European Union: UK Membership

Tim Roca Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this important debate, which proves the importance of the petition mechanism to the public for getting important issues debated in this place. Eight years ago, constituents in Macclesfield voted to remain part of the European Union. It was a referendum based on imperfect knowledge. It was called because of the internal politics of the Conservative party and in an attempt to see off the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his insistent Europhobe right—a group of people who would never be satisfied, as we subsequently discovered.

The context of calling that referendum was incredibly bizarre, as we had already been through the life-or-death experience of the Scottish referendum that put the UK’s constitutional future at stake. It was also called in the wake of the Russian annexation of Crimea, so it was a bizarre time to be holding a question on the fundamental membership of an important political and economic alliance. We know how that referendum developed: it was vitriolic, and undoubtedly influenced by the Russians. Just a few days before the vote, one of our colleagues was tragically murdered on the streets of the UK.

We can now clearly see the consequences of our decision, as Members have been pointing out expertly this afternoon. Some 14,000 of 100,000 firms surveyed by the London School of Economics have quit trading with the European Union altogether. Many small businesses in my constituency talk about the barriers, the red tape and the bureaucracy that other Members have mentioned.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research points out that foreign direct investment has fallen 37%, and the OBR has said that the UK economy will be 4% smaller in 2035—that scary figure of the lost 4% is in all our minds—than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU. That is a cumulative loss of hundreds of billions of pounds that we could be spending on our infrastructure, our public services and our collective defence.

As we went into the election last year, the Government ruled out rejoining the EU and reopening those constitutional questions in this Parliament. It was a manifesto that I stood on and that I am committed to. I understand some of the reasoning behind that, because although the debate will go on about that political choice, we must remember how painful the situation was immediately after the referendum—the business uncertainty and anxiety, the jobs that had been secure that were suddenly insecure, and the investment decisions that were cancelled. A Damoclean sword of unpredictability hung over us, so I understand the trepidation about reopening those questions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has set out clearly the concerns that many people have. I am a proud Brexiteer, but we did not get the Brexit that we voted for. Does he agree that the people of Northern Ireland are subject to all the same bureaucracy, high tariffs and cost factors that he has outlined? Does he share the concerns that I have as an MP from Northern Ireland for his constituents?

[Tim Roca]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I think he has proved the point that I made, which is that the people who voted for Brexit were a group who would never be satisfied, because Brexit meant different things to different people. It was whatever illusion—whatever fantasy—people wanted it to be, which is why it was so dangerous to let that nationalist genie out of the bottle in the way that we did.

I welcome the Government’s effort to reset relations with the European Union, our neighbours and our allies, through a new forthcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, supporting artists’ ability to tour in the EU, a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications, and a new UK-EU security pact. Those are all really important, but I note that we would have had them if we had continued to be members of the European Union.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to resetting those relationships, but as Members have said, let us go further. Let us look at the youth mobility scheme, let us join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention and ease barriers to trade, and let us lay the groundwork for a proper debate on where the future of this country should be.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful set of arguments. In Bournemouth we have a strong English language school sector, but it has been bashed by Brexit red tape. Younger people from across the continent are now struggling to reach Bournemouth to get a glimpse of Britain and all that we offer. Does my hon. Friend agree that alongside a youth mobility scheme we should consider getting rid of some of that Brexit red tape so that we can strengthen that sector, and bring younger people to Bournemouth and to Britain so that they can enjoy all of what our great country has?

[Tim Roca]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is already proving a powerful advocate for his constituency and for young people. He points out again the issue of red tape and bureaucracy, which we were meant to be getting rid of with the amazing panacea of Brexit.

I still wholeheartedly believe in us rejoining the European Union—that is our future—and debates like this are part of that process. People need be under no illusion that this issue is going away; as the petitioners and those supporting them prove, this debate is ongoing in the country. There is also strong support, as the polling evidence shows, that the public believe that we made a mistake.

