doubt the hon. Member will wish to withdraw that.

[Bradley Thomas]

indicated assent.

[Mr Alexander]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am struggling to keep up with the Conservative party’s position as to whether deals have been done. As I recollect, 34,000 workers in Jaguar Land Rover know exactly the difference that a Labour Government are making, given the challenge they would have faced with more than 25% tariffs had it not been for the work of the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary. But that is only one sector of the economy. In relation to steel and aluminium, of which the hon. Member spoke, we are continuing to work with the United States to ensure that the agreement to remove 25% tariffs on UK steel and aluminium can be implemented as soon as possible, but we are unique in the level of tariffs set compared with every other country in the world.

Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this important debate, about which I have had much communication from constituents, particularly those who operate their own health and beauty businesses in my constituency. Those businesses, of which we are all aware, are a cornerstone of our high street and community. They provide valuable employment; I was particularly struck by my hon. Friend’s comments about the volume of employment that they provide, particularly to female members of society. But the crisis that we face is urgent, the stakes are high and the voices of salon owners, staff and apprentices must be heard.

I would like to highlight an example from my constituency. A constituent who operates a salon in Bromsgrove got in touch. After 33 years of contributing to the local economy, creating jobs and nurturing talent, they face the heart-wrenching possibility of having to close their doors within the next 12 to 18 months. Severe financial pressures, exacerbated by Government policies, have pushed them to the brink, and without support, staff—including a promising new apprentice—may lose their livelihoods. One of the major challenges is the disparity caused by disguised employment practices. VAT-registered salons, such as theirs, are struggling to compete with establishments exploiting loopholes through which workers are falsely registering as self-employed to dodge VAT. That creates an unfair playing field, forcing ethical businesses to consider unsustainable practices simply to stay afloat.

However, the consequences of inaction extend far beyond individual salons. Industry forecasts paint a bleak picture: a 93% drop in employment by 2030, no new apprentices by 2027 and the loss of generations of talent. Rising costs—including, in this case, a wage bill of £52,000 before factoring in rent, national insurance and pensions—make it impossible for compliant salons to thrive under the current VAT threshold of £90,000. That is why support from the Government is not optional; it is essential. This salon owner, alongside many others, has taken proactive steps to bring attention to this crisis. They are a member of the British Hair Consortium and they have contributed to comprehensive dialogue with Government urging action—action that cannot wait.

I am also struck by the comment made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) about non-surgical aesthetic treatment; I have raised that before in the House of Commons myself. My constituent, Nicky Robinson, is quite happy to go on the public record as someone who often performs corrective action for surgery that has gone wrong. That is another dimension to an industry that presents an emerging healthcare crisis that I, too, urge the Government to address. I would also like the Minister to confirm when the Government will introduce a mandatory licensing regime that will protect not just consumers but those practising in this industry.

The beauty sector is not merely about aesthetics: it is about empowering individuals, building confidence and fostering community connections that we all know exist across our constituencies. It is time for the Government to recognise the importance of the industry and take the necessary steps to ensure its survival.