Chinese Embassy

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot provide a running commentary on a live case. All material considerations will be taken into account when making a decision.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

This is a complete farce, to be quite honest. We have seen reports in the media that there will be a secret room less than 1 metre away from sensitive cabling, and that since 2018, the Chinese authorities have been cutting off utilities to the UK embassy in China. National security should surely trump the planning system. This is a decision that should be taken by the Prime Minister in Downing Street—it should be a very quick and resolute no. If the Government are not in a position to do that, the framework needs to be changed. If necessary, the Government need to come before Parliament to do that, where they will find a very warm reception.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think I could have been any clearer: all national security considerations will be taken into account when making a decision on this case.

Bromsgrove: Local Government

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government organisation in Bromsgrove.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The reorganisation of Worcestershire councils will be the largest local government reshuffle in more than 50 years. It represents a defining moment for our county—one that offers either the opportunity to deliver better value for money to residents or the risk that parts of the county will be pushed, involuntarily, into becoming extensions of an urban city. The stakes could not be higher.

The required aims of the new council organisation are clear: financial sustainability, good value for money, high-quality services and an ambition of continued improvement. Those are not abstract aspirations, but the practical foundations required to protect our communities and safeguard essential services. Only one of the two options before us will achieve the wants and needs of the local community: one unitary authority—a single, united structure that provides the clarity, efficiency and strategic strength necessary to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand to get his thoughts on what he was trying to achieve. Does he agree that local government must be efficient, accessible and accountable, and that consolidation is worth while, but not at the expense of the accessibility of services? Hailing from the rural constituency of Strangford, where constituents do not have accessible local government, I support the hon. Gentleman in his quest to ensure that it is a priority in any restructuring.

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. The disaggregation and loss of access to sustainable services is a profound risk in any case of local government reorganisation, but particularly in rural constituencies.

I acknowledge the recent survey shared around Worcestershire, and thank those who responded: local consent should always be a priority in any devolution process, including local government reorganisation. The results showed a clear split in opinions across the county, and must be considered in context. Some 48% of respondents supported two unitary councils, 29% supported one unitary authority and 19% did not support any reorganisation, yet the number of respondents—4,200—represents only 0.6% of Worcestershire’s 621,000 population, meaning the survey is questionable as a true representation of Worcestershire as a whole. In short, it is a snapshot, not a consensus.

Worcestershire is a rural county—approximately 85% is classified as such—and a picturesque one, with a seamless mix of small urban cities, semi-rural towns, rural villages and uninterrupted green space. That is no less so in my constituency, which is 79% rural and 89% green belt. Serving the needs and wants throughout the vastly different parts of the county is a delicate balancing act, but it is a balancing act that allows Worcestershire to be so wonderfully unique. It is a balancing act that allows my constituents to enjoy beautiful country walks and quaint villages on their doorsteps, alongside the convenience of more urban towns or cities not very far away. That harmony between rural tranquillity and accessible urban life is part of what makes Worcestershire a fantastic place to live.

That balancing act would be toppled by the forced use of a city template. A model designed for incomparable metropolitan areas cannot be imposed on a county defined by its largely rural character without causing catastrophic disruption. Keeping decisions local to Worcestershire is vital: it is the only way to ensure that local communities are not sidelined, that my constituents’ voices are not stripped away and that the fabric of rural life is not sacrificed. Counties shaped by their rural character are rightly proud of their identities and traditions, and any local reorganisation that happens in Worcestershire must recognise and respect our distinct needs.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and Worcestershire neighbour is making a strong argument about the risks of a north-south divide, in which the north could be subsumed under a greater Birmingham. That is a very important point. Is he as surprised as I am that, of the district and city councils across Worcestershire, Wyre Forest was the only one to advocate a single Worcestershire unitary authority rather than the split model?

[Bradley Thomas]

I am surprised but that must be seen in the context of the survey I referenced. Only a very small proportion of the Worcestershire population responded to any consultation about future options. I will refer later to the wider stakeholders that are supportive of a single unitary authority to deliver local government in the best interests of residents across Worcestershire, including Wyre Forest.

