Pride Month

Tim Roca Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow such excellent contributions to this debate, particularly those from the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who I thought gave an absolutely cracking speech.

This afternoon I want to talk about the LGBTQ+ community—my community—in Macclesfield and across the country, and about the very real challenges that our community now faces, but I want to begin with something personal. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield, and I am equally proud to be the first openly gay Member of Parliament that my constituency has ever sent to this House. I say that not to draw attention to myself, but because I know what it means. It means something to the young person in Macclesfield who wonders whether someone like them can ever hold a position like this. It means something to the person who grew up in our area, as I did, and was never sure that they belonged. Representation matters, visibility matters, and I and others are humbled to carry that responsibility, including the Minister, who started this debate so ably. When I speak about Pride, I am speaking not as an observer but as someone who knows what it is to need it.

Macclesfield has given me every reason to be proud, because the town and rural communities I represent today are warmer, more open and more welcoming than the ones I knew growing up. That transformation has happened not by chance but because of the courage of LGBT+ people who stayed visible and refused to disappear and because of local communities that chose to embrace them.

Nowhere is that spirit more alive than in MaccPride, our town’s own Pride festival, which has grown from an idea in 2018 into a joyous, colourful celebration in the heart of our town centre. I want to take a moment to thank the extraordinary people who make it happen: Sophie Armitt and Olivia Clare, Andrew Angus-Whiteoak, Kyle Frost, Kerry McKeith, Jo Stratford, Paula Parkes—the incredibly important parade co-ordinator—Rachel Wisson, Serena Lavin, Jenni Duggan, the amazing Stella Wake-Bennett, whose wife Sarah Bennett-Wake was the first openly gay mayor of Macclesfield and is a friend, Charlie Higgins Bos, Pippa Dean, Mikki Tiamo, and Jynx Noctem. They are the reason that Macclesfield Pride happens. They give their time, energy, creativity and passion year after year—entirely voluntarily—to create something genuinely wonderful for our community. Parliament should know what they do, and I am proud to say their names in the Chamber today. I know that other colleagues will similarly have activists in their area who they are equally proud of.

That spirit is also on display at our regular Stride for Pride, which is organised by the wonderful Mika and Dan of the Yas Bean coffee shop. It is a community event that brings people together in solidarity as much as celebration. Solidarity is not incidental to the LGBT+ story; it is central to it. Our community has always known that we show up for each other—across differences, across generations—because sometimes there is nobody else. The need for that solidarity has never been more urgent than it is right now.

Before I turn to some of my concerns, let me say a little of the good. I am proud to have supported my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) in her campaign to make LGBT+ hate crimes aggravated offences that carry tougher sentences; I am proud that the Government are delivering financial compensation to LGBT+ veterans who have suffered abuse, prejudice and dismissal under the awful historical armed forces ban; and I am proud that the Government will bring in a ban on conversion practices. I eagerly look forward to voting for it. It hangs on a timeline and a history of fantastic progress by the Labour party. That is not exclusive to the Labour party, but fantastic progress has been made under Labour Governments, including the repeal of section 28, the introduction of civil partnerships and the adoption rights that we heard of earlier.

I will talk about things causing real concern, which colleagues have already raised ably this afternoon: the concerns that trans people have. Trans constituents have written to me with real worry since the draft code of practice was laid before this House in May. It is my duty to represent their concerns honestly and clearly, because they deserve that, and I know that the Government will want to hear them.

First, let me start with where we stand internationally. The hon. Member for Guildford pointed out that we have dropped significantly in the ILGA-Europe rainbow map. To think that in 2015 we were first—what an incredible thing to have been proud of—and then we fell 22 places in the space of a decade. The hon. Member also pointed out that on the issue of trans rights and legal gender recognition, we are now ranked 45th out of 49 European nations.

We have not gone backwards by accident. I have said before in this place that political will matters, as do legal frameworks and words laid before this House. Transphobic hate crimes have increased since 2016, according to Home Office data. Some of that is because of better reporting, but some is undoubtedly due to the toxic atmosphere being directed towards such a small minority. It is real fear, real isolation and real violence felt by people who are simply trying to live as themselves.

