Bradley Thomas MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Speciality Steel UK · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of Conservative Members, I send my thoughts to the Prime Minister, following the tragic passing of his father. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In her statement to the House following the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK in September last year, the then Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated that the Government would pursue every avenue to keep the company’s sites producing, as part of the Government’s wider work to grow a resilient domestic steel industry. We can all agree that the compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels created a great deal of uncertainty, especially for the more than 1,000 workers employed there. I am keen to hear how the Government have kept their promise to stand by the entire workforce throughout this process, including while overseeing bids to sell former assets. Will any redundancies follow nationalisation? However, continuous operational failures have already pushed businesses into a state of chronic uncertainty; a failure to file accounts for more than six years led to a separate prosecution by Companies House, and there was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. The Secretary of State said that the official receiver wanted to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors in the period leading up to the liquidation. Can he give an update on any investigations into conduct that the Government have undertaken, and on any steps taken to recover money belonging either to the business or to the British taxpayer? Despite the rhetoric about the Government supporting the UK steel industry, all that the industry has experienced is increased pressure and apprehension. From the steel strategy, which is likely to lead to ever higher costs for taxpayers, to the introduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which fatally weakens our national resilience, the survivability of steel producers is becoming more difficult. Indeed, a manufacturer in my constituency told me some months ago that it will likely dissolve by Christmas if the Government do not change course. Energy prices are also a significant hurdle for steel plants. The Government’s Clean Power 2030 action plan risks making things worse; it could force rapid change without ensuring the infrastructure or investment to support it, while increasing costs for manufacturers and threatening jobs in key industrial communities. Nearly 92% of global steel production faces no comparable carbon pricing. Only the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand, covering just 8% of global output, apply prices in the £30 to £70 per tonne range, but we expect our industry to compete with countries that pay a fraction of that, or nothing at all. The Secretary of State will say that the Government are helping to address the burden of high bills for manufacturers via the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but unfortunately their efforts are too little, too late. Having a strong steel industry is vital to our national security and resilience. Traditional bulk commodity steelmaking is vital to our national infrastructure, and modern advanced steel manufacturing is a vital foundation for sectors such as aerospace, defence, nuclear and automotive, all of which are critical, given rising geopolitical tensions. I understand that another issue facing Speciality Steel UK was having the capital to buy raw materials that would allow the continued production of advanced steels, such as the landing gears produced at Stocksbridge. Could the Government therefore outline what support has been given to maintain site operation through this process, and whether advanced steel manufacturing will be a priority following nationalisation? Circling back to the Government’s commitment to pursue every avenue, can the Minister explain how much consideration has been given to private investment as a solution? How much was spent on private sector solutions before the decision to nationalise, and what was the main basis for that decision? Considering that a preferred bidder had been identified, it is surprising that the Government have moved away from this completely. Indeed, at the Business and Trade Committee on 22 June, the Department’s director for materials and industry noted that “significant investment” was required, and stressed that the majority of this should come from the private sector. Other than a new Prime Minister who is ideologically committed to nationalisation, what has changed? Will the Minister outline the terms asked for by the private bidder that the Government were not willing to agree to? If the business has unique capabilities and demand is there for its products, does that not imply that the barrier to a viable private sector buyer is either the Government’s own ideological obsession with nationalisation, or an economic climate in which it is increasingly impossible to run a successful manufacturing business in Britain?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities · Hansard source

  More