The creation of two unitary councils would do the opposite of respecting the distinct needs and rural identity of Worcestershire. It would see the north Worcestershire section become by default an extension of Birmingham and would fundamentally shift our identity. North Worcestershire is a neighbour of Birmingham, but is proud to be part of the adjacent countryside that so many Birmingham residents enjoy. Conversely, north Worcestershire enjoys a proximity to Birmingham, while maintaining its unique rural character and slower pace of life.

A divided structure would only weaken our voice, dilute our identity and place our future in the hands of those who do not understand us. One unitary authority is the only option that protects Worcestershire’s integrity, strengthens its governance and secures its long-term ambition for prosperity. Many residents across Bromsgrove and the villages have chosen to live there because they value the way of life. That valued identity must be protected from being merged into an urban extension, or even treated as a subset of an identity that has existed for generations and delivered a footprint for successful local government service delivery until now.

We are already at risk of urbanisation and our local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced upon us, despite consistent local objection. As a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt and approximately 8% brownfield land, our housing targets have increased by 85%. Meanwhile, our neighbouring city of Birmingham with at least 140 hectares of brownfield land and extensively established infrastructure, has seen targets cut by more than 30%.

If we were involuntarily to risk becoming an extension of Birmingham, it is highly likely that our precious green belt would be sacrificed even further. The character of our county, its landscape, identity and rural heritage would be placed at real risk. Despite that loss, it would still be the urban areas that would continue to receive the largest proportion of infrastructure investment, leaving my constituency questioning how it can be expected to absorb the growth when infrastructure is already at capacity.

Urban areas have the highest demand for housing precisely because they are urban. That is why urban densification remains the housing policy most genuinely representative of the public’s needs and wants. When providing a common-sense counter to central Government decisions, such as unreasonable housing targets, one unified voice is essential. A single coherent authority can speak for the whole county, representing all our views and standing the strongest chance of securing greater funding for transport, housing and economic development. Multiple voices drown each other out; a united voice is harder to ignore.

Alongside ensuring that decision making is kept local to Worcestershire and that my constituents are not stripped of their voice—an action that would run counter to the principle of devolution—a single unitary council is also the most sensible financial decision. It would protect local democracy while strengthening our ability to shape our own future. Financial sustainability is vital for any council. Across the country, we have seen many councils struggle with rising costs; costs that inevitably become the burden of the British taxpayer. Without a sustainable model, residents pay the price through higher taxes, reduced services or both.

My constituents have already experienced a 4.9% increase in council tax this year, due to increasing financial pressures, and are set to face a staggering 9.9% increase from Reform’s county council in the next financial year. A single financially resilient authority is the most responsible way to safeguard public money and ensure that essential services remain secure for the long term.

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend has been very indulgent of me. I suspect one interesting point was not taken into account by the survey. That would be the fantastic cost of splitting up all the county-wide services, which range from adult and children’s social care to waste disposal. To divide that into two and then merge the district authorities would in itself be an unnecessary cost if we have two authorities rather than one.

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. He makes a very relevant point that the cost of organising two councils will be profound, and in the long term will prove to be a false economy. The figures that I will quote shortly will demonstrate that further.

Reorganising local government will not resolve all the financial challenges facing our communities, because even with structural change, there will continue to be rising demand on adult social care, persistent pressures in homelessness and temporary accommodation, a growing resource need for schools and increasing demand for children’s services. That is why financial sustainability must be by design and not chance. Anything less will fail to meet the increasing needs of local communities and will ultimately result in deficits that must be paid for by hard-working residents. Financial sustainability cannot be an afterthought; it must be the foundation.

One council will have the ability to follow six key principles to achieve genuine and lasting financial sustainability. First, it could reduce the cost of leadership and governance by redesigning leadership from the ground up to reflect the needs of a new, modern unitary authority. Secondly, it could become prevention focused by embedding a long-term independence-based approach across all services, enabling people to get back on their feet and easing the burden on local provision. Thirdly, it could ensure that all commissions are intelligent and that services provided are appropriate and necessary, supported by the unparallelled buying power and market access afforded to one council, enabling strategic investment in better value services. Fourthly, it could nurture an accountable and high-performing workforce by bringing together the strengths of seven predecessor authorities and building on their collective skills. Fifthly, it could deliver responsible custodianship of public assets to maintain a balanced budget, safeguard the continued delivery of local services and preserve our historic culture. Finally, it could make decisions that are fully informed and grounded firmly in evidence.