I want to be clear about where I stand: I support women’s rights to single-sex spaces and services, as set out in the Equality Act. Those rights are real, they matter and I defend them. However, I disagree with attempts to make them mutually exclusive with the dignity and safety of trans people; both can and must be protected. I give credit to the Secretary of State, with regards to the guidance, for the engagement that she has had with MPs on all sides of the House. I know that she faced an incredible amount of pressure from all sorts of directions. However, I have heard from constituents, trans constituents and parents with trans children who are genuinely frightened that, without clearer protections, they will face more exclusion and harassment, and we will all see more expensive and exhaustive legal battles.

As has already been referenced, the Government’s equality impact assessment warns of a

“disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault”

towards trans women if they are directed to use male services. That is not a campaigning document; it is the Government’s own analysis, and it deserves an answer.

I am also worried, as the hon. Member for Luton North has pointed out, about the practical confusion on the ground for businesses in my constituency, including cafés, restaurants and leisure centres. The guidance states simultaneously that members of the public should not challenge one another on the basis of sex, while also suggesting that where someone is asked to confirm their sex, it should be done “sensitively”. Most reasonable business owners will be bewildered.

As I understand it—I am not an expert—the suggestion from the briefing that some of us attended with the EHRC yesterday is that it would not be possible for a club or an association to decide to be open only to women, including trans women, and they would be challenged on that. Using the prevention of “discomfort or distress” of other service users as a legitimate aim of exclusion, combined with guidance suggesting that concern about a person’s sex may be evidenced by their “appearance” or “behaviour”, creates a subjective, appearance-based threshold that, frankly, is an open invitation to harass anyone, trans or cis, who does not conform to stereotypes. That is not clarity and I worry that it could lead to real harm.

Colleagues have tabled an early-day motion calling for the guidance to be disapproved. I have genuine sympathy with their intention. Many are formidable campaigners for LGBT rights, and I respect them greatly. I have to be honest, however; the Supreme Court judgment is clear, and statutory guidance has to reflect the law as it stands. My view and my assessment is that the genuine route forward for those of us who want clearer and stronger protections for trans people—I count myself firmly in that group—is either new or amended legislation from Parliament, or a future legal challenge that resets the framework. Indeed, we have to accept that the Supreme Court judgment is making the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the certificates increasingly close to symbolic, with little practical force. That cannot have been Parliament’s intention when it passed that legislation.

Let me finish on a point to which the debate on Pride should always return. I was attending the wedding of some very close gay friends in Argentina some years ago, and I came across the words of Carlos Jáuregui, a great Argentine LGBT activist:

“En una sociedad que nos educa para la vergüenza, el orgullo es una respuesta política”.

In other words, in a society that educates us to be ashamed, pride is a political response. Pride began as a protest, an act of resistance by people who have been told by law and by society that they did not deserve dignity. That history lives in every parade, including the one that will set off through Macclesfield in a few weeks’ time and wind its way down to the marketplace. It lives in Stride for Pride, in every rainbow flag on every shop on Chestergate in Macclesfield; it lives in the fact that I as Macclesfield’s MP am standing here today openly and proudly as myself—the first openly gay Macclesfield MP—because we all stand on the shoulders of activists like those who organised the protests and made this world possible.

In a society that still, in too many ways, educates people to be ashamed, pride is the political response, and it has never been clearer that the need for it is great. I am proud to represent Macclesfield, proud of our extraordinary LGBT community, and proud to say to every LGBT person watching or listening: we see you, we are with you, and we will keep fighting.

Student Loans

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

We saw a 40% reduction in young people’s apprenticeships over a decade. That was the legacy of the Conservative party.

While the foundational principles of our higher education funding and student finance system might be solid, they are straining after more than a decade of neglect and mismanagement, on top of the structural flaws baked into the system by the Conservatives. First, a legacy of seven years of frozen tuition fees has contributed in no small part to a significant and growing number of English higher education providers facing financial challenges. Analysis published last autumn by the Office for Students indicates that without mitigating action, some 124 providers—45% of those included in the OfS financial sustainability report—could face a deficit in 2025-26.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an important point. The economics of higher education are actually quite complicated; there is a great deal of cross-subsidy, with the humanities and the arts effectively supporting science, medicine and engineering courses and so on. Does the Minister agree that we should be worried that the Opposition parties’ proposals would put jobs and the viability of universities at risk?

[Georgia Gould]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution to this debate.

