Budget Resolutions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

This Budget was a missed opportunity for the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages. There was next to nothing in it for my residents, or for the hard-working business owners and businesses across the constituency. The frank reality is that businesses across the country and in my area are really struggling right now. In recent months, we have seen Labour Ministers’ true colours. Over the weekend, we heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating that those who employ people are not workers themselves. I am not sure that the carpenters, plumbers, café owners and florists in my constituency would agree with that. They are frankly insulted by it. We also heard the Work and Pensions Secretary reveal earlier this year that all Labour MPs wanted to do was ask the question, “Who can we tax more to spend more money on welfare?”. Inflation is up, Government spending is up, unemployment is up, welfare is up and debt is up. How people and businesses feel is what matters, and that will be the ultimate litmus test for the Government.

Following the Budget, UKHospitality told us the reality. Despite the Government’s announcement on business rates, only one in 10 pubs will be affected. The Government need to go further. They need to endorse the Conservatives’ full exemption for hundreds of thousands of retailers, pubs and hospitality businesses. Wherever I go in my constituency, I am repeatedly told that businesses operating in these sectors are not recruiting because red tape and the cost of employment have gone up dramatically.

The voices of business are clear. Make UK has said that the Budget was a failed opportunity to reindustrialise, and the Federation of Small Business has said that the Budget contained

“nothing to make hiring someone more affordable”.

Unemployment has gone up by 276,000 in the last two years, and we are destined to see it go up even more. The Government need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side.

I would like to briefly touch on the Government’s proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation. The Government announced something last week for Worcestershire that will not improve the quality of people’s lives. It will increase the cost and bureaucracy of delivering local government services. It is not in Worcestershire’s interests. Worcestershire does not have a Mayor and it does not want a Mayor. It is not a geography that would best suit a mayoralty. We do not need more politicians in this country; we need fewer—[Interruption.] I say that as a politician. We need fewer politicians in this country, and we need the system to work better.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

The Government’s local government reorganisation will abolish the two-tier system in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Bromsgrove, thereby reducing the number of local councillors and so the number of politicians. Which part of that did he miss in the announcements that have been made over the last 12 months?

[Bradley Thomas]

If the hon. Lady had listened to what I was saying, she would have heard me say that Worcestershire does not want a Mayor.

The Government’s proposals for devolution are nothing more than a cop-out to absolve Westminster of its failure to tackle the big issues facing this country, and that is the theme that runs through this Budget. Politicians do not create jobs. I read in The Times this morning that the Government believe that mayors and local leaders can be empowered to create jobs. That is absolute rubbish. It is businesses that create jobs. Every single penny and pound of taxation received by the Government is generated, ultimately, through the endeavours of private enterprise. We have to get to the point, once again, where risk taking and entrepreneurialism are not frowned on. They should be embraced and encouraged. If the Government want to tax something, they have to create wealth and prosperity first. They need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a maiden speech. I call Sagal Abdi-Wali.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Member is right to raise the fact that we are spending a large share of our budget on debt interest costs; £1 in every £10 is spent paying the interest on our debt. That was an increase that took place under the Conservatives after the spike in interest rates in 2022 under Liz Truss’s mini-budget, and the apprentice to Liz Truss is now the shadow Chancellor.

Real wages have risen more since the election than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. Opposition Members talked about the private sector in the economy. I would point out to them that whole-economy investment and business investment have grown by more in this Parliament so far than they did in the entirety of the last Parliament. We are turning the economy around from the hellscape it was under the previous Government.

We are building on our recent economic resilience through this Budget. We are delivering immediate measures to help with rising energy bills: a £100 household energy payment directly to those living in property bands A to D in England, alongside a reduction to 0% VAT on electricity until July. We are also abolishing gas standing charges on household energy bills, while extending the 5p fuel duty cut and the cut to red diesel. We are reducing bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme.

[Bradley Thomas]

If the picture is so rosy, can the Minister explain to me why, a couple of weeks ago, when I visited six businesses in my constituency, all in the hospitality sector, every single one of them said that they are not recruiting and nor have they recruited since the Government increased national insurance contributions? Why is he painting a picture that is different to reality? Why does he think they are not recruiting?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I cannot speak to the individual businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency, but I can point him to the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility that revises up employment by 200,000—employment increases every year of that forecast.

We are also making changes to support workers by increasing the national minimum wage and national living wage. We are increasing the higher mileage rate and making permanent the increase to the standard mileage rate announced earlier in the year, and we are backing our high street businesses, with retail, hospitality and leisure properties seeing their business rates either frozen in real terms, reduced or cut to zero next year.

