EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Debate between Phil Brickell and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom.

I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023.

Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany I spend a lot of time meeting German businesses that want to invest in this country. One issue that comes up time and again is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about business mobility and persuading German boards to invest in British companies to grow the economy, and one constraint on that is the ability of German professionals to come here. Does he recognise that point, and will he join me in paying tribute to Ulrich Hoppe, the director general at the German-British Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who does formidable work trying to resolve some of these issues to support the British economy?

[Pete Wishart]

I join the hon. Gentleman overwhelmingly and enthusiastically. He is absolutely right. It is hard to think of a sector that has remained untouched by the fact that we cannot access European talent. It is a problem for hospitality and restaurant businesses in constituencies like mine, and in the City, where many dynamic figures helped build some of the success stories that we see just a few miles from where we are today.

Before Brexit, there was barely a small boat sighted in the channel, and now we are told that that is perhaps the single biggest issue that confronts this country. Various Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have come up with a variety of different wheezes to try to stop those small boats coming to the UK, but all have been hampered because we left the one international agreement that might have dealt with returning some of those people to the European Union. When we left the European Union, we also left the Dublin III regulation—the one thing that might have achieved some of the ambition that people had about stopping small boats.

Then there is the irony that Brexit did not just make it harder for Europeans to come here; it made it harder for us to move around Europe, too. British citizens are now third country nationals in their own continent. We can still travel across Europe, of course, but there is now a 90-day limit in a rolling 180-day period. For ordinary holidaymakers who have been away enjoying the sun, that might mean nothing more than the huge queues that we have seen in some airports across Europe—a minor inconvenience, perhaps—but for businesses it means more red tape, more restrictions and more unnecessary difficulties.

For those in my former profession—musicians, performers and other creative professionals—it can mean a bewildering collection of different rules about work permits, visas, carnets and documentation. Brexit has been such a destructive and invidious political project that it has even managed to stop the music moving freely. This Labour Government gave a commitment that they would fix that. We are talking about ambitions, so come on, Minister: stop the Brexit imposition on music. Let the music move freely again. Let the current generation of musicians enjoy the opportunities that I had as a musician. Who knows, we might even have the Prime Minister on a European tour if he manages to get it fixed!

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Phil Brickell and Pete Wishart

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.

The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025.

Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%.

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.

That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.

Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:

“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.

In summary—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Brickell]

I will give way on that final point.

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace.

[Phil Brickell]

In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.