Let us look at what we threw away. We had those amazing dual pillars to support our place in the world: our strong position within the European Union and our amazing transatlantic alliance, which was mentioned earlier. We demolished one pillar and we have hollowed out the other, because we do not have a national defence that is strong enough for these dangerous times. We are now also in the midst of a trade war, having deliberately left one of the most powerful trade alliances that exists.

This debate is part of a journey, and I hope that more people will join us on that journey. The future of this country—our security, our prosperity, our culture and our relationship with our neighbours—depends on us having these difficult discussions. We must recognise the mistake that we made and the fraud that was committed on the British people, and change course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate, and Robert and others for originating the petition.

Brexit is an issue that continues to shape the future of our economy. Way back in 2016, promises were made that our departure would lead to a stronger, more prosperous economy—promises from the likes of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). However, today we stand here confronting the harsh reality that those promises have not been fulfilled. Instead, costs have gone up and supply chains are disrupted.

Research from the London School of Economics concludes that leaving the EU reduced the value of our goods exports by an estimated £27 billion in 2022—a sum so large that it would plug the black hole created by the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy and leave enough to build two and a half new Royal Berkshire hospitals on the edge of my constituency. The same study estimated that 14% of firms that previously exported to the EU have now stopped.

I know of one company that used to export over £0.5 million-worth of product to the EU, but the business with the EU stopped straight after Brexit. Recently, the owner told me that after several years they had got the business back. That was seemingly good news, but when I asked them what the profit margin was, they said, “Absolutely shot away”—nothing like it was before. That is one of the damaging effects of Brexit, and those are the losses felt by real people in our communities. Small businesses have been left to suffer most from the Conservatives’ legacy of creating trade barriers that are so expensive to overcome.

[Tim Roca]

The hon. Member talks about ridiculous trade barriers, which we have heard a lot about today. I and other members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were in Dover to see the preparations that the previous Government had made on trade barriers, particularly in relation to agricultural products coming into the UK, and were shocked to discover a £20 million facility in Bastion Point that was built but will never be used. Does that not exemplify Tory incompetence?

[Clive Jones]

It certainly does. They certainly know how to easily waste £20 million. They showed us that they were very good at doing that.

Shockingly, it is estimated that from 2021 up to the end of 2023, nearly 2 billion additional pieces of paper had to be filled out by British exporters as a result of our leaving the EU. They range from export declarations to transit declarations, origin certificates and other documents with obscure acronyms. It is a Gordian knot of red tape. It is a figure so large that if all 2 billion pieces of paper were put end to end, they could wrap around the circumference of the Earth 14.7 times, or reach the moon and come halfway back again. When the Government said that Brexit would be a stellar success, that was not what I thought they had in mind.

Marks and Spencer recently hit out against the Brexit bureaucracy that plagues our economy. I want to share some of its examples because they perfectly illustrate the day-to-day impact of the current Brexit deal in constraining our economy’s ability to grow. Before Brexit, lorries full of produce going from Scotland to the Republic of Ireland would need just one piece of paper listing what was in the trailer before setting off. Now, its trucks are armed with more than 200 pieces of paper, which take hours to complete and require niche details such as the Latin name for the chicken used in its tikka masalas. About 7,000 different Marks and Spencer products destined for Irish customers require export health certificates, and each certificate requires a vet to sign it off, costing Marks and Spencer more than £1 million a year. Exporting to the EU has become a nightmare, even for bigger companies, because of unnecessary administration and physical checks.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Tim Roca Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Government’s steps to reform the other place. Nearly 30 years on from the changes enacted under the previous Labour Government, I am pleased to see this one finish the job when it comes to hereditary peers. As colleagues have pointed out, they are a fundamental anachronism in our constitution that undermines the legitimacy of not only that place but this place as well. For that entire time, in vote after vote, individuals have been making their impact on legislation not with a democratic mandate but solely because of their ancestry. It is a principle that cannot stand. I share the disbelief of some colleagues at the suggestion by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that a focus on or obsession with the democratic principle is narrow-minded. I am afraid that is the sort of talk we would have expected in the Victorian era, at the time of the Great Reform Act. It is from another time and place.