The outcome of that approach is simple—£32 million saved by 2031 and a more balanced, less impactful increase to council tax. In comparison, the imbalance between service need and income from council tax would be significant under two unitary councils. A new North Worcestershire unitary council would face substantial challenges, with higher levels of need but a smaller share of the tax base, while a South Worcestershire unitary authority would experience significant council tax rises over the same period. It is simple to understand that improved financial results lead directly to improved services for the community.

With the stronger position created by one council, services could be delivered through a more community-centred approach, with simpler, more accessible pathways. Residents will no longer need to navigate multiple tiers of local government to resolve their issues. That is particularly beneficial for individuals who require access to multiple services at once. This model will not only increase transparency and improve local access, which are distinct components of British politics, but will also ensure that policies truly reflect what people actually want to see and expect their council tax to support.

Streamlining service delivery under one council removes the risk of a postcode lottery where access, cost, sufficiency and quality vary depending on where residents live. That is especially vital for young people, as many schools are reaching capacity, so students are being required to travel further, and for rural communities, which are already facing limited infrastructure compared with more urbanised areas. Key people services, including housing, family support and social care, are currently delivered across two tiers of local government, creating unnecessary complexities and inefficiencies. That is particularly important in Worcestershire, where demographic shifts are significant—an ageing population exceeding the national average, with 22% of people aged 66 to 84, alongside a growing younger population of more than 117,000 children. Those trends place profound pressure on essential services such as GPs, hospitals, schools, nurseries and social care.

One council could integrate those services so that they work cohesively to achieve better outcomes for the community. A prime example, given the demographics that I mentioned, is the ability to align health priorities with housing and leisure, enabling preventive policies that improve quality of life and reduce pressure on health services later on. Removing duplication across services would also increase efficiency in the council’s overall offering. It would allow organisations, including local NHS trusts and schools, to build stronger, more consistent relationships as they would be working with a single unified authority rather than navigating multiple structures. It is evident that one council would be able to deliver the improved and simplified services that my constituents called for.

The risk of disaggregation also cannot be ignored. The need for high-cost social care, the service that 42% of survey respondents cited as the one that they care about most, is concentrated in one half of Worcestershire, while the greatest proportion of the tax base is in the other half. The current degree of balance that results in residents paying relatively low tax would be disrupted, creating long-term instability for both households and essential services.

Not only is the disaggregation of social care a dangerous risk, but it would set back the progress on bringing its functions to the high standard that they are. Adults would be at risk of not receiving seamless community care. Service deliveries and assessments would be delayed. Children’s services would be restricted by boundary lines, causing disruption for those not on the correct side to continue their current care; it would be a postcode lottery. Maintaining two recording systems for social care would be costly and take a long time to implement, diverting resources from frontline support.

Similarly, fragmenting the network of partnerships in Worcestershire would only complicate funding arrangements, commissioning plans, service eligibility and the ability to install an action plan. Those partnerships have taken years to build; dismantling them would undermine the very foundations of effective care. Instead, relationships should be preserved and built upon, and closer collaboration would be far more possible with a single service provider rather than numerous tiers. That is a key benefit that only one unitary council can provide; it would ensure continuity, coherence and a system that works for every resident across Worcestershire.

A proposal for a single Worcestershire unitary authority has been backed by local partner stakeholders, including the police and crime commissioner, the local NHS integrated care board, Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust, the Worcestershire local visitor economy partnership, and commercial stakeholders, including Worcester Bosch.

It is evident that the proposal for a single unitary council meets the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for devolution arrangements. The case is clear and compelling. A single council for Worcestershire would offer not only operational simplicity, but a renewed sense of purpose for local government in our area. The one council would prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to residents.

This would not simply be an organisational reshuffle; it would be a commitment to ensuring that every community, from the most rural parish to the most urban centre, receives services that are consistent, efficient and good value for money. Councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views. This collaborative approach demonstrates a proactive start and an ambition to adapt and build a structure that is reflective of residents’ realities.

Having one council would enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. Removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy would give residents a stronger voice and a more direct relationship with those making decisions on their behalf. There would be a single tier of local government for the whole area, simplifying it and making it more accessible. The new structure would resize in order to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. In an era when public finances are increasingly overwhelmed, the ability to operate with greater resilience and strategic oversight is essential. It cannot be doubted that one unitary council would significantly meet the criteria outlined by the Government, while being in the best interest of Worcestershire as a whole.