The Secretary of State spoke powerfully and convincingly of the changes that this Government are making on devolution to drive good growth in every postcode, so I will not run through the points that she opened with. I was glad to hear that hon. Friends in constituencies where we will be extending devolution in England, particularly those towns and communities that missed out on the first wave of devolution under the previous Government, welcome that continued roll-out. It will mean that over 90% of England’s population is now on track to be covered by a strategic authority in the next couple of years.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), raised the issue of energy when opening the debate for the Opposition, and it is worth covering before we wrap up. At the Budget, the Chancellor set out a new pathway for energy that the 10-year plan will build on. Our priority is to bring energy costs down, to help business compete and to help families cope. Cheaper electricity will also boost electrification, increase our energy security and help decarbonise the whole economy.

First, we are addressing levies and policy costs on bills. The Opposition loaded £100 on to bills via levies; this Labour Government have already taken £150 off energy bills at the last Budget. The Chancellor when further last week, by drawing a line in the sand on levies. He has confirmed that there will be no new costs added to energy bills, with a comprehensive cost-control framework to follow at the spending review. He is also abolishing plans, first set out by the Opposition when in government, to add a further £10 a year to bills for hydrogen projects.

Secondly, we are backing network investment, adding new generation only if it is affordable and the grid can keep up. Between 2016 and 2020, network investment declined in real terms under the previous Government, just when it was clear that more intermittent power would mean that we need more capacity. Now that they are in opposition, the Conservatives have no serious energy policy left. Their only real answer is to retreat in full from net zero, banning people from being parliamentary candidates for the Conservative party if they support net zero by 2050. That is a big mistake, and one that I am confident the British people will reject at the next election.

In the Budget, we also committed to procuring clean power through the next auction round only if we are confident that it will lower bills. We will reform contracts for difference by allocation round 9 to support the lowest-cost system, fixing market distortions and siting assets in the right place. To Members who are committed to net zero on both the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, let me be clear that it is only by getting electricity prices down, and ensuring that new clean power does not run ahead of the grid, that we can credibly achieve our net zero goals.

I will turn to a couple of points made by Members before I conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked a number of questions about the Acorn project; I reassure him and Members on both sides of the House that the Government remain committed to Acorn and want to see it succeed. The change announced last week switches funding from grants to loans or equity stakes, which we hope will provide better value for money for the taxpayer. The existing partners confirmed that approach last week, setting out that the Budget announcement does not change Acorn’s current development programme. The relevant Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will be meeting the developers later this week. Acorn is not the only scheme to be affected by recent prioritisation decisions. In fact, some schemes in England have been stopped entirely.

A number of Members on the Government Benches also raised the mineworkers’ pension scheme; they and others on these Benches have been relentless in their advocacy for mining communities. I particularly note the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It was a powerful contribution, and it was heard loud and clear by those on the Treasury Bench. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, he knows that the job is not done, and he will go on to ensure the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund. I know that he is working at pace to agree a way forward.

This is a Budget to deliver good growth in every postcode. It is underpinned by fiscal discipline, with borrowing falling in every year. It is the most decentralising Budget in modern British history, pushing power and resources out across the country. It marks an important moment in the history of UK energy policy, with a firm commitment to putting cheap electricity first. The Opposition added £100 to bills; we have taken £150 off. We are also drawing a line in the sand when it comes to new build costs.

This Budget supports businesses on the high street, taking 70,000 smaller high street properties out of business rates altogether; and in industry, by implementing a 25% discount to electricity bills for heavy users. Of course, we have also prioritised helping families now, with £100 off energy bills this winter for 20 million homes, funded through higher bank taxes, which the Opposition oppose. This is a big Labour Budget built on strong Labour choices—breathing space for today and fresh hope for the future.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I agree. That goes back to the point I made a moment ago that too many of these companies see their residents as a soft or easy touch. They think that their residents will just suck it up and simply write the cheque.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and for securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that there is a particularly predatory aspect upon the death of a resident who has occupied one of these properties? I would like to use this moment to pay tribute to Alex Roll, a constituent of mine whose mother’s estate has been crawled all over by predatory management companies that have seen an opportunity to effectively seize the assets of someone who worked tirelessly through their life. This system urgently needs reform—it is desperate for it.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time. When somebody dies and the property then goes up for sale—sometimes, because of the restrictive covenants, the resale can be a slow and difficult business—not only do these companies receive a fairly significant clawback at the point of sale, but they demand service charges to be paid while the property is vacant or while probate is awaited. They really are trying to milk it from both ends, and I just do not think that stacks up in the court of public opinion as being fair or justifiable. One should be able to say, “This property is vacant. We will not levy the service charge, as that will effectively be included in the clawback that we get at the point of sale,” because there is clearly no resident in that property using those services.

