Bradley Thomas MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The constituency of Bromsgrove and the villages is 89% green belt. Under this Labour Government, our housing target has gone up by 85%, yet nearby Birmingham has had its housing target reduced by 20%, despite there being at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of the city alone. Surely the Leader of the House agrees that that does not make sense. If it does make sense to her, could she explain it to my constituents?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the increase in defence spending, but how on earth is the Prime Minister going to pay for it when his party cannot agree on a small reduction in the welfare bill?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on AI in schools.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to reduce academic dishonesty and plagiarism in schools resulting from the use of artificial intelligence tools?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a constituent whom I met a few months ago. Forgive me—you may have heard me mention this on the Floor of the House a couple of months ago. My constituent is probably in a unique situation. She is a serving detective. Her ex-partner, who was a detective, is serving a sentence in excess of 10 years for having raped her, and he continues to enjoy indirect parental access rights. My constituent is excessively concerned that the continuation of access rights in an indirect form—usually in the form of a letter that often conveys coercive messaging and veiled threats to her—is hindering not just her welfare, but that of their children. In addition, under the current arrangement, as she and I understand it, if she were to take a large life decision, she would still have to consult her ex-partner, because of the continued parental access rights and responsibility that he enjoys while serving his prison sentence. Do you agree that, if someone commits a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child, their parental access responsibility should be restricted? Alex Davies-Jones: You have outlined some of the issues that we have come up against in trying to make this measure workable, and that is why we have chosen to keep it quite specific in the Bill. I am not aware of the details of your constituent’s case, which sounds horrific; my thoughts are with her and the family. From what you have outlined, although the perpetrator has committed a heinous act against the mother, we are unaware of any acts committed against the children. It is about where you draw the line. How many perpetrators do you bring in scope of the measure? The route is available to your constituent to remove parental responsibility via the family courts. That route is available to her now, and I would always suggest that someone takes that route if they feel that it is the most appropriate course of action. In the Bill, we are talking about parental responsibility being removed on a criminal conviction in court for an offence against the child, to keep the children safe. How broad do we make this measure, especially when it is untested and novel? We need to keep it quite specific, because we do not know what impact it will have on the family court system, how many perpetrators will appeal or the impact that that will have. The measure is therefore quite specific, and we feel that that is the appropriate course of action for now.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As a quick follow-up, what if it was a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child? Mark Brooks: I think that should be considered if it is against their partner and they share a child. Certainly that should be up for consideration, but no wider than that. Again, we have to make sure that men or women coming out of prison, who have been convicted of these offences, have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One of the big concerns is that people go into prison for crimes such as domestic abuse and do not receive the support they should so that they can have a safe relationship with others when they come out, if that can happen. We need more work on perpetrators, and that is certainly a point worth considering.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have a view on whether parental responsibility restrictions should be extended beyond those convicted of sexual offences to include those convicted of violent offences? Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Minister, do you agree that violent offences can be as serious as sexual ones? Alex Davies-Jones: Yes.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you support the publication of sentencing remarks in the interest of transparency, supporting victims and their families, and wider public confidence in seeing justice delivered? Baroness Newlove: I certainly do. The media give out information, and I have learned more about my sentencing remarks because I never got them until very long afterwards. Every victim, not just those of sexual crimes, has a right to see those sentencing remarks, because it gives them time to digest. You leave the courtroom thinking that you know everything, but as your memory and emotions come, you start asking yourself questions. Sentencing is very technical: you hear a sentence, then it is reduced if they have been on remand—there are boxed-off things. Also, as I found out, there are tariff reviews for juveniles, which even the probation service was not aware of because there are very few of them. If you look at the crime rate, you will see that we are getting younger offenders in prison. We have to prepare families for the tariff review, which means that offenders go to appeal to reduce their tariff, so you go through that. It should not simply be a case of saying, “There are the sentencing remarks.” There are implications, and every victim has a right to see the sentencing remarks. It is about them, and it affects the decisions about what the offender will do, and it should be the victim’s right to have that information. They do not have any advocates to speak for them, and the prosecution pursue their own case. If the media can get things out there, why can we not give it to victims and families? Katie Kempen: From our perspective, accessing sentencing remarks is an issue for victims. They would like to be able to access them. We welcomed the pilot and its continued roll-out. I have a nuanced response because victims’ needs differ. If there is to be wider publication, we need to see whether any protection is needed for individual victims, rather than carte blanche, “Yes, publish them all.” A key issue is explaining the sentencing remarks to victims. Again, in our “Suffering for Justice” report, where victims did not have the sentencing remarks explained to them, it caused them real anguish and distress. They should be able to have the sentencing remarks explained to them, and where they do, it helps their recovery journey and brings closure. My answer is yes, with some nuance. We need the explanation, and we need to treat the victims like a human being who has gone through a traumatic experience. Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I just want to pick up the point on the Opposition amendment about the power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. I am particularly mindful that we are talking about a sentencing hearing, at which point someone will have been found guilty and convicted. I think the general sentiment from victims and the public is that at that point the rights of the victim and their family come first, and that should be front and foremost in the projection of what goes on in the court, in order to see justice delivered. I am mindful that in other jurisdictions, including the US, there are powers to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. Do you have any further thoughts on that? Genna Telfer: I am not sure I can add any more to what I have already said. I have said that if the victim wants the offender in court, I agree with the principle of it. In terms of gagging people and dragging them into court, which is effectively what we are talking about, it just becomes really challenging. I am not saying that you would not necessarily do it; I just think there is a whole load of stuff that needs to be worked through to consider it.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  In a society where collective trust is depleting, does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of face-to-face banking services and banking customers being able to have a direct in-person relationship with real people is one step that we can all take to help rebuild collective trust in the institutions that underpin society?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate. In a world dominated by contactless payments and banking apps, it is very easy for some people to live cash-free and seldom visit a bank, but we must not overlook the 3 million to 5 million people who still rely on cash on a daily basis. These consumers are far more likely to be digitally excluded and financially vulnerable. I recently conducted a cash access survey in my constituency. Some 55% of respondents said that they use cash on a daily basis, and 91% believe the Government should safeguard the acceptance of cash as a valid form of payment. It is vital that access to cash and banking services is protected. It is important for those who use cash, but we must consider the resilience of the wider banking and financial system too. We have recently witnessed a major power outage at Heathrow, as well as large-scale power cuts in Iberia. We are increasingly aware of threats posed by hostile states that want to conduct cyber-attacks to disrupt our national infrastructure, so cash and local banking services must remain accessible to allow society to function in the event of any major disruption. This is a matter of national security. In Bromsgrove and the villages, we are experiencing the effects of changes in the way that people bank. With the closure of Lloyds and Halifax, Bromsgrove high street will have lost four banks in just three years. Such banks are a lifeline for so many small businesses—particularly those run by independent entrepreneurs—as well as for local residents, who rely on banking services every single day. If we are not careful, Bromsgrove risks becoming a banking desert with an increasingly empty high street. I know that Bromsgrove is not eligible for a formal banking hub, so I call on the Minister to review the true impact of the closure of banks across the country, and to review the criteria that a community has to meet in order for a banking hub to be provided. In the limited time I have left I want to draw attention to the further decline of high streets and the important role that banks provide in drawing people into their communities. Banks often occupy some of the most prominent, most beautiful and most significant historic buildings. Once they are vacant, they are often left empty, and they become eyesores and further symbols of the deterioration of high streets, which affects so many of the communities that we represent. I ask the Government to review the criteria for banking hubs, and to focus on serious, long-term business rates reform that will enable high streets to thrive into the future. Collectively, as a House of Commons, we must put pressure on the banking system to ensure that cash access remains a part of our functioning economy, and that as many of our constituents as possible have access to day-to-day retail banking services.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mobile phone signal across Bromsgrove and the villages is wholly inadequate. It regularly drops out, and that is if we are lucky enough to get a signal. Things are getting worse, particularly following the rolling switch-off of 3G signals across the country. A recent real-world study in Worcestershire demonstrated that signal is actually 1,000 times worse than operators claim it to be. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is unacceptable and that my constituents deserve better? Will she support my efforts to secure a debate on the Floor of the House and a meeting with the Minister to discuss improvements? [ Official Report , 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 8WC.] (Correction)