Keeping decisions local is vital, as is achieving long-term financial sustainability, offering consistent, high-quality services, and protecting our green belt and our county’s identity. That is why I strongly support the creation of one unitary council that would streamline services, improve value for money for residents and work towards a strong future for Worcestershire. This is an opportunity to shape an efficient and community-centred system for our local government—one that respects our current identity while preparing us for the challenges and opportunities ahead. A single unitary council is not merely an administrative preference; it is a strategic choice for a more secure, more coherent and more prosperous Worcestershire.

Local Government Finance

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is right to describe the serious and challenging situations that lots of parts of the country face. I am anxious to ensure that we make progress in Bradford, not only because Bradford and places like it suffer from the consequences of poverty, but because Bradford has one of the youngest populations in the country. It is part of our future: we must back our young people, and I want to see Bradford grow and its people do well.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Talking about local government finance, I was shocked to read in The Times yesterday that Reform-led Worcestershire county council has sought permission from the Government to increase council tax by a maximum 10%. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule that out, and will she tell us if Labour is in cahoots with Reform to whack up council tax?

[Alison McGovern]

People have accused me of many things, but being in cahoots with Reform is not one of them. I am very, very definitely not in cahoots with Reform. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I made some remarks in my speech about the steps that we will take, particularly if people are already paying an average amount of council tax. I am more than aware about the situation that people are facing with the cost of living, so if he wants to write to me with some more details about what he has read in The Times, I will happily respond to him formally.

Planning Reform

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I confirm to my hon. Friend that the 40% figure is a minimum, not a target. Our proposals recognise that accessibility needs are locally specific, and our changes ensure that necessary levels of accessible housing are provided, while providing authorities with the flexibility to maximise house building overall. Where needs are higher than the mandatory minimum, we are proposing that planning policies should reflect this.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Minister has said that the Government want to double down on the brownfield-first approach, that they have a presumption in favour of development in urban areas and that they are committed to protecting the green belt. Neither I nor my constituents can square that with the reality of what is happening across Bromsgrove and the villages. My constituency is 89% green belt, but the housing target has increased by a staggering 85%, yet in adjacent Birmingham the housing target has decreased by over 30%. Local people are concerned not just about the erosion of the green belt, but about the lack of infrastructure. Over 5,000 local people have signed my petition expressing their concern about this approach. I want to work constructively with the Minister, so will he agree to meet me, together with the leader of Bromsgrove district council, to discuss the impact of this approach and forge a new path forwards?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority leader—I am more than happy to set out the Government’s position on green-belt land designation and release—but I gently say to him and other Opposition Members that there is no way of building the volume of homes our country needs on brownfield land alone. There is not enough land on brownfield land registers, certainly not brownfield land that is in the right place and viable to meet that need. We do need to release more land, including green-belt land, but we are doing it in a fair way and starting with grey-belt land first.

Local Elections

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We want investment to be spent on local communities—on that there is agreement—but I come back to the point that I have made time and again: the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable, so something has to give and something has to change. The way that we are approaching it is to say to local areas, “Come up with your plan, and here is the set of criteria against which those plans will be judged”, but we cannot stand still and do nothing; we have to do something, and we are trying to go through a process in partnership with places.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury and now cancelling elections—these are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, aren’t they?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I do not believe that question warrants a response.

Supporting High Streets

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One only has to look at the wording of the motion we are debating and that of the Government amendment. We Conservatives talk about lifting burdens, removing business rates, cutting red tape, and taking more action to address crime on our high streets. The Labour party talks about compulsory purchase, more grants and more subsidies—it is not interested in lifting the burden on business.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government present an illusion of choice? I will give him a very brief example. Two weeks ago, I met the owners of a business in my constituency—a young couple who own a hospitality business. They have two young children; one is three weeks old. They are buying a new house, and have said to me that because of the pressures bearing down on them as a result of choices made by this Government, they fear for the future of their business, which may have to close next year. Is it not the case that the Government are giving people an illusion of a choice, when in reality they are stifling the economy?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the choices that businesses face are enormously difficult. Every single day, they have to ask themselves whether they should put up prices to try to claw back some of the damage—some of that £25 billion cost—thereby increasing inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer, pushing up the cost of living. Do they reduce the number of employees or the hours per employee, or do they simply fold in the face of disincentives, a lack of support and headwinds rather than tailwinds? Do they shut up shop before the Chancellor’s next intervention heaps on more and more burdens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I hope that when the shadow Minister stands up, he will respond to that question and say whether the Conservative party will return the money.