Local Government Reorganisation

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I have asked the Minister for local government, devolution and regional growth to undertake a rapid review of the local government reorganisation programme. That is a review regarding the decisions that were announced in March and July, and the two remaining areas of West Sussex, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. I have said that the review will cover 18 decisions already taken and the two areas where decisions have not yet been made. I want the programme to be reviewed at pace and will report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

This process has been a complete shambles from start to finish and has failed to have Worcestershire’s best interests at its heart. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether this is actually being paused or whether, in reality, the can is being kicked down the road, under the veil of the process being delayed, rather than the Government admitting embarrassment? If it has been paused, and she is going to revisit the decision, will the evidence base be revisited, and will there be a new consultation with stakeholders, including residents? If so, will the Secretary of State meet me, as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, before she takes a decision? I think she said earlier that the Government had allocated £63 million to support councils across the country in this process. How much of that £63 million has been spent so far?

[Angela Rayner]

This is a pause. It is a review—I have made that absolutely crystal clear—for me to consider the legal advice that was provided as part of the JR process, as well as for me to be able to do what the Prime Minister asked us last week, which was to look at the local government reform programme. That is what I am doing. I did talk about the £63 million. That money is earmarked. If those areas have financial concerns regarding the money they have spent on local government reorganisation, they can contact my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of the case. My understanding is that Shropshire council refused planning permission for the development on the basis that the land was not grey belt and therefore building on it would constitute inappropriate development in the green belt. In general terms, when it comes to determining whether a site is classified as grey belt, the relevant inspector will, at appeal, consider relevant legislation; national planning policy, including the national planning policy framework; planning policy guidance; and any other relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department has effective strategies for prioritising housing densification in urban areas.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The new national planning policy framework, published on 17 August, includes a number of new policies designed to increase densification inside settlements, including by encouraging the upward expansion of existing homes and the creation of new dwellings in existing plots.

[Bradley Thomas]

I just heard the Secretary of State say that there should be a brownfield-first approach, but what is going on in Bromsgrove, and in many other constituencies, is contradictory: an 85% increase in the housing target in a constituency that is 90% green belt. I challenge the Secretary of State to think again and prioritise urban densification, which is fundamental to the redevelopment of towns, cities and urban centres that are in desperate need of renewal. Why does she not just admit that she has got this wrong and change tack?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have not got it wrong: the new NPPF does prioritise urban development and densification. As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman a number of times, local authorities can justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the standard method on the basis of local constraints, such as land availability. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify the release of green belt, and we fully expect them to first demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land.

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

They may be small in number but they are definitely mighty—that is my observation about my hon. Friend and his Cornish colleagues. I will absolutely get the Housing Minister to meet him to see what more we could do. I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have raised concerns about the devolution agenda and how to ensure there is devolution for Cornwall and that it fits with them. I will make sure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Government appear to be very inconsistent in their approach to local government reorganisation. Worcestershire is being split into two, Gloucestershire is being kept whole and the boundary of Leicester city council is expanding outwards into the surrounding areas. Can the Secretary of State rule out further expansion of Birmingham city council into the surrounding areas, including Worcestershire?

[Angela Rayner]

In response to an earlier question on local government reorganisation, I said that my principle is that it should benefit the people and the services of the local area. I do not want to comment on specific local areas at the moment—I need to look at that—but the principle should be to ensure that this is not done to people and that local leaders are part of the process. This is about making sure that services deliver for the people in their local area.

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for regenerating local high streets and removing unlawful storefronts.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a delight to see so many Members present to talk about this important topic. High streets matter: they are one of the most significant topics in UK society and politics today, because our town centres are a barometer of the vitality of all the areas that we represent, both economically and socially, for good or for ill.

Town centres are changing. There has been a perfect storm: retail habits have changed since e-commerce set in the best part of two decades ago, and social habits have changed as a result. In many areas, we have seen a hollowing out of high streets and a different type of retail moving in, often with different problems. Low-grade retail and the decline in investment in the public realm are significant factors in the vitality of the areas that we represent. The British public have clear opinions: 79% of Brits are concerned about the decline of high streets and town centres, 65% believe that there are not enough shopping options and 68% believe that there are too many vape shops, barber shops, charity shops and mini-marts in their communities.