• 5 Jun 2025 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Economic resilience is a key part of our national resilience. One of the strongest ways in which the Government can have it is to support the delivery of goods and services via British companies in the first instance. Does the Minister agree? Can he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to bolster procurement policies so that they put British supply chains first?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing it, and for his comprehensive introduction. I would like to talk about this issue in the context of rural constituencies such as mine, as many other hon. Members have this afternoon. First, farmland is not just another piece of land, but an irreplaceable national asset. The ability to produce food domestically is a fundamental pillar in our sovereignty and our national economic strength. In recent years, we have witnessed prime agricultural land being converted into sprawling arrays of energy installations with solar farms, and now we have the increasing prevalence of battery energy storage systems appearing in glorious countryside across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is not present, has raised this point comprehensively in the past, as well as safety concerns around battery energy storage systems and the displacement of good agricultural land for energy production. We are at real risk of displacing this good agricultural land and of energy production facilities becoming, in effect, a new cash crop. These facilities area incredibly lucrative for farmers who feel stretched—it is very difficult for them to make a living in this challenging economic climate. I am pleased to be supporting the new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to protect agricultural land in the long term. There is another point I would like to highlight beyond those that have been made by many other Members today. We face the exposure of our energy supply chains to foreign countries—countries that may not share our values—and the long-term depletion of our energy resilience if they manage to embed their infrastructure within our national energy infrastructure in the UK. In Weatheroak in my constituency, we have been battling an energy storage application bang in the heart of north Worcestershire’s green belt. This glorious countryside will be fundamentally changed forever should the application go ahead. I am grateful to Tony Williams, the chairman of Weatheroak residents association, for having written to me on numerous occasions. I have engaged with many local residents who share the concerns that have been raised today, namely around the proximity of such sites to villages and the potential danger should there be an accident or incident whereby one of these sites catches fire and the sparsely dispersed rural fire services are unable to get there. We also have the impact on roads, which has been picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Rural communities across the country are facing a fundamental change in their identities, at the expense of industrial applications that are often granted at ease with little regard to the identity and character of those villages. I know that this is a concern that so many of my constituents share. If I had three asks of the Government, they would be: that they pause the granting of battery energy storage system applications in the first instance; that they consider a minimum radius for the proximity to settlements within which applications can be granted; and that they ensure that fire services across the country are statutory consultees in every case where there is an application for a battery energy storage system of any size.