  On the surface, this revision introduces the legal right to reasonable paid time off for union equality representatives, ensures that representatives can hold multiple positions—thus increasing the provisions under which they qualify for more time off—puts a greater onus on employers in tribunals, and legally requires employers to provide reasonable means to support representatives in carrying out their jobs. Yet it does far more than that: it burdens businesses with yet more regulatory red tape, further decreases employment opportunities and compounds the hardship that employers already face. Higher employment costs through increased administrative expenditure, unaffordable additional paid leave and legal tribunal expenses are a fast track to job scarcity. A recent survey of more than 1,000 business owners found that one in five lacked confidence in the new trade union rules. Furthermore, 69% of employers believed that trade unions still have the power to cause serious problems for the UK economy, while 62% believed that the UK is entering a new, more unstable period of employment relations. Yet rather than heed those warnings and work with businesses to create a viable solution, the Government persist with such policies, despite being aware of the risks. This is a tough time for employers and workers. Employers are seeing rising costs all around them, and workers are watching their budgets get stretched thinner as the cost of living continues to mount. A solution is needed, but this approach will only create new challenges. The increased presence of trade unions is anticipated to escalate the number of strikes taking place across the economy. Data from the European company survey shows that strike incidence is directly higher in establishments where trade union density is greater. Furthermore, trade union membership in the public sector sits at 48.5%, compared with only 12.1% in the private sector. Research shows that since 2000 the number of days lost to strikes per worker has been 30 times higher in the public sector than in the private sector, despite public sector earnings rising faster. In a scenario of escalating industrial action, who is likely to be profoundly impacted? A persistent casualty demographic is the general public. It is unacceptable that the Government are looking to create a set of circumstances conducive to increased strikes, which burden the British public—and at the taxpayer’s expense, no less. That is why we will vote against this draft code. Rather than expand the scope of paid time off for union representatives, the Government should scrap this legal burden on employers and redirect important taxpayer funds to frontline priorities such as the NHS and national infrastructure. Businesses have already suffered harmful setbacks under this Government: increases to national insurance contributions, mounting energy bills, business rate modifications and the Employment Rights Act, which 86% of industry leaders warned would harm UK growth. The Government claim to be pro-worker yet continue to enact policies that shrink workforces and empty the public’s pockets. I am both pro-worker and pro-business, and so is my party. We are steadfast in our belief that we must support businesses and entrepreneurs, who not only prop up our economy but take risks needed to provide employment. I also firmly believe that the Government must support workers by ensuring that they can keep as much of their own money as possible. That is how to truly bolster UK business and meaningfully assist the hard-working taxpayer simultaneously. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plan to ensure that their policies on trade unions do not lead to further job losses? If not, will they accept our suggestions?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The draft regulations extend the period during which the Government may exercise the existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022. Specifically, they extend the Secretary of State’s power to fund a proportion of the renewables obligation costs attributable to domestic electricity supply from 25 April 2026 until 25 October 2026. No new powers are created through this instrument; it simply prolongs the exercise of powers that Parliament has already granted. The Minister has explained that the purpose of the extension is to support the Government’s policy of reducing domestic energy bills by transferring 75% of renewables obligation costs from consumers to the Exchequer, claiming that it will reduce household energy bills by an average of £150 from April 2026. However, the measure is solely another exercise by the Government in moving costs from one pocket to another. Households may pay less through their energy bills, but they are still expected to meet those costs through general taxation. It is also worth reminding the House of what the subsidies are funding. The renewables obligation provides long-term support to renewable generators, with consumers now bearing the brunt of the cost. The Government are not, as they are claiming, tackling the underlying drivers of high energy prices; they are simply shifting the burden from energy bills on to the public finances. The Minister speaks of a commitment to lowering household energy bills by £300, yet household energy costs are now higher than when the Government entered office in 2024.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is experienced in these matters. I would have thought that question would be in the 101 of presenting this instrument to the House. We are pleased to see the Government finally adopt our Conservative party policy of abolishing the carbon price support on electricity generation, but their plan for the promised £300 savings is still nowhere to be found. While Labour transfers the cost of renewable subsidies on to taxpayers, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the underlying cost of energy for households. That plan would abolish the renewables obligation altogether, accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power by cutting unnecessary planning barriers, remove VAT from domestic energy bills for three years and abolish the carbon tax. Together, those measures would reduce household bills by around £200—not simply move costs from one bill to another. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s plan for cheap power is, and if not, whether they are willing to accept ours as a solution? Finally, when, if ever, will households receive the £300 reduction in energy bills, as promised at the last general election?