We have to think about why footfall in retail has declined. There is the effect of internet shopping, which is very much a normal part of life nowadays. We must also acknowledge the increasing costs that businesses face, including business rates, utility bills and rising labour costs. It is a perfect storm: I do not think that anyone across the House would deny that high streets are under probably the most acute pressure in living memory.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in securing this debate, which I suppose is indicative of the crisis that he is talking about. I have secured a similar debate this afternoon on a directly related issue. This demands not only our attention, but immediate Government action, because in 10 years’ time we will not know the high street as we have known it in the past 10 years.

[Bradley Thomas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate later today. He is absolutely right: the pressure and stress that high streets are under mean that, on the current path, they will be unrecognisable in a decade.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He mentioned vape shops, barber shops and mini-marts. He will be aware of the evidence that some of those enterprises are masking quite serious organised crime on our high streets. This has been a decades-long failure in regulation. The cracks between which the issues fall, between different agencies, is immense. Does he agree that greater action is needed on the joint taskforce that this Government have now set up, and that we should also look at some of the commercial private landlords? We should ensure more regulation on them to check who is renting the properties that they let out.

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is correct: without doubt, a strong regulatory failure over the past decade has contributed to the problem. I will address some of her points later in my remarks.

There is also a rural/suburban distinction. In rural areas, the British public have a stronger opinion: about 55% of people in predominantly rural or semi-rural areas believe that their high street is undergoing a decline, whereas the figure for those living in urban areas is only 19%.

Let us look at some of the stats that back up the evidence about the narrowing range of high street retail across the country. There are now believed to be at least 3,500 nail bars, 20,000 to 25,000 barber shops and 3,500 vape shops. As we are all aware, those numbers could well be significantly under-reported, so they do not necessarily give an accurate picture of the extent of the challenge. On Oxford Street alone, a mile or so from here, there are 18 American candy stores.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The issues that he highlights exist across the country. A common struggle for hon. Members across the House is that we cannot find out who owns these buildings on our high streets. I have approached my council, but it either does not have the information or is not willing to share it so that we can regenerate our high streets. Does the hon. Member agree that we need mechanisms to ensure greater transparency and due diligence so that these landlords can take some ownership?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is correct. At the centre of a Venn diagram of regulatory and reporting blackspots, there is a sweet spot where it is difficult to identify those who are responsible behind the building ownership or the so-called businesses appearing on our high streets as a consequence of the pressure that I am outlining.

Another consequence that is being discussed across the House is the decline of vital services in our areas. Some 7,000 banks have closed across the country since 2015, which is two thirds of the entire banking network. We have all heard stories from constituents who are increasingly dependent on retail banking presence. There has been a push towards banking hubs, and the Post Office performs a role to some extent.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that in rural areas we need a lot more banking hubs, because the banks are going, and that we should scrap business rates for start-ups and independent businesses? Rural communities are losing shops big time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is correct that the issue is acutely felt in rural areas. I am delighted that the Conservative party has put forward a plan to abolish business rates for thousands of small businesses, including shops, pubs and hospitality businesses on the high street. I will come on to some solutions to the challenges we face.

There are 1,400 postcodes across the country that do not have a bank within a 5-mile radius, which demonstrates the scale of the challenge. One in seven high street shops across the country are currently empty. An estimated 38 businesses close every day. When businesses close, there are job losses, with an estimated 93,000 retail jobs lost in 2025 alone. In the hospitality sector, it is reported that up to 5,000 jobs are being lost per month. I make a plea to the Government to change course on the additional costs that they have placed on small businesses across the country. They are unquestionably killing employment and putting greater pressure on the long-term viability of those businesses.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. York is fortunate that two thirds of its high street businesses are independent, but they are really struggling at the moment, not least because of the costs pressing on their finances—particularly business rates, which have gone up incredibly steeply. Does the hon. Member agree not only that businesses are laying off staff, but that they are not recruiting staff, which is vital for the regeneration of high streets? We need the Government to take an overview and make a plan for regeneration, as my right hon. Friend the new Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) made the case for just yesterday.

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member is an ardent champion of her constituency. It is reassuring to hear that her area has a strong and thriving independent sector, but she is right that the first rung of employment for so many has been pulled away from that ladder, in large part because of choices that this Government have made. Small retail businesses have reduced recruitment, and in many cases they have had to let people go because of the pressure on them.