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  The first duty of government is to keep the public safe. I recently met a constituent whose convicted ex-husband is serving a prison sentence, having raped her twice. Despite being in prison, he continues to have indirect access to their children. My constituent thinks that is wrong, and I agree. Does the Minister agree that convicted violent and sexual offenders should serve maximum possible custodial sentences, and lose parental access rights?

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister agree that if we continue to permit applications for solar farms in the countryside, including those at Weatheroak and Hunnington in my constituency, we erode our agricultural self-sufficiency, and that it is important that this Government do not betray the countryside any more than they already have done?

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member refers to industrial activity. Does she agree that the predominant industrial activity that solar supports is far-eastern manufacturing of solar PV? What would she say in response to Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who said in January that by pursuing this route we are in effect ceding control over national security and resilience to foreign powers?

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we face a perfect storm of conditions? There is not just a widespread societal push towards net zero, but, with changes to agricultural property relief, a real risk that solar will become the new cash crop, at the expense of valuable food production, which is as essential as energy security.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Congestion on the A38 in Bromsgrove is making it nearly impossible for residents to get around easily—yet, despite current investment, there is widespread scepticism that the Bromsgrove route enhancement plan, known locally as BREP, will improve the situation. Does the Minister agree that investment in transport must deliver a tangible improvement in traffic flow, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss investment in Bromsgrove so that we can keep Bromsgrove moving?

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Estate management monopolies are blighting the lives of homeowners across the country, including residents of Cofton Hackett in my constituency. The most egregious examples by companies including FirstPort—of which I know many colleagues are aware—represent at best carelessness and at worst a lack of moral ethics. Does the Leader of the House agree that the regulation of estate management companies is essential, and will she update the House on when these essential fleecehold reforms will come forward?

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  So many disabled members of society are unable to demonstrate the minimum academic requirements to get on to many courses, or to secure employment. What steps are the Government taking to support those people, so that they can demonstrate vocational and non-academic competencies, and get the jobs that they deserve?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  This is a particularly poignant debate for me to attend today, because this morning I attended the funeral of Betty Webb, a 101-year-old former Bletchley Park codebreaker who epitomised the very best of this great generation. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to and thanking Betty, as we lay her to rest, for the sacrifice and commitment she provided to the war effort?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  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.