The Government have taken the tough, immediate action that is required, including by making the difficult decision to increase tuition fees by forecast inflation, balancing the need to give the sector stability with fairness to students and taxpayers. We are also asking more of the sector: we expect higher education providers to demonstrate that they deliver the very best outcomes, both for those students and for the country, in return for the increased investment we are asking students to make. To achieve this, this Government will link future fees increases to university quality, as I have said. This will protect taxpayers’ investment in higher education and incentivise high-quality provision for students without taking away opportunities.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is an uncomfortable truth that England now has the most expensive public university system in the world. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us that, while the taxpayer underwrites 45% of its cost, students and graduates cover 55%, which represents a profound shift in how we fund higher education in this country. A formative moment for me and for many others was watching the Liberal Democrats entering into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 and not abolishing tuition fees, but in fact trebling them. We were told that that was progressive, but to a generation of young people, it felt like a gross betrayal.

It is fair to say that graduates have a graduate premium, with earnings potentially a third higher than for non-graduates, but averages conceal as much as they reveal. The IFS has shown that those in the middle earnings distribution repay the highest share of their lifetime earnings. As hon. Members have said, many people have no prospect of paying off their loans at all. That is not a progressive system, particularly when we are asking them to think about saving for a home, starting a family and contributing to society.

We need to think about the public good that higher education is, and the fantastic contribution that graduates make to our society and economy. We need to look again at the structure and the thresholds, particularly the threshold freezes, and ask whether those in the middle are carrying too much of the burden and whether the balance between the contributions of the taxpayer and of the graduate has drifted too far.

Department for Education

Tim Roca Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for sharing that traumatic experience with us, and to the bravery that it must have taken. I also pay tribute to teachers in my constituency. I met secondary heads just before Christmas, and will meet all our primary school heads together in the coming month.

I am proud that there is so much to welcome in this estimate. I particularly welcome the capital investment in schools across the country, which I think presents a dual opportunity—not just an opportunity to rebuild the crumbling schools that were left to us by our Tory predecessors, but an opportunity to invest to make them greener, so that increased energy efficiency can save money and reduce school bills. I welcome the extra £1 billion to reform and enhance special educational needs and disabilities provision, and I look forward to more announcements about SEND—I share some of the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I welcome the investment in further education and apprenticeships, and the breakfast club funding. I congratulate the Ministers, because this means that children will stop going to school hungry and will be given the best chance to learn regardless of their background. The clubs are being brilliantly piloted by Pott Shrigley church school in my constituency and Disley primary school, where I went myself.

I particularly welcome the funding that has been allocated in the spending review to expand eligibility for free school meals, which means that an extra 1,200 children in Macclesfield will receive free lunches. Each one will mean a life changed and a trajectory altered, breaking down barriers to opportunity and success. However, what the estimate does not contain is a significant real-terms increase for Cheshire East schools. Head teachers in my constituency still tell me that things are tough because of an historical funding formula that leaves Cheshire East as one of the lowest-funded authorities in the country. It receives the 13th lowest share of DSG per mainstream pupil—five grand less than the highest share, and £2,200 less than the highest non-London authority. The high needs block is worse: we rank 12th out of 151 local authorities, receiving two and a half grand less per pupil than the 151st.

This is entirely explained by the school funding formula, and it is an important formula. Schools in metropolitan areas are more expensive to run. Of course schools should receive additional investment based on deprivation, language needs or rurality, but when the basic grant funding does not keep pace with basic costs, things become very tough. Macclesfield is not quite rural enough and not quite deprived enough, without the “English as an additional language” numbers required, which makes life very difficult for head teachers who are trying to balance the books—particularly after 14 years of making cut after cut.

The funding formula works only if there is a significant increase in the basic entitlement, so that all schools, whether in Cheshire East or elsewhere, have a budget that is sufficient to make ends meet. I say that because I have difficult conversations with teachers in my constituency, some of whom are spending as much as 88% of their budgets on fixed staff costs because they are having to retain—and want to retain—hard-working, talented teachers who, in the long run, are more expensive. I recently saw an example of that at Rainow, an excellent primary school in my constituency, which has full classes but is finding it difficult to make the numbers work.