Another reason why the debate about town centres matters, as hon. Members have touched on, is that far too often our high streets are becoming a very visible front for illicit or illegal activity. That is a problem in plain sight that none of us can deny.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the closure order powers that we have in this country are not fit for purpose? Until local authorities have the power to act swiftly and decisively, organised criminals will continue to exploit our high streets with impunity.

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Lady is correct: the tools at the disposal of the state are not used often enough, there are not enough deterrents and there is not enough strong and visible action to clamp down on this behaviour and prevent such instances from recurring.

[Melanie Onn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make a tad of progress, if I can.

The Office for National Statistics has reported that in 2025 there were 530,000 shoplifting offences, an increase of 20% on the previous year. That is the highest figure on record, and it does not take into account crimes that are not reported because there is a general malaise or a suspicion that they will not be investigated. I read a similar stat from public authorities that only 50% of shopkeepers report crime, while a staggering 55% of reported cases are closed without a suspect ever having been identified. That is despite retailers having spent £300 million on measures such as security, CCTV and facial recognition to mitigate the effects of shoplifting.

It is believed that up to one half of vape shops and a large proportion of American candy stores have ties to organised crime. The scale of the problem is unquestionable; we all recognise it. Over the past 12 months, 3,600 shops have had illegal goods seized, and it is estimated by the National Crime Agency that £1 billion of criminal cash is laundered through high street retail. The scale of the problem is undeniable, which brings me to the question of what we can do about it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Bradley Thomas]

I am genuinely interested in hearing what fellow Members have to say, so before I continue I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and for his interest in what I am about to say. The Government took powers under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 to license these kinds of premises, but there is real uncertainty—I have had correspondence with the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper)—about the Government’s application of the new powers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in calling for the Government to get their act together and clamp down on these shops.

[Bradley Thomas]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Much greater focus on tackling these issues is needed from all arms of the state, national and local, including arm’s length bodies, law enforcement and investigation. For far too long, a fragmented approach has allowed the problem to grow: it has swelled, not declined, in recent years.

The reason this matters is that society has to get the basics right. I am a big believer in the idea that the fundamentals in society slip when we do not collectively enforce the basics. That often starts with pride. As we have seen our high streets hollowed out, we have seen a decline in civic pride across the country. In all our areas, the councils do some things very well, but it is unquestionable that investment in the public realm has declined over the past decade. There are lots of reasons for that, and hon. Members may speak about some of them, but we have to get back to enforcing the basics. I am passionate about the importance of good design, including design codes and good-quality signage and a good-quality aesthetic in the public realm. A lot flows from the degradation that we have seen in recent years.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s vision. In my town centre of Longton, we are making massive improvements to the public realm. We have heritage colours and an awful lot of civil pride. It can be done, and Longton is demonstrating that.

[Bradley Thomas]

That is fantastic, and I am delighted to hear it. I know that many areas do that well, but we have to get the very basics at the bottom of the question right.

I believe in design codes because they give people control over the aesthetic of our areas. We all know the kinds of places that we are attracted to when we have a bit of leisure time—we may go there to spend money and to have a day out with family and friends. We have to view our own areas through that lens and ask how we can ensure that they are attractive enough destinations for people to want to come there and spend their money. If our town centres are not attractive because we have allowed the basics to slip and do not take care around the aesthetic and cleanliness of areas, we should not be surprised when people stop coming, businesses do not invest and low-grade retail begins to occupy the void that has been created. I encourage the Government to restore the principle of good-quality design being at the centre of planning decisions, to enforce a greater aesthetic standard across the areas that we represent.

Tied to that has to be an increase in the quality of signage. All hon. Members can cite examples of a low-grade retail unit—possibly one that is questionable in terms of how many people it employs and what its purpose is—opening in their constituencies. I guarantee that in many cases such a unit will come with a garish, ugly and possibly neon sign that local people are frankly staggered that the local authority is allowing to stay in place. The state has to make a much more concerted effort to tackle the issue: the national Government need to devolve powers to local authorities and regulatory services, and local authorities have to have a much stronger will to ensure signage standards across society are of greater quality.

[Amanda Martin]

Does the hon. Member agree that we need to make sure that data sharing flows, with intelligence, between all relevant organisations, including mayors, local government, the police, and the small businesses that are following the law and doing the right thing?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that links perfectly to my next point, which is on enforcement and the awareness of the state. Members all have examples of such incidents occurring because they have fallen through the cracks of the different agencies that are meant to have responsibility for the issue, so let us think about how the state needs to be rewired to tackle it. The state has to bring together the Home Office, local authorities, police forces, and the Treasury in its role in clamping down on money laundering. The unquestionable effect of illegal migration and county lines sits at the centre of much of this, and far too many of the relevant powers are weak or dispersed to authorities that do not have the will or ability to crack down on the problem. Enforcement and the ability of the state have to be at the centre of this.

On the civic pride piece, we should get back to basics, as some obvious things could be done. My local authority in Bromsgrove does a pretty good job of keeping Bromsgrove and Hagley town centres, and the shopping parades in Wythall and Rubery, clean and tidy, but I would like public authorities to invest a little more in the finishing touches, like flowers, and the quality of the public realm. It is those softer things that make our areas pleasant destinations for people to shop in and, ultimately, for businesses to invest in. Let us bring back trees in the public realm, for goodness’ sake. We have seen plenty of instances in which the planning system has prevented the planting of street trees because people are concerned about liabilities, but we know that the public like them, and guess what? With last week’s heatwave in mind, trees are beneficial in helping to keep public spaces quite cool, as well as making them attractive.

Another key factor in the deterioration of the quality of high streets across the country is the visibility of institutions, which must be restored in society. Again, I come back to my earlier point: the big things slide when we do not get the basics right. Most of our areas have seen a visible decline in the key institutions that restore public trust in all the things that bind us in society. I am talking about police stations and courts particularly.

Arguably, on the other side of the coin, if there are too many police visible, people think that it is a high-crime area. But guess what? If police are never visible, people feel that justice is not being enforced. Equally, the decline in the number of visible courts in our communities has contributed considerably to the problem that we face and has been a subtle factor in the ability of illicit retail to thrive, because the public authorities and the state are not interested in clamping down on it.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Member is being very gracious with his time. Is he aware that in Dudley there is a very tenacious trading standards officer who has managed to secure 40 closure orders in recent years, which far exceeds any other local authority? Does the hon. Member agree that tools and powers are available but it takes the will to use them?

[Bradley Thomas]

I do agree. Dudley is next door to my constituency, so I will actively encourage Bromsgrove district council to have a conversation with Dudley council, because it sounds as though it is doing absolutely the right thing.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Member is being incredibly generous. He has talked about infrastructure and agencies. It is also important to ensure that we have facilities such as public toilets and good seating on our high streets, but the disinvestment in our local authorities over a long time has prevented that. Will he support my call for investment in local areas so that we have seating for the elderly and play areas for children on our high streets?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. Those factors contribute to a healthy and thriving community, and it is really important that all local authorities do what they can to support investment in such facilities in their areas. This is not all down to what the state can do; there are other things that local authorities can do. They have a role in getting the factors right to empower the private sector to invest in our areas.

Another policy that I would like to see is a greater push towards local economic investment plans. Prior to being a Member of Parliament, I served as a district councillor in south Worcestershire. As leader of Wychavon district council, I pursued investment prospectuses for three main towns. They were not planning documents; they were targeted at strategic investors to say, “These are the reasons why our towns are attractive.” They might say, “There’s a population of x within a hinterland of y. These are all the social and economic indices that make our areas attractive.” But guess what? If we are not enforcing the basics, we should not be surprised if it is difficult to get that investment on the hook. Society, the state and councils are not doing all they can to ensure that the communities that we represent are ultimately very attractive destinations for businesses to come and spend their money.

I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak, so I will draw my comments to a close in a second. Again, I impress on the Government the importance of reducing costs to businesses, which are unquestionably having an impact on our town centres and high streets. The Government need to abolish business rates for thousands of shops, hospitality venues, pubs and small retailers across the country to give our high street traders a boost. They should endorse the Conservative policy that has been put forward. We need to get energy costs down, and the Government can do that by endorsing the Conservatives’ clean power plan.

Let me reiterate the points I have made: we must restore pride in our civic areas, and strengthen the teeth of the state and its ability to collectively identify and tackle these problems. It needs to speak to other agencies with commonality in identifying and tackling the solution. We should not be afraid to use the teeth of the state to clamp down on this, because the very best thing we can do is demonstrate that if illegal, illicit or low-grade retail appears on our high streets, we are serious about cracking down on it so that we can ensure the vitality of our high streets continues for the enjoyment of all our communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I will make a bit of progress, if that is all right.

Supporting high streets means Government backing our high streets. Each place—each town, high street and village—has a different personality and identity. The role of Government should be to support them and enhance the place they live in. The Government believe that people who live in those places know them best. That is why we are moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach, equipping places with practical levers for change and shifting funding, decision making and accountability from Whitehall to the hands of mayors, councils, local businesses and residents.

The high streets rental auctions are a key example of that, giving councils the power to bring persistently vacant properties back into use. We have just announced £10 million to support the expansion and roll-out of that programme, helping councils to identify opportunities, engage landlords and get properties back into use. Alongside the community right to buy, now backed by £61 million of funding, that will give local people a greater say in the future of their area. In my experience, local people are not short of opinions on how they want to shape their area, but crucial actions by Government are needed to back that vision.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke about the need to renovate older buildings. The Government have taken some good steps on that. Members today have called for changes to address the blight of betting shops and vape shops. The Government have taken some action with the gambling cumulative impact assessments, but I recognise that many are looking for further action, so that we can put a stop to the betting shops popping up all over our high streets. It is not enough simply to respond to change. We must empower local communities and provide the resources to those local communities and councils to shape their high streets.

The points hon. Members made about beautiful design and places looking nice are important. There is not a lot a local authority or community can do if people have to step over rubbish or, frankly, do not feel safe in the local park in the town centre. Design codes are important, as is the national planning policy framework.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank the Minister for her speech. Will she implore her colleagues to restore beauty to the centre of the NPPF, and consider mandating design codes to local authorities, so that they can boost the aesthetic quality of their local area?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I thank the hon. Member for that important point. I recognise how passionate people are about that. The NPPF does set out some of that, but the truth is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Having been a council leader, I know how challenging that can be. It is important that the public realm is shaped by local people. The best examples are where there is co-production and co-operation between local partners, residents and businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I am grateful to all Members across the House for their contributions, and to the Minister for her remarks.

It is clear that this issue is widespread. We all recognise the profound importance of strengthening our high streets and tackling the challenges at the centre of their trajectory of decay. I stress to the Minister that she needs to go back and speak to her colleagues and whoever the new Prime Minister may be about the importance of slashing business rates, and to colleagues in her Department about the importance of strengthening the role of design and beauty at the core of the NPPF. It cannot be overstated. When society does not get the basics right and places do not look good, we should never be surprised if investment and footfall do not follow.

I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about a review of closure powers, which is much needed across the country, and a focus on tackling organised high street crime and its effect on our communities. At the core, the Government have to be pragmatic. They have to take a long-term view rather than place short-term sticking plasters, and I hope the Minister will continue in the spirit that she projected when she was talking about the importance of those two aspects. I thank all Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for regenerating local high streets and removing unlawful storefronts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for being such a powerful champion for his community. I am excited by the engagement and the ideas coming from people in Castlemilk. I thank him for all the work he is doing to make Pride in Place a success in his area. My colleagues in the Scotland Office and I look forward to working with him and the community to deliver for the area.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

7. What definition his Department uses for grey-belt land for housing developments.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The definition of grey belt for the purposes of both plan making and decision making is set out in the glossary of the national planning policy framework. The Government also updated green-belt planning practice guidance in February last year, to assist local planning authorities with identifying and considering proposals for potential grey-belt land, and to provide for a consistent approach across England.

[Bradley Thomas]

Bromsgrove golf course is in open countryside. It is a beautiful, green open space and one of the most popular golf courses anywhere in the country, and it contains more than 20,000 trees. Does the Minister really think that it is suitable for development, particularly at scale? Will he rule out development on such golf courses? If not, will he meet me and members of the golf club to discuss their concerns?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I certainly will not rule in or rule out development on any particular site. The hon. Member knows why I cannot speak to particular planning applications, but he knows from our recent meeting on the subject that it is for local planning authorities to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of green belt, and it is for individual local planning authorities to undertake the necessary assessments to identify if land is grey belt, either through plan making or through specific applications that come forward.

Local Government Finance

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how it works. An area does not get diluted. The scheme looks at super-output areas on a very small level so we can ensure that the funding goes to those areas with the highest levels of deprivation. I would be happy to write to him about the process if it would help him to better understand how it works.

For the vast majority of councils, increases in council tax will be restricted to 3%, and 2% for the adult social care precept.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I will keep my comments brief, and they will be focused on council tax. The reason they will be brief is that I was hoping to intervene earlier on the Secretary of State. He said that he did not want to dodge difficult topics and wanted to talk about promises, but he did not take an intervention from me, probably because he knew what was coming.

I will talk about broken promises and about difficult topics. The primary one affecting my residents right now across Bromsgrove and the villages, as well as people across Worcestershire, is the Government’s collusion with Reform to hike council tax by a staggering 9%. That will be the highest council tax increase that Worcestershire county council has imposed on its residents. It will likely be the highest increase in council tax across the country this year, and it is reprehensible, because prior to the general election in 2024, the Labour party stood clearly on a manifesto that said it would freeze council tax. Labour Members know as well as I do that they have no will to deliver that.

[Mr Brash]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will not give way, because the Secretary of State would not give way to me. I will not give way and be lectured to by Labour MPs who are not upholding their promises.

The Government stood on a manifesto to freeze council tax, knowing full well that they would not be able to deliver that. Worse still, last May, prior to the local elections, the Reform party stuffed leaflets through the doors of residents across Worcestershire and across the country pledging that it would cut council tax. Reform spoke about this DOGE—Department of Government Efficiency—programme for local government. It is interesting that not a single Reform Member of Parliament is here in the Chamber today to defend their record.

Where is this DOGE programme? Why has it revealed nothing? Reform thought that it could turn the sofa upside down, give it a good shake and £100 million would fall out. Well, that did not happen. Instead, I can tell the House what has happened in Worcestershire. Since last May, the overspend by the Reform administration has been £100 million. As a result, it has come cap in hand to the Government for emergency funding and for a council tax rise way in excess of inflation and of the 5% threshold for a referendum.

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is raising incredibly important points about how our constituents were promised that their council tax would be cut and have been royally let down by Reform councillors. Can I embarrass my hon. Friend? It is worth remembering that many Conservative district councils do well. My hon. Friend led Wychavon district council within the last 14 years, and for five years it was deemed the most financially resilient district council in the country, and at the same time it did not increase council tax by a single penny. That is what Conservative councils deliver.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour; he is far too generous. I was leader of Wychavon district council in south Worcestershire for five years, and we proudly froze council tax for five years consistently without cutting a single service. Local government is lean. It can be run efficiently and effectively without duping the taxpayer.

But let us return to that dupe. The Reform administration on Worcestershire county council went cap in hand to the Government, and the Government have granted it emergency funding. They have agreed and, in effect, colluded with Reform. Two parties have agreed to put up council tax for residents when both had promised that they would not do so, and Worcestershire residents are paying the price. My message to the Minister is very clear: if we want to maintain trust and integrity in politics at all levels, it is important for such promises to be stuck to and abided by, or else not to be made in the first place.

Most importantly of all, in the last 48 hours more than 1,100 Worcestershire residents have signed a petition opposing this increase. It is crucial that the issue goes to a referendum, and that the people of Worcestershire have their say.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I start with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who did not give way when I asked him to? I will happily give way in a moment should he wish to correct the record, but he said that the 2024 Labour manifesto on which we stood promised to freeze council tax. No such promise exists in that manifesto, and I invite him now to correct the record.

[Bradley Thomas]

Residents across the country knew ahead of the general election that the Prime Minister had made various very public pledges that the Labour party would freeze council tax should it come to office. If there is a mistake on my part and those words were not in the manifesto, I apologise for that, but—here I return to my point about trust in politics—if we want residents across the country to have faith in the political system, it is important for politicians to stand by their promises, whether they are written in a manifesto or uttered on television.

[Mr Brash]

I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record.

The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks.

I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone. My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution.

But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency. It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else.

When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care. After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding.

As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A. A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality.

Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated. Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my Birmingham neighbour, for his intervention. In relation to the issue of waste, my focus is the impact on my constituency. It is just over 10 years since I was first elected, and this is the worst situation that I have ever seen on my doorstep. I have staff members living in the Labour-run Birmingham city council area who still have wrapping paper from Christmas 2024 in their recycling bins.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the first moments of the debate. This situation is having a profound impact, and what is going on is a travesty. There is a complete failure of leadership. This is bleeding out into the wider area. My constituency borders Birmingham, and we have streets of two halves—one half is in the Birmingham city council area, where the bins are piling up, and the other half is in Bromsgrove, where the bins are collected. We are seeing an acute rise in fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a failure of leadership, and that there is no excuse for a global city in a developed G7 country to be facing a leadership failure this acute?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are talking about the UK’s second largest city. I really worry about its reputation and about the distinct lack of political leadership. Our mayor seems to want to wash his hands of the issue. I try and try to raise the matter in this House, much to the annoyance of Mr Speaker, but I know that there are residents across Birmingham, and friends of mine, who find this deeply frustrating. They pay their council tax, and do not get this most basic of services.

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.