In the end, we need investment in our communities. That is what we are providing, whether it is by reducing business rates or through the work of my Department for Business and Trade colleagues to deliver the backing your business plan, a long-term strategy for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the everyday economy. As part of that, family-run businesses on the high street will benefit from new tools to unlock access to finance, action to crack down on late payments—we know that is a massive issue for SMEs—and easier access to the business growth service.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

Hon. Members have mentioned retail crime. We have scrapped effective immunity for low-value shoplifting, and we are taking action to protect retail workers from assault. Alongside the Employment Rights Bill, which we are proud of, that will make retail a more desirable career choice, improve retention and make recruitment clearer. We are very clear that employment rights are good for workers, but also for businesses and for the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

For decades, high streets have been more than a place to shop. They are a barometer of the economic and social vitality of the country and of the communities where they are located. They are a gauge of whether we are prospering or declining. They are the sweet spot on the Venn diagram of societal indicators and policy areas including economic confidence, aspiration, entrepreneurship, crime and confidence in policing, the prominence of institutions, the quality of the public realm and changing social habits.

Today, however, high streets across the country face existential threats from unaffordable costs, dwindling footfall, surging illicit activity and a loss of purpose. I know that that sentiment is not just mine; it is shared by many. An August 2025 UKHospitality survey revealed that 42% of people nationwide believed that their high street was worse than it was a year ago, with that statistic rising to 55% in suburban areas.

High streets are the cornerstone of British history. Their decline is not just economic; it is cultural. Their disappearance is a stark signal that the identity of many communities is also changing and, in many cases, eroding. In 2024, an average of 38 shops or stores closed every single day, with independent retailers accounting for 85% of those closures. We are allowing our proudly owned family-run shops and ambitious independents to be replaced by a sea of cheap e-vape outlets, barbers, charity shops and unregulated aesthetic clinics, many of which are linked to the black market.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

So much of this debate focuses on high streets under a magnifying glass. In my constituency, one in five people work in the retail or wholesale sector. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if our shop fronts were a factory or a shipyard, the Government would be framing the challenge very differently?

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree with the hon. Member. Earlier, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) made the point that because the losses in retail are dispersed thinly across the country, this erosion takes place in plain sight, but if the same thing were happening in an industry with a collective centre in one location, it would probably be viewed differently.

Our town centres need essential services such as banking hubs to compensate for the decrease in bank branches between 2010 and 2023, so that people of all generations can manage their finances. We need the heart of our cities, towns and villages to be restored and to thrive once again.

Let us look at the environment in which businesses are operating. National insurance changes hit sectors hard last year, and those that provide accessible careers, including hospitality, were hit hardest. Employers have to pay thousands of pounds more just to recruit people compared with a year and a half ago, and hospitality has seen job losses at the expense of some of the lowest paid in society, who have been unable to get a foot on the employment ladder. We know the economy is underperforming, and there were tax hikes of £40 billion in the Budget last year. The Chancellor promised that last year’s Budget was a one-off hit of a kind that would not be replicated again in this Parliament, yet the Government are facing the reality of their own choices, and their economic naiveté plays out once again.

A typical pub in my constituency pays £2,000 per month in additional costs, including hiked business rates, employment costs and, crucially, energy costs compared with this time last year. To put that into perspective, if a couple go to a pub and spend £80 on dinner and drinks, that pub would have to serve an extra 25 such bookings each month just to cover those additional costs. That is staggering. I speak to so many publicans and hospitality operators in my patch who tell me that next year is the critical year when they will have to decide whether to close their doors for good. They are literally on the brink and questioning their own survival.

There are other points that I want the Government to focus on and the Minister to address, particularly around the public realm. I would like the Government to focus acutely on how we can revitalise the quality of our public realm. That includes design codes, which should be mandatory for all local authorities. One of this Government’s first acts last year was to abandon the need for beautiful design as part of the national planning policy framework and to close the Office for Place. That is important, because if the quality of the public realm decays, our town centres will not be as attractive as they might otherwise be for private sector investment. With the closure of prominent banks on the high street, large historic buildings, which are often anchor points, fall into disarray and it is much harder to get occupants. That is why I am pleased to support the Conservative proposal to abolish business rates for pubs, shops and hospitality. That would be a real shot in the arm for high streets up and down the country.

I am conscious of time, but I would like to touch on one other point that has not yet been mentioned, relating to the role that local councils can play. Local councils are great at kickstarting local economic activity, but for them to be empowered to act as catalysts in their local areas, we need to address the elephant in the room that is adult social care. While the Government focus on local government reorganisation, I implore them to think about that. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) shakes his head, but the reality is—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Member’s new interest in adult social care. The Dilnot report was delivered in 2011. What were the Conservatives doing for the subsequent 13 years while they were in government and not delivering meaningful change to social care?

[Bradley Thomas]

That is a bit of a cheap jibe. If the hon. Member takes a look through Hansard, he will realise that I have taken an interest in social care for some time.

The reality is that councils across the country spend circa £7 out of every £10 on social care. It is important that society spends money on social care, but while the Government focus on local government reorganisation and social care continues to be a huge financial obligation for local authorities, less money can be spent on the public realm. We have to address that. We must address the long-term positioning of social care, where it is funded, and from which pot, in order to support councils and give them the best possible foundation for addressing the economic needs of their areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Business and Trade Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for ably setting out the Conservative case for restoring our high streets, and the costs and consequences of the Government’s decisions. As a former Woolies worker, and having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, I am particularly passionate about our high streets and their role as the lifeblood of our local communities.

We have heard brilliant examples from right hon. and hon. Members of fantastic high-street businesses in their communities. Few will be as incredible as those in Yarm, Stockton and Thornaby, but valid points were made. We heard about the huge threat to the full English in greasy spoon cafés across the country, but price rises for mushrooms, tomatoes and bacon pale into significance when compared with Labour’s slashing of small business rates relief, its job tax and its unemployment rights Bill. From Bognor Regis to Windsor, and from Doncaster to Crewe, we see the butcher’s, the baker’s and—less frequently—the candlestick maker’s. Our high streets apparently offer everything, from wigs to corned beef and spam, and Members are rightly clearly proud of them.

One of the messages we have heard today is, “Shop local and support local small businesses,” but another message was heard loud and clear. It probably came from Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is a message that is familiar to any Member who engages with local small businesses: our high streets face an existential threat, and the problem is compounded by the choices of this Government. We are a nation of shopkeepers.

[Bradley Thomas]

My hon. Friend is making a good point. As I often point out to my constituents when talking about the future of the high street—the situation will be similar in other constituencies—there are approximately 50,000 households in my constituency, and if each one of those spends £5 per week supporting a local business, that is £1 million per month that stays in the local economy. If we multiply that, it becomes quite powerful support for local businesses, and helps their long-term vitality.

[Matt Vickers]

It is a clear message: “Stop scrolling through Amazon, and go buy local—it’ll benefit your local economy greatly.”

High streets define places. Their success allows us to feel pride in our towns. They are a place where people come together. They help us to tackle social isolation, and they are often the place where people get their first job, and their last. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector employs 5.8 million people, and generates billions of pounds for our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I certainly recognise the problem that the hon. Member describes; it is an issue in North Cornwall and right across the country. On the developer contribution, we are looking at how we can strengthen enforcement, so that where commitments are made, they are delivered on, and local communities are not stranded and left high and dry because the vital infrastructure to support the homes never appears.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to bring long-term empty homes back into occupation.

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome, Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Government want more empty homes brought back into use across the country, including through the steps we outlined in the English devolution White Paper to strengthen local authorities’ ability to take over the management of vacant residential premises.

[Bradley Thomas]

I welcome the Minister to her new role. Will the Government consider introducing a policy whereby long-term empty properties brought back into use as homes will count towards a district’s housing target?