I am grateful for my recent meeting with the Minister to discuss these issues with her, and I welcome the work that the Department is doing in tackling them. Change does not come overnight, and changing a funding formula as historic as this cannot be done overnight, but I hope that everyone who supports fairness and agrees that deprived areas should receive more funds will also agree that every school deserves to receive the basic funding that will enable all our children to be taught, and will ensure that they are not at schools that are finding things tough. I will make no apologies for continuing to fight, on behalf of all my constituents, for fairer funding for all schools.

Gender Self-identification

Tim Roca Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I rise in support of the petition, and more broadly in support of the rights and dignity of transgender people in the UK. Let us be clear: we are debating not just a petition, but people’s lives.

In Macclesfield, we have a fantastic LGBTQ+ community, where people show solidarity with each other, including recently through Stride for Pride, which was run by the owners of Yas Bean. Solidarity is incredibly important; the LGBTQ+ community hangs on a history of solidarity with each other, and the need for it has never been clearer than in recent years, with a surge in the number of recorded transphobic hate crimes. According to Home Office data, such crimes have more than doubled since 2016. That is not a culture war; it is real harm. It is fear, isolation and violence, felt by people who are simply trying to live as themselves.

While that is happening, our international standing in LGBTQ+ rights is falling. As Members have noted, this year the UK dropped even further down the ILGA-Europe rainbow map, which ranks countries by their equality laws. In 2015, we were first—what an incredible thing to be proud of. Last year we dropped to 16th; as of a few days ago, we are 22nd. We have fallen behind countries we once led, and we have not gone backwards by accident. I fear it is because our political will has begun to fade.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out how we are falling behind many of our allies around the world. Does he share my concern that, for the first time, the UK is the only country in western Europe to be rated amber rather than green? It was a Labour Government who took forward LGBT rights in the past, and this Labour Government ought to do the same.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and why we should be extremely worried about what is happening to our record on LGBT rights. In him, his constituents have an excellent champion for their local LGBTQ+ community.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Under the previous Trump Administration, the British Foreign Office issued a travel warning to trans people because of the so-called bathroom ban—well, the actual bathroom ban—in parts of the United States. Yet now we are in a position where many trans women and trans men are very frightened about using toilets. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is needed?

[Tim Roca]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a good point about how urgent action is needed.

Almost all Members have touched on the recent UK Supreme Court ruling, which has created so much uncertainty about the legal rights of trans people, particularly trans women, under the Equality Act. Let me be clear: I am not questioning the existence or legitimacy of single-sex spaces. The Equality Act rightly allowed for such spaces in reasonable circumstances, particularly where privacy, dignity or safeguarding required it, but its principle was balanced. In my view, the Supreme Court judgment reinterpreted that balance in a way that completely undermines the legal clarity that we had before, and raises new concerns about consistency in application. That interpretation appears to directly contradict the spirit and purpose of the Gender Recognition Act, which was passed to give trans people full legal recognition in their acquired gender.

The judgment not only strips away legal certainty for trans individuals, but risks making the GRC, as Members have pointed out, a symbolic document with little practical effect. The critical question—I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) wants to intervene.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I was going to let him make that critical point before intervening. It is fair to say that nobody is comfortable with the heated way in which the debate has taken place over the past few years, but does he agree that, in fact, women’s sex-based rights have been ignored for many years and not enforced? That has led us to the place where we are today. There must be space for respectful discussion, to find a way to improve the rights of trans people while also respecting the hard-earned and hard-won rights of women.

[Tim Roca]

Where I agree completely with my hon. Friend is that this debate—as has been pointed out already—has become incredibly toxic. We are seeing, with Reform and others, an attempt to import American-style politics to our country. We need a rational, reasonable debate that safeguards the dignity of all people, so I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point.

The critical question I was coming to was this: what is the purpose of the GRC now? For many years, we were told that the GRC was the legal mechanism by which a person’s acquired gender would be recognised in law, but many people are now left wondering whether a GRC still confers the rights and recognition it was meant to. If a trans woman with a GRC can still be excluded from single-sex spaces and services, what legal certainty does that document offer? Why are we asking people to go through a lengthy, intrusive and often dehumanising process to obtain one?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. The gender recognition certificate is often destroyed by trans people because they have their new birth certificate. The certificate itself is not always an extant document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As other colleagues have pointed out, the sky did not fall in when these reforms, also passed in so many other countries across the world, took effect. We heard from hon. Members today about the EHRC’s first proposed guidance following the ruling, which allowed just two weeks for consultation—two weeks to respond to complex legal changes that affect fundamental rights of our constituents. That is simply not good enough; it risks shutting people out of a conversation about their own lives and protections. Although I welcome the fact that the period has now been extended, it should never have been that short in the first place.

