EU Trading Relationship

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

This is an important and timely debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing it.

Some will query why we need to have this debate in the first place. They should not. It has been nearly a decade since the European Union referendum and nothing looks the same after a decade—I can assure hon. Members of that. That is particularly the case for our country, and indeed for the world. I think the British people know that.

The political system has changed beyond all recognition. My politics have always been personal, and that is especially true for this subject. The question of whether to remain or leave split my family, just as it split so many others, particularly in my constituency. I would speak with my father every night. We would put the world to rights and talk about his issues and how politics often failed to meet them. He is no longer with us, so I cannot have those conversations any more. I must say, I would have loved to have known what he thought about this particular debate—because he backed Brexit.

As an immigrant son of the 1950s, he had seen the wreckage of war and appreciated an economic union that sustained peace. As a disabled man of the 2010s who lived the pain of poverty, he rejected a political sentiment that scarcely listened. He voted for Brexit not as an ideologue, but as a pragmatist. He asked, “What will make my hard life better?”—and for him, Brexit was the answer.

Now, when I call for closer UK-EU relations, I do so as my father’s son, not as an ideologue but as a pragmatist. Because when we ask that same question—“What will make life better?”—the answer is not this painful, exhausting Brexit deal. Instead, it is closer economic ties with our nearest neighbour and biggest trading partner.

To be clear, I do not criticise anybody who voted to leave, because I cannot criticise my father. I respect the choice and the reasons behind it, but as the MP for Bournemouth East, I cannot serve my constituents without doing all I can to make their lives better. We have to be frank: Brexit has led to our GDP growing 4% to 8% less than it would have between 2016 and 2024. We have seen a significant loss of job opportunities, and smaller firms are suffering the most.

We also know that closer ties with the European Union and its members can improve our prosperity at a time when we need it more than ever. Of course, we should assert our rights as an independent trading nation, rather than cowering in the corner, unhappy about having that independence. However, with that independence we must do what is right by our national interest. With Trump’s tariffs and a Chinese regime that is hard to trust, I believe that means a pragmatic approach to Europe. We should have a youth mobility scheme for work, study and travel that is balanced, time-limited and capped. We should have regulatory alignment to make aspects of trade easier, and we should have more aerospace collaboration. And we should ensure that UK firms and citizens can travel and work in Europe for longer, deepen security co-operation, and cut red tape.

In conclusion, this Government will not meet any of their goals—whether it is growing opportunities, achieving secure clean energy, ensuring opportunities for all or delivering safer streets—without closer economic ties with Europe. We are here to do the right thing for our constituents and to exercise our sovereignty, democracy and independence as a country. We believe that growth is the route to prosperity, and if trade is the route to growth, we have no other option but to have closer ties with Europe.

European Union: UK Membership

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[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 ---

[James Naish]

It is forward movement and momentum that many of my constituents want to see. I will come to a couple of the things that I think could be done to achieve that.

We cannot afford to wait 10 years to address some of the very real challenges that we face as a country. Practical, tangible steps can be taken to help to build a stronger and closer relationship with the EU. Many of those things have already been mentioned, including negotiating a security and defence partnership to co-operate on international development, and access to the EU’s new €150 billion defence financing instrument. We could reach a veterinary agreement to reduce costly border checks. We could join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. We could align on emissions trading schemes with the EU, to avoid costly charges to UK exporters. We could explore a youth mobility scheme, as we have with countries such as Australia and Canada, so that the next generation can build relationships and young people can have the chance to work, study and build connections across Europe.

Those measures would not only strengthen our economic ties, but restore trust and co-operation with our European partners at a time of geopolitical uncertainty. Russia’s aggression continues to grow, and global challenges are significant, so closer collaboration between the UK and the EU is not just desirable, but essential for our security and prosperity.

Next year, 2026, will mark 10 years since the Brexit vote. As I have said to many constituents on the doorstep, I can picture the newspaper columns, TV programmes and extensive discussion that will take place as we approach June 2026. I believe that it is a perfect time for a national conversation about what our future relationship with Europe looks like, and I am sure that many Members present will want to be part of that conversation.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, in particular on that point about our nearing the decade anniversary. Does he agree that, in some senses, we need to put the vote behind us and reflect on the management of the Brexit decision? It is hard to believe that I will say this often, but does he agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who said in her 2025 new year speech:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU…These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later”?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the position has changed. There were a lot of mistakes. We do not need to go back to the past and examine all that, but I think we will need a national conversation about where our relationship with Europe is in 2026. Indeed, we are having that conversation today, but I feel that that will be a natural springboard, 10 years on from the vote, and I sincerely hope that, as a nation, we take that conversation to heart.

My constituents in Rushcliffe understand that Britain is strongest when it is connected, co-operative and engaged with its European neighbours. My constituents expect us in this House, and the Government, to act decisively to help rebuild that relationship. That is the path we must take, and I implore the Government to think creatively about the best ways of doing that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Great British Energy on Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)]

GB Energy is owned by the public and headquartered in Aberdeen, because Scotland will be at the forefront of the UK becoming the clean energy superpower that it wants to be by 2030. GB Energy’s activities will support and enhance the delivery of priority supply chains and infrastructure development, helping to speed up the existing Scottish offshore wind pipeline and other clean energy projects.

[Tom Hayes]

Eight years ago, Nicola Sturgeon promised a publicly owned energy company, but after spending £500,000 on consultants, the Scottish Government have now dropped the plan. Does the Secretary of State agree that while Labour ploughs ahead with delivering GB Energy, owned by the British people and headquartered in Scotland, it is the SNP who are breaking their promises and letting down Scotland, our Union and the protection of our planet?