[Samantha Dixon]

Local authorities have a number of powers to deal with empty homes. The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which I will take away and consider with officials.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Democracy matters; accountability matters. I am afraid that this Bill strips away both. At the heart of this Government’s attempted reforms lies a democratic deficit where planning committees lose their powers; councillors may scrutinise but cannot decide; and local councils are diminished, while in their place a mayor is handed sweeping powers over planning, housing, infrastructure and even development orders. This is not devolution downwards to communities; it is centralisation.

Let us be absolutely clear. In the west midlands, the Labour Mayor has shown time and again that his focus is on Birmingham, not communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. This Bill will entrench that imbalance. It gives a licence to concrete over the green belt and drive a coach and horses through local democracy, leaving the elected Member of Parliament with no formal way of holding the mayor to account or even to question his decisions.

The Government say that this Bill empowers local communities, but they have cut the very funding that made neighbourhood planning possible. The neighbourhood planning programme, supported by the National Association of Local Councils, helped more than 2,000 communities to write neighbourhood plans, yet Ministers have scrapped it—at a time when they seek to railroad development across communities. The NALC is right that this move by the Government weakens the very tier of democracy that should be strengthened. It is not empowerment; it is a contradiction. My constituents know exactly what that means. Aldridge-Brownhills is all too often treated as the dumping ground for housing numbers decided elsewhere.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s devolution proposal is an urban-based model that cannot be applied to rural areas without fundamentally distorting the character of that area?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. His communities, not dissimilar to mine, are on the edge of a large urban area—the west midlands; Birmingham—and yet we are not deeply rural. We are at real risk of being subsumed into the suburbs of Walsall or Birmingham with no say in the matter.

My constituents know what this all means, with communities feeling “done to”, not “worked with”. We have seen what happens when contradictory housing targets are imposed from above. Take the Black Country plan, which was meant to be a model of strategic planning, but it collapsed. It fell apart because residents across the Black Country lost confidence, and rightly so—it was plain wrong.

The Bill repeats the same mistakes, introducing powers to push development through, riding roughshod over local objections and concreting over our communities’ green spaces. Look at the imbalance: Birmingham’s housing targets are falling while Walsall’s are rising by 27%. My constituency is told to take the strain as our second city offloads its numbers. It is not devolution, but displacement, and it will only deepen distrust. Take Stonnall Road, Longwood Road, Longwood Lane and Bosty Lane; the list of speculative planning applications across my constituency goes on and on—and all this before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and even this piece of legislation have been enacted.

If this Government were serious about empowerment, they would have put a brownfield-first duty into their reforms, but they chose not to. The west midlands has hundreds of hectares of derelict land that could be brought back into use, and there is funding for this already: the brownfield housing fund, the national competitive fund and the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. However, there is no requirement for the mayor to use those funds first before launching into our precious green belt and green wedges.

Without a statutory brownfield-first duty, we know that developers will always go for the easy option first. Take the Birch Lane proposal in Aldridge—hundreds of homes on green-belt land now rebranded as grey belt. It is precisely the kind of inappropriate development this Bill will make it harder to resist, with local consultees weakened and mayoral powers strengthened. This Government are not building communities; they are dividing them.

What about infrastructure? My constituents were promised Aldridge train station—as many Members know, I talk a lot about that. Funding was secured and the business case made, yet the Labour mayor diverted the money elsewhere. If he cannot deliver on those commitments, why should this House be handing him more?

There are serious questions to answer about what exactly is grey belt. Regulations suggest that it can be used to redefine a green-belt site with building on three sides. That should alarm all of us in this place. We in Aldridge-Brownhills are now at serious risk of being subsumed within a Greater Birmingham and a Greater Walsall. Do not get me wrong, we do need houses, but let us give it some thought. Let us put them in the right place and let us not lose our identity or our communities because of Government diktat—because that is exactly what it is.

This Government are making a complete mockery of what we call green belt and green wedges, which were there to protect communities from urban sprawl. And all this at a time when Birmingham city council cannot even empty its bins. The mayor has washed his hands of it and the Deputy Prime Minister does not seem interested. This Bill is not devolution or empowerment. Quite simply, it is a developer’s dream and a neighbourhood nightmare, and I shall be voting against it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

While the current devolution plans in this Bill put politics before people, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill before the independent adult social care review is published in 2028. I believe that to reorganise local government without first confronting the fundamental crisis in care is to put the cart before the horse. Effective reform cannot be done in isolation. The Local Government Association has been clear in its view that devolution must be aligned with health, police, fire and integrated care board structures, with councils kept central to delivery, accountability and collaboration at every level.

