Phil Brickell

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 278

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

   I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the APPG that I chair and the work that we are doing. Does she agree that the Government cannot simply enforce their way out of the problem of illicit activity on the high street and in the sector? When the National Crime Agency conducted its Operation Machinize in November 2025, it visited 2,734 premises up and down the length of the country, but it only closed down 10 of them. Of course, not all of those were hairdressers or barbering salons. Does she agree that a proportionate licensing regime is therefore the right step forward, akin to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, and that that is the right way to seize control of who operates in these sectors and to give the public confidence about who is cutting their hair and who is operating on the high street?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

   Will the Minister heed my earlier comment that, although that is all good, the scale of the issue is such that the Government cannot enforce their way out of it? There has to be another way that prevents enforcement agencies from playing whack-a-mole when trying to close down premises that are operating illicitly?

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   On the occasion of the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, now the Prime Minister, visiting my constituency, I was proud to host him in Blackedge’s Brewery Tap on Market Street in Westhoughton. Recognising that he understands the value of cask ale and local independent businesses and breweries, would the Minister perhaps persuade his good offices to see what they can do to support the cask ale business and breweries to continue this fine tradition?

   Hansard source
4. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Performance of Royal Mail

   My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about the experiences of her constituents. My constituents have faced issues in which they have had mail only once every three or four weeks; one constituent did not receive 14 items of post. Does she agree that the Royal Mail’s treatment of Ofcom fines simply as a baked-in operational risk is one reason, among others, why we need a far more muscular regulatory regime?

   Hansard source
5. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Performance of Royal Mail

   My hon. Friend is making a passionate contribution about the experience of her constituents and the real-life impact of Royal Mail’s failures. Does she agree that this is yet another prime example of why it is important to properly regulate a public service? Contrary to what some Members of this House may think, it is not bureaucracy or red tape; it is about securing the proper functioning of a public service.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   House of Lords Reform

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this critical debate. He has been a champion in pursuing long overdue reform to the upper Chamber. Let me start by saying, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, that I have had the privilege of working with a number of excellent peers who are deeply committed to legislative scrutiny and improving our legislation. There are many members of the Lords who perform a vital public service. But good people can still be trapped in a bad system, and the public can see that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said, why is it acceptable in this country for lawmakers in the upper House to work as lobbyists at the same time? How can the public be expected to trust the system when those shaping legislation can also be paid to influence it? In my old life as a compliance officer, that would not have passed the most basic conflict of interest test and it should not pass such a test in Parliament. Transparency International UK has gone so far as to call the House of Lords: “a lobbying network for hire.” If that does not set alarm bells ringing—Transparency International UK is the true expert—I do not know what will.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   House of Lords Reform

   I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo courts in Hong Kong and to say that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting them. While we are asking difficult questions, here is another one: why is it possible to be appointed to the legislature of the United Kingdom and then barely show up? I can think of no other workplace where someone can disappear for months, sometimes even years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in making decisions that affect millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities; membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation. Then there is the size of the place. With about 800 peers— 800—the House of Lords is larger than almost every comparable second chamber in the democratic world. When people talk about a bloated state, perhaps they should start by walking through Westminster Hall and turning right at Central Lobby. Nobody seriously believes that adding more peers automatically leads to better scrutiny; what it does lead to is a system that looks increasingly detached from the public it serves. Also, who gets to participate? The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the south-east, and it is not right that, for example, the north-west— my region—is so under-represented. However, it is hardly surprising, given that the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. That sounds reasonable, but try finding somewhere to stay in central London at that rate. The result is obvious: those with substantial means, or those who live close enough to commute, have a built-in advantage. We should not have a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and regions. Then there is the transparency. Why do peers not have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why do they not have to declare how much they are paid for those jobs? The public are entitled to know where lawmakers are earning their money, and who could be influencing them. Elsewhere on standards, the new legislation on disgraced peers, announced in the last King’s Speech, is long overdue. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that proposal? Elsewhere, what progress has been made on the Government’s three other manifesto commitments: first, introducing new participation requirements; secondly, delivering a national and regional balance for the upper Chamber; and finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process? Removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door, which is why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The reforms should include putting HOLAC on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto on demonstrably unsuitable appointments.<span id="366WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="366WH"></span> Let us tackle one final issue head-on: why should major party donors be rewarded with lifelong seats in the legislature? Public appointments should be earned through service and expertise, not purchased through cheque books. The House of Lords does important work, but many diligent and hard-working peers feel that they are having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting, or who are sometimes actively enabled by, a broken system. We need a smaller House, a cleaner House and a more transparent House. That is not radical; surely it is just common sense.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Business of the House

   Councils across the country are spending millions of pounds on single-occupancy taxis for SEND transport, while ageing minibus fleets go unreplaced. One manufacturer in my constituency reports that complex procurement processes, excessive bureaucracy and lengthy tendering delays are preventing councils from ordering new vehicles, despite there being clear demand to do so. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to secure a statement from the Government setting out how they will ensure that the buy British agenda helps councils modernise fleets, reduce transport costs and support British manufacturing jobs?