Trans people are asking for clarity, dignity and fairness. They deserve to know where they stand under the law, to walk down the street without fear, and to have representation in this place that does not question their right to exist.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Parents of trans people have contacted me about not only their fear, but their children’s fear in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is not clear what they should tell their precious children, and agree that this is an unacceptable state of affairs? Does he agree that we should ask our fellow citizens to ask themselves: “What would I advise if my own child were trans?”, and even, “How would I like to be treated if I were trans?”. If we cannot answer those questions, clearly the situation we find ourselves in is completely unacceptable.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes that point extremely well. It is so depressing to hear of the fear that many of our constituents up and down the country have expressed to us, and the chilling effect that the judgment has had. I believe my hon. Friend’s constituents have in him a wonderful champion and supporter of the LGBTQ+ community.

We cannot keep deferring justice and letting misinfor- mation fill the gaps where leadership should be. We cannot let this debate be led by the most toxic voices. It is time for Parliament to lead with compassion and evidence, not confusion and delay, because trans rights are human rights, and this country is better than the fear that we see taking hold.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Tim Roca Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

I was going to say that he was probably one of the better ones.

I should also recognise, as should we all, that the young people who are going through the education system now have been impacted negatively by something even worse than a Conservative Government, namely the terrible pandemic. We know that they are less resilient. We also know that more and more young people are having to be carers for their parents and other family members and loved ones. Members will be aware that I am very passionate about this subject, and I thank the Minister and other Members for attending and contributing to my Westminster Hall debate on it last Thursday. On average, young carers are likely to miss more school than their peers, and I welcome the proposal in the Bill to record absences to ensure that no young people fall through the gaps, including those who are home educated.

I said earlier that I did not want to be too political about this. I went through the education process and became a teacher because of Sir Tony Blair’s remark about “education, education, education”. When he said that teaching was a valuable and noble profession, I thought, “He’s right: it is.” The former Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath did not put it in quite the same way when he said that most teachers were letting young people down.

I want to say something about reform, and to move away from the ideological politics of reform. Sometimes reform is good, sometimes it is bad, and sometimes good reform is bad because of the way in which it is implemented. As a former teacher, I can assure the House that telling a student that they are not doing a very good job does not make them do a better job. When we are considering reform in education, it is hugely important that we take educationists, teachers and support staff along with us, and that, I am afraid, is something that I do not think the last Government did. I believe that the Bill returns us to the original purpose of academies: to share best practice and encourage collaboration in the best interests of children.

I was told that I must talk about the amendments and new clauses, so let me briefly speak in support of Government amendment 156, which focuses on the importance of ensuring that every school is run by a “fit and proper person”, which I think we would all agree is a no-brainer. I also want to refer to—I cannot find the right page in my speech—

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend accept an intervention?

[Chris Vince]

I will!

[Tim Roca]

At several points today, we have been transported by Conservative Members to the educational nirvana that supposedly existed under the Tory Government. That is not the memory I have, or the memory that many parents and children have. They, I think, remember the real-terms funding cuts that happened for much of the last 14 years, increasing class sizes, the millions of days lost to industrial action by unions who were fed up with the hectoring nature of previous Conservative Governments, and the 11% of children who were going hungry compared with the 8% OECD average. PISA rankings are all very well and good, but PISA scores were going down; they were just not going down as fast as those in other countries.

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for painting a better picture than the one painted by Conservative Members.

Shortly after the election, in August, I met a couple of former teacher colleagues who were still in the profession, and they just looked broken. It was really difficult to see, because they have been maths teachers for a long period of time. When I first became a teacher, they inspired me to persevere, to reflect on the bad days and to have better lessons. To see them so fed up and so disenchanted with being a teacher was really difficult, and we have to change that. I emphasise again to the Minister that it is really important that we ensure that we support teachers’ mental health. I was going to intervene on the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to ask him whether he recognises that happy and supported teachers lead to happy and supported young people, which is really important.