The Bill takes another much-needed step towards the democratisation of our Parliament. I appreciate from the amendments tabled that some would like to have seen a repeat of the 1649 English republican Act of Parliament that abolished the other place entirely in one fell swoop, proclaiming that

“the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.”

I hasten to add that most of us today have too much respect for the hard work of Members of the Lords to share those sentiments.

This reform is progress. After 14 years, the Conservatives left the other place a bloated mess—as has been pointed out, the second largest parliamentary assembly in the world, behind only China’s National People’s Congress, and the only second chamber in the world that is larger than the first. In 1999, when the last Labour Government removed the vast majority of hereditary peers, some said that the ones remaining were the stone in the shoe to encourage further reform and democratisation. I am encouraged that the Minister said that, while removing the stone, they are already thinking about changing the shoe.

It is high time that the public have a say in who votes on laws passed in their name. Elections give mandates to make law, not birthright or patronage. Ordinary people vote for and remove people when they want. I am proud to have stood, as are many colleagues, on a manifesto that called for a complete overhaul of the other place, including making it more representative of the nations and regions that make up our great country.

There are many other things that our constitution needs reform on. I need to put on record my belief that this should be the start of a journey to greater electoral reform. Although the franchise has been expanded, with first past the post it is still too restrictive. Voters should be able to change the outcome of elections every time they go to the polls but, unfortunately, too many are trapped in constituencies where their vote for this place still does not count.

I have much respect for Members of the other place, whatever their background, for the diligence with which they carry out their duties. They acted as a bulwark in recent years as Conservative Governments played fast and loose with the constitution, with one hand clutching the prerogatives of the sovereign and the other challenging the fundamental independence of the judiciary—that was not long ago. The work of scrutiny and constitutional guardianship can and should be done by a Chamber of the people that the electorate has had a say in choosing. The Bill is an important step towards that. It is mature, sensible and overdue, and I commend the Government for bringing it forward speedily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General for introducing the Bill, which I will heartily support later tonight. The point is worth making that this is not a personal attack on the hereditary peers, nor is it political, and the make-up of the hereditary peers is irrelevant. This is about the principle of having accountability in our decision makers.

The Liberal Democrat constitution begins by stating that

“no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”

It is a humanitarian position to unencumber the hereditary peers from being disqualified from voting or standing in our elections. We have heard some incredibly powerful maiden speeches today, and I am honoured to follow the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who will, I am sure, be an incredible champion for his constituents.

I feel it is a humanitarian position to give the hereditary peers the ability to engage in the electioneering, the door-knocking and the campaigning that builds us as parliamentarians, understanding the views of people on the doorstep and giving us a more representative view of the people we represent, something that is currently denied to them. I feel that it is my responsibility to provide that pleasure to them.

It is refreshing to have heard the ambitions for reform from Conservative Members. I agree with the general principle that it is important that reform is broadly cross-party, and I look forward to working with them in the future to provide more transformative reform.

[Tim Roca]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand why some people might have some cynicism about the appetite for reform among Conservatives, when some Members talk about wanting a big package and others defend the hereditary principle in 2024?

[Luke Taylor]

While I heartily endorse the desire for a big package, I share the hon. Gentleman’s cynicism about the appetite for reform among Conservative Members. I also note the desire from the Conservatives not to lose the skills of those hereditary peers who contribute to our lawmaking. I made the point almost three hours ago that I see the opportunity for those peers to take some of the places soon to be vacated by Conservative Members who need to step down because they cannot maintain their lifestyles. That may be one avenue for hereditary peers to continue to contribute.

The primary aim of my speech is to urge the Government to go further, and I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) at the beginning of the debate on the need to improve Parliament. Again, some claim that they do not hear this on the doorstep, but perhaps they need to listen to their voters more closely. When I knock on doors, the disenfranchisement, the disappointment and fury with the behaviour of the previous Government and politics in general, echoes. The Bill is a step in the right direction to improve accountability and restore some of the respect that was trashed by the previous Conservative Government.