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

   Inheritance Tax

   The wording of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition “calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses.” That is abolition without conditions, without qualification, without any taper whatsoever, and without any reference to the growing cost of social care or the vital contribution that inheritance tax receipts make to supporting our ageing population. Let me be clear that it is the Conservatives who are proposing a tax break, paid for <span id="447" class="column-number" data-column-number="447"></span>by cuts to public spending, for those who have inherited or accumulated considerable wealth. It is a tax break for the wealthiest 5.5% who are forecast to be subject to IHT this year. Let us be honest about what the Conservatives are proposing. They are proposing to abolish a progressive, redistributive tax in its entirety, at a potential cost of £10.8 billion a year, to benefit a small minority of the very wealthiest estates. I have no objection to people wanting to pass something on to their children—it is a natural and valuable part of being a parent—but the question before us is not whether families should be able to pass on their hard-earned assets fairly, but whether the right priority for this country is to abolish inheritance tax altogether, regardless of the cost, and I think the answer is clear. I do not want to dwell too much on figures, but one figure is worth remembering. My constituency is a varied one—it has affluent areas and not so affluent areas—yet at the last general election, fewer than 1% of estates in my Bolton West constituency were expected to fall within the inheritance tax threshold. So I have to ask, on behalf of my hard-working constituents: who exactly are the official Opposition speaking to with this proposal, because it will do precious little for the overwhelming majority of people in Bolton, Blackrod, Horwich and Westhoughton? It will not help the small business owner struggling with rising costs in Westhoughton, it will not help the single mum in Horwich managing the weekly shop, it will not help the pensioner in Blackrod worried about their energy bills and it will not help the young person in Bolton trying to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. It is designed to benefit a small minority with the largest estates. Let me reiterate the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) that this is a return by the official Opposition to their “comfort zone”. Most families in my constituency—and, I wager, in the country at large—would far rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living crisis, improve public services and give working people some breathing room. The official Opposition may have concerns about the tapering of the personal allowance for earners over £100,000 and the high marginal tax rates that can create, or the economic distortions that follow. Those are legitimate subjects for debate, but they are not the motion before us today. If the Conservatives wanted to bring forward proposals that would genuinely help ordinary families, they had plenty of alternatives. They could have focused on cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, which deprives the public purse of billions of pounds that could otherwise fund our public services. They could have tackled the tangled web of professional enablers who help wealthy individuals—and, yes, some businesses—to conceal assets, exploit loopholes and avoid paying what they owe. They could have proposed a fairer tax system that levels the playing field between online giants and high street businesses. Those are debates worth having. Those are the sorts of proposals that could command support across this House. Instead, the Conservatives have deliberately chosen to pursue a narrow partisan agenda that benefits those who are asset-rich, while offering precious little to those who need help the most.<span id="448" class="column-number" data-column-number="448"></span> That brings me to the wider question of priorities, because this Government understand that helping people with the cost of living means taking practical action on the bills they pay, the services they rely on and the businesses that sustain their communities. This Government have pursued those, including through scrapping VAT on electricity bills for this winter. Those are practical measures. They speak to the everyday concerns of working people, families and, yes, small businesses. That is what responsible government looks like. Yet the Conservative party, by contrast, wants us to believe that the answer to the pressures facing this country is to spend less on public services so that a small minority can pay less tax on their estates. I must say that it sounds remarkably like they have learned little from the Liz Truss debacle. What they are proposing means less money available for public services, less money to support vulnerable people and less capacity to address the pressures facing our country. If the official Opposition are serious about rebuilding their support across the United Kingdom, about speaking to people in every community and about demonstrating that they are ready to govern again, they should scrap this motion. They should focus on the issues that speak to the country at large. Politics is about priorities. In choosing the complete abolition of inheritance tax as the subject of today’s Opposition day debate, they have sent a very clear signal: tax cuts for a small minority over support for the many and the interests of the wealthiest estates over the needs of children growing up in poverty. They have chosen to spend billions on a policy that will do precious little for my constituents across Bolton West. That is why I will not be supporting the motion.

   Hansard source
10. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Phil Brickell

    Fracking Ban

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate. As a keen environmentalist, I will speak in support of a full and permanent ban on fracking. In my constituency, people care deeply about our shared natural environment. They care about access to nature. They care about protecting the landscapes that define our communities. I see that every time I visit the West Pennine moors and enjoy our local landscapes. Those moors and fields are a place of recreation, reflection and escape, and they are part of our local identity in Bolton West. What they are not is a resource to be gambled with in pursuit of a speculative industry that has never enjoyed public support in my constituency. Way back in 2015, there were demonstrations against fracking in Horwich after the then Conservative Government granted licences to drill there and in Blackrod, Rivington and Belmont. Many of us will remember even larger demonstrations against fracking in neighbouring Lancashire over the years. Local people consistently turned out in their droves because they were worried about the consequences for their communities, their environment and their quality of life.<span id="1648" class="column-number" data-column-number="1648"></span> It is impossible not to mention the extraordinary events of 2022. The then Prime Minister, Liz Truss, effectively turned a vote on fracking into a confidence vote in her own Government. That evening, fracking extracted her from her job far more effectively than it has ever extracted shale gas. Fracking became a symbol of a political establishment refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved. My own concerns have always been primarily environmental and ecological, and these fears are repeatedly raised to this day by my constituents. Indeed, my friend, Horwich resident and long-standing environmental activist Stuart put it more clearly than I would be able to. He told me that, for him, the biggest problem is the toxic chemicals entering the watercourse. That echoes the sentiment rightly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) earlier in the debate. That captures the heart of the issue. People are worried about the risk of pollution to the water table and the wider environment. Indeed, once groundwater is contaminated, the damage can last for generations. So let us ask ourselves one simple question today: is fracking really worth it? The reality is that fracking has always asked communities to take environmental risks in exchange for highly uncertain rewards, and the truth is that the country at large has never bought into it.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Bolton West

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site