Local consent should be a priority throughout the devolution process. Any change in governance must be made with the full consent of the people affected, yet this Bill allows the Secretary of State to impose new governance structures, including strategic authorities and regional mayors, without local agreement. That strips local people of their voice and runs counter to the very principle of devolution.

Local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced on communities, with local objections routinely brushed aside. Residents feel powerless in shaping the future of their towns and villages, and trust in government is draining away rapidly. This Bill will only deepen that resentment, because Ministers promise devolution, but communities will actually receive less say while being treated as little more than an extension of nearby major cities. Birmingham, a city with 140 hectares of brownfield land and established infrastructure, is seeing its housing targets cut by over 30%. Meanwhile, in my constituency, where 89% of the land is green belt, targets have soared by a staggering 85%. That is not sensible planning; it is an attempt to urbanise rural areas against the will of local residents.

In her opening remarks, the Deputy Prime Minister said that at the minute, too much power is in the hands of the few when it should be in the hands of the many. The Government should therefore let local people have more of a say in what the housing target should be. If our current councils in Worcestershire are to be sidelined, it should be for a singular Worcestershire council to come into existence that can deliver value for money to the taxpayer, provide the best possible services and keep decision making local. We cannot accept Worcestershire involuntarily becoming an extension of Birmingham in the name of devolution.

The Bill’s proposals are modelled on city experiences. Worcestershire is not the same as Birmingham, Manchester or any other big city. We have different needs, different challenges and different priorities. Forcing a city template on to rural areas sidelines communities, strips away their voice and sacrifices the fabric of rural life. Once again, rural and semi-rural residents are treated as an afterthought. Counties shaped by their rural character, such as Worcestershire, are rightly proud of their identities and traditions. If this Bill is to touch our communities, it must first recognise their distinct needs and be rethought to respect them.

Strategy for Elections

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work in this area through his Committee and for raising these issues. There are already a number of rules in place on political donations and they must be abided by, regardless of the type of donations made—including cryptocurrency donations. Our reforms of political finance to further strengthen our democracy will also apply to all donations, including those in cryptocurrency.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Democracy is fragile and, here in the United Kingdom, our democracy is strongly in the crosshairs of nefarious states including Russia and China, which do not share our values. We are seeing increasing activity online, particularly to distort the outcome of elections, via platforms including TikTok, which have links to communist regimes in China. Can the Minister update the House on what steps are being taken in particular to protect our democracy from misinformation that vehemently seeks to distort the outcome of elections?

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. He will be aware that the defending democracy taskforce is leading the work on a range of issues—including, of course, in relation to the points that he has made. We are taking action to bear down on those issues, with a cross-Government approach. The Online Safety Act 2023 is important in relation to some of the points that he has made. As I have pointed out, we are also aware of the dangers of foreign interference and foreign state actors, and these reforms are really important to protect the integrity of our system and our democracy.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We have been here repeatedly for questions, statements and even urgent questions in the House, and on not a single occasion has the shadow Secretary of State or shadow Ministers accepted their role, after 14 years of government, in driving councils of all colours to the wall. We need to bear in mind that commissioners were brought in under the previous Government, and Birmingham had to declare bankruptcy under the previous Government. The only difference now is that it has a Government on side willing to meet it financially—that is why the recovery grant was so important—but also in spirit and through our actions, which is why we are working in partnership to clean up the streets and get Birmingham clean.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Which legacy is the Minister most proud of: rubbish and rats in Birmingham, or Labour’s breach of its promise to the electorate to freeze council tax?

[Jim McMahon]

I am sure that sounded a better question when it was being drafted this morning. I do not think anyone takes pride in the strike action and the waste that accumulated on the streets. This is a very serious issue. It is unacceptable that a major incident had to be declared and that public health concerns were so prevalent. That is why we took quick action. It is why the streets have been cleaned to the tune of 26,000 tonnes, and it is why there are more daily collections taking place now in terms of tonnage than there were in routine times—to make sure they catch up and do not slip back—but we recognise that, in the end, the only solution is to deal with the underlying strike action that is causing the disruption.