[Ian Murray]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the new mission champion for clean energy. He is absolutely right. While the SNP makes promises it breaks, this Labour Government are determined to deliver for Scotland. Maybe that is why SNP MPs in this House voted against GB Energy. We are delivering for Scotland. We promised GB Energy; that has been delivered. We promised to end austerity; that has been delivered. We promised to make work pay; that has been delivered. While the SNP only delivers managed decline for Scotland, we are getting on with improving the economy.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising those two trailblazers, who are an inspiration to me and many other women.

I conclude by saying that we should never take our foot off the gas and never rest on our laurels. This is a time to ensure that we in Parliament do what we can to improve female representation.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I will not at the moment.

As I have mentioned on many occasions, this is a simple Bill to extend provisions and ensure that progress continues to be reflected on the Benches of the Lords Spiritual. We have a long way to go in improving female representation, but this country teaches us one thing: this cannot be left to chance. I urge everyone to support the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]: (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3)Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I know there have been fractures in Downing Street recently, but I do not think that anybody would suggest that the Labour party, with a majority of over 170, is a coalition in the same way that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was between 2010 and 2015. The Government have the time and space to introduce change. The key point is that it has to be part of a package, which is what Lord Irvine said in 1999.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Our majority is 174, but who’s counting? As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s manifesto did not mention House of Lords reform—I may have missed it, so I apologise if it did mention that. Could the right hon. Member please tell me the Conservative thinking on House of Lords reform? A big package of House of Lords reform has been mentioned, but I am not any clearer about what that might entail.

Reading the 1999 debate on the House of Lords reform that was pushed forward by the Blair Government, I was struck by the fact that many Conservative Members opposed that reform on the basis that it did not go far enough. Is the call for further reform actually a smokescreen to do nothing and, therefore, to preserve the hereditary principle? All of us, including the right hon. Member, would agree that we should eliminate that principle.

[Mr Holden]

What we are discussing today is a policy of the Government. My party is in opposition, because its manifesto was rejected by the public at the last general election. We are discussing a policy of the Government and what was in the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood. It will be interesting to see whether he and others will back the manifesto on which they stood if amendments are tabled by the Opposition. We will have to see about that over the coming weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I would give way, but I am not sure that the hon. Lady has been here for most of the debate, so I will not.

Earl Howe, the Earl of Courtown and Lord Ashton of Hyde are just three of the peers who bring great experience and ability to the other place. Many of the peers who will be removed are Cross Benchers.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Wild]

I am not giving way.

Finally, I want to say something about the commencement of this legislation. If passed unamended, the excepted peers will be unceremoniously booted out at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. After the service and commitment they have given to public life, surely it would be fairer for them to remain there until the end of the Parliament.

To conclude, before embarking on constitutional reform, there should be a proper period of consideration. It is a sign of the complexity of reform of the House of Lords that previous efforts have not attracted the necessary consensus, but the answer is not to bring forward piecemeal reform, pretending it has no wider consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I will make a bit more progress before giving way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who, like me, has been here for well over four hours.

Making one’s maiden speech is a key moment, and I pay tribute to the five or six Members who have done so amid 22 speeches from across the House, including some excellent contributions. I turn first, however, to my parliamentary neighbour and friend my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the newly elected Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who expressed very well the challenges of defending the hereditary principle, but in his usual way pointed also to the lack of coherence and made the case for a series of ambitious amendments that could be made to the Bill. He also made a very reasonable point about the case for life peerages for the hereditary peers who have made such a significant contribution, and that merits further consideration.

I turn now to some of the maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) made a brilliant maiden speech; she talked of her experience working for the Tony Blair foundation, her commitment to fairness, her enthusiasm for financial education, and her devotion to her constituency. I wish her a long career in this House. The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke of the warm affection she had for her background in the trade union movement and her commitment to the people from the council estates and the working class that she comes from. I also noted her commitment to apprenticeships and the energy transition, and I wish her well in this place. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) on his maiden speech, too, and his commitment to serve the many not the few, even if his perspective differs somewhat from that of his father, who many of us will know.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) said that the Bill did not go far enough. I suspect he would want to take it to a different place than we would, but I wish him well in his time in the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke of her deep commitment to Glasgow and paid a moving tribute to her brother David and the inspiration he has given her to serve here.

There were a large number of other thoughtful speeches, which I will not have time to go over. I just say that it is right, as we all know, that there is a constant review of parliamentary institutions; at times, evolution is in order so that they remain relevant to the public that Parliament is designed to serve. The Government’s view of this evolution has also been on a journey. In September 2022, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, made a speech at the launch of the Brown report making the case for abolishing the House of Lords entirely—I acknowledge that is a principled position—to replace it with a new elected Chamber. He was reported as saying that he would do that to “restore trust in politics”. The question that many will be asking today is: what happened? Here Labour is, in government with an enormous majority, and what is its big idea or grand plan to deliver on all that?

[Tom Hayes]

Today, Conservative colleagues have said that the reforms go too far but not far enough, and too fast but not fast enough. They have said that we should abolish the hereditary principle and that we should keep it. What is the official Conservative position? May I ask whether what we have seen today is exactly the reason that the Conservative manifesto said nothing about the hereditary principle?

[John Glen]

If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the reasoned amendment, he will know the position of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me get back to what his Government have not done. Their plan is simply to kick out 92 peers from the other place. I am afraid that just will not cut it.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I had a look recently at the record of Conservative MPs in that vote to rip up the rules on standