Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve the UK’s relationship with the EU.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

16. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the future EU-UK relationship.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

Just this week and last, I have been across the channel to speak to EU counterparts and counterparts in member states. We are making good progress with the EU in our strategic partnership in a changing world. It is a strategic partnership that is good for bills, good for borders and good for jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK and EU share many challenges. That is why the Government have agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU to bolster our shared resilience through deeper co-operation between the UK and the EU across defence, industry, politics and the wider economy—the foundations upon which our collective European security and prosperity will rest.

[Bradley Thomas]

The European Union currently allows for food production methods that are either banned or being phased out in the UK, which is undercutting British farmers. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure parity of welfare standards so that British farmers are not priced out of the market?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The common understanding that we agreed with the EU last year allowed for particular carve-outs, which the Government are negotiating. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, though, that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—the food and drink agreement—will mean that we will be able to export to the EU products that we are currently unable to export, and will take away costs and fees that businesses have to pay. I used to think that the Conservatives were the pro-business party—they might want to actually approve of that.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

This is a particularly sorry saga. It is corrosive for not just this Government and the Labour party, but the entire political class and politicians as a collective body and it is certainly corrosive for the country. That is because a theme has emerged from this episode and others under this Government around competency—or what the public would probably see as a general theme of incompetency.

It is frankly ludicrous and laughable that we have got to this point. For the best part of two decades, Peter Mandelson’s name has been a byword for sleaze and incompetence, and that is before we knew about the risks that he could continue to pose to our national security if he were given a position. The corrosiveness of this Government and their incompetency is borne out in all the decisions they have U-turned over—I think we are up to 18 U-turns in two years. We have seen the corrosive effects of Government policy across the board, whether it is on the economy or on the price that businesses are paying, as a result of questions that the Government have not asked. That begs the question about the Prime Minister’s general incuriosity about seemingly everything—least of all this, the most serious of issues.

Peter Mandelson was known to be a paedophile-adjacent character at the time that the Prime Minister took the decision, seemingly at any cost, to appoint him as ambassador to the United States. As many Members have said, it seems that that happened because he was seen as a particularly slick operator at the top of the Labour party, and he was seemingly untouchable to so many. It is a great shame that it has got to this point, with this ongoing debacle and scandal, and the Prime Minister’s evasion, to cause the downfall of Peter Mandelson.

Unanswered questions remain, including a really simple one that has been asked many times, although we have not had an answer. I would love to know, as would my constituents and many in this House, what seemingly virtuous qualities of Peter Mandelson warranted the on-balance very serious risk that the Government took in pursuing his appointment.

The pressure placed on the Foreign Office when clearing and appointing Mandelson has become apparent over the past few weeks, particularly this morning following the testimony of Olly Robbins, and it is frankly reprehensible. We heard that Olly Robbins was told to get that done at any cost: effectively to ride roughshod over good moral conduct to deliver the will of the Prime Minister. We are starting to hear glimmers that certain people at the top of Government—perhaps in the Cabinet—advised the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office that they were not comfortable with that, but the Prime Minister was completely ignorant of it throughout the whole process.

We now know that Peter Mandelson was effectively appointed and given access to sensitive security information before his security clearance was granted. I have a direct question for the Minister: is he aware of whether Peter Mandelson had access to sensitive information prior to the security clearance recommendation coming through? If the Minister is not aware of that, what review is being put in place to ascertain the level of that information, and what risk management will be put in place to mitigate the effects of the exposure of any sensitive information that Peter Mandelson may have obtained before the security clearance came through?

There is another question of accountability. Many of us in the House, and people in the country at large, would love to know why the bar of personal accountability is so low for everyone else, yet impossibly high for the Prime Minister. If I had had the chance yesterday—lots of Members wanted to speak and I understand why I did not get an opportunity—I would have loved to have asked the Prime Minister whether he had considered resigning at any point, and if not, why not.

How many more people have to be blamed or scapegoated before this becomes a situation where the Prime Minister does the decent thing and resigns? How many more twists and turns does this saga have to follow before the Prime Minister does the right thing? I can tell the Minister—he is looking somewhat uncomfortable; I commend him for coming to the Front Bench today—that my constituents are sick and tired of the evasiveness of this Prime Minister. They want him to do the decent thing and to resign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

In a bit.

I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this Administration, which I think is relevant.

[Bradley Thomas]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.

This Prime Minister promised a change in the approach to dealing with such matters. An approach that embraces transparency and is robust and timely is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government, in politicians and in this House.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that a declaration of interests form should have been submitted for a role as significant as this?

[Darren Jones]

I agree that all process should be followed, yes.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Digital ID is the premium option of one login. In many ways, one login is a great system, but it still has lots of challenges, not least because we cannot pull all these systems together into one place for citizens. That is what digital ID enables us to do, because people can prove authentically that they are who they say they are and are not just logging in with someone else’s details. That is what makes the scheme much more exciting for public service reform in the future.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

My constituents have been incredibly vocal in telling me that they do not want this. Frankly, because trust in the Government has eroded so much, this scheme is dead in the water. If the Government go ahead with it, what will they do to ensure that there is no single depository containing the data of millions of citizens that could present a single point of failure from a security perspective?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government will not be doing any such thing.

Lord Mandelson

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service.

Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are sick and tired of people who appear to fail upwards in public life, simply for the reason that they appear to move in the right circles?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely.

I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others.

Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.

[Bradley Thomas]

Aside from the evident, persistent and consistent failures in the Prime Minister’s integrity, does this issue not raise massive questions about the hold over the Government and those at the top of the Labour party by someone whose name has been a byword for sleaze for the last two or three decades?

[Wendy Morton]

It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

It is very difficult, particularly when a party has such a high number of new MPs—we have been there and experienced it—to feel the mood music, hear the jungle drums, and understand whether something is a precipice or a turning point. For many of us who have been reflecting over the past few days, this has the hallmark of things that we feel we have seen before. We have been here; we have seen this sideshow. It is very difficult, because our integrity is the only thing we take with us when we leave this place. Too many colleagues from across the House have had to learn that over the past few years, because this is a cruel game, and we can find ourselves being thrown out when we do not expect it.

May I say how much I welcome the fact that the manuscript amendment has been put forward? It is a sign that the Government are listening, and I give them credit for doing so. However, this could all have been prevented if the Prime Minister had come before the House on Monday and given a firmer commitment to take action.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly following her point about the writing being on the wall, that the Minister, when he wraps up on behalf of the Government, needs to quash any rumours that the Prime Minister is hunkered down in Downing Street and planning a reshuffle to stabilise a sinking ship?

[Alicia Kearns]

I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.

China and Japan

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?

[The Prime Minister]

We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.

Digital ID

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely. People in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been talking to me about digital ID for months, and more than 5,300 have signed the petition. I want to put their concerns and mine plainly on the record today.

A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It answers none of the real problems that we face and risks creating a whole set of new ones. Let us be clear: Labour never mentioned this in its manifesto—not once.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury—neither is in the Labour manifesto. There is a whiff of authoritarianism about this Government, is there not?

[Alison Griffiths]

There is certainly no mandate for either. If a Government wish to change something as fundamental as how we prove who we are, they need to be up front about it; they need to win consent for it. Attacks on our privacy and personal freedom must be debated in depth, not sneaked in through the back door.

Over two thirds of the respondents to my local survey told me they opposed digital ID entirely. Many have little confidence that their personal data will be kept safe. They worry about who will hold their information, what else it could end up being used for and what will happen to those who do not have a smartphone at all.

There is also the basic fairness test. Ofcom believes that about 4.5 million people in the UK do not own a smartphone, and many more struggle with digital access or confidence. We should not be building barriers for people, especially not those who already find public services hard to navigate.

Ministers have said that digital ID will help tackle illegal working and benefit fraud, but we have never been told in clear terms what the new scheme would do that our existing tools cannot already manage. If there are gaps in the system, they should spell them out. I want illegal working to be dealt with, and I want public services that work smoothly, but not at the expense of civil liberties, not by weakening data security, and not by shutting out the very people who need support.

I cannot support a mandatory digital ID scheme. If it comes to a vote, which it should, I will vote against it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this issue, and he is right to do so. The Government take the threats we face incredibly seriously. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the decision back in September to ensure that the Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, so we are better placed as a Government to co-ordinate our national security response in the areas the hon. Gentleman outlined. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance on the seriousness we attach to these issues. We take them very seriously and we are working at pace to address them.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

15. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of digital ID on levels of digital exclusion.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)]

In this country, at present millions of people cannot access public services online, and millions lack the IDs that they need to go about their daily lives. That is the status quo, and we will not accept it. That is why we are introducing a new national digital credential, free for everyone over 16, that will be inclusive, secure and useful. This will involve a massive digital inclusion drive to ensure that the system works for everyone, including those who do not have smartphones, are elderly or are less digitally confident, so that everyone will benefit from simpler, safer and more secure access to public services.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank the Minister for his scripted answer. Digital ID is a terrible idea. If the Government are going to pursue it, what assurances can he give me, in a tiny bit of detail, about what the Government will do to ensure that people are not, through a lack of technological skills or financial exclusion, disadvantaged in accessing Government services?

[Josh Simons]

Let me be clear about the status quo that the Conservative party left behind: millions of people right now are digitally excluded from accessing public services, and millions of people lack the identity credentials that they need to access them. We will not accept that. We will make sure that post offices, libraries and a whole range of physical places in the communities where people live can be used to access this new digital credential, getting people online who were left behind by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

Our great civil service serves citizens from across the UK, so it should look like them, sound like them, and come from the same towns, cities, regions and nations as the communities it serves. Through our places for growth programme, we are moving more roles from London to locations across the UK, including York, where 2,600 civil servants are already working across numerous Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. The Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10 was requested by a staff member of the Labour party. Was it the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff who made the request?

[Darren Jones]

I do not know.

China Spying Case

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The real threat to our security is not necessarily what others do in the shadows; it is what one’s own Government hide from the light. That is the essence of what we are trying to get to in the motion before us—we are asking the Government to publish the papers.

Let me take a step back from this issue to look at the way in which the public will perceive it. This is the biggest spy story in this country’s history, at least in this century. We can get into the tit-for-tat about what the PM did or did not know, whether the National Security Adviser speaks to his deputy or not, who told the deputy National Security Adviser that he needs to toe the Government line, and how the Labour manifesto got into the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out the behaviour of the Government. The Prime Minister could have sorted this out by coming to the House and speaking about this topic. He could have laid it all out and put it all forward. The only thing we have had has been a statement before Prime Minister’s questions. Of course, we Back Benchers cannot ask questions after such statements—there is no way for us to do so. If the Government are so angry, why is more action not being taken? Why are people not being fired, and why are we still having this debate several weeks on if all the information is so crystal clear that this House can move on?

I am worried that this is a pattern of behaviour with the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. The Prime Minister was the decision maker on that issue, but he did not come to this House; he sent one of his Ministers. I expect that the retort from Labour Members will be, “It was always thus”, but the reason this saddens me so much is that the Prime Minister is being judged by the standard that he set. He said that he would do things differently, but he is not. He is not coming to the House to explain when he could do so. We know that the information and the decisions rest with him.

When I pushed the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), about leadership last time, that was not directed at him—I have a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going on. If this issue is as clearcut as Labour Members have said, that would be an easy case to make and this House would believe the Prime Minister, but we are not there. That is why I worry, because it leads to a wider debate and wider concerns among the public about whether something is going on.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most obvious point is that, despite the Government’s disappointment at the collapse of the trial—we have heard numerous Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, stress that—it is shocking that they appear not to have done every single thing possible to bolster the case and put the CPS in the best possible position to secure a prosecution? The two just do not add up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I begin by thanking the Opposition for bringing forward this Opposition day debate, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for moving this motion, and the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks.

As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the Government are extremely disappointed that this case will not be heard in court. I also share Members’ concerns about the threats that we face from espionage.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he does in co-chairing the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group. Financial services are integral to our mission for economic growth, and we are absolutely committed to creating the right conditions for a vibrant, competitive and innovative financial services sector. That is why the Government are proceeding with proposals to create a new financial services regulatory regime for cryptoassets.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. In the absence of a plan, the Government appear to be centralising power and bureaucracy in the form of new quangos. More than 25 have been created since this Government came into office. What is the Minister doing to drive ministerial accountability and, crucially, to ensure that there are sunset clauses so that when quangos have met their objectives, they are wound up and come to an end?

[Darren Jones]

The Government agree with the principle of the hon. Member’s question. As I said to the House earlier, we want to reduce the layers of bureaucracy and to be able to deliver more action and fewer words. That is why we are taking action to close arm’s length bodies and other institutions. Most significantly, we have announced that we will close NHS England and bring decisions back into the Department for Health and Social Care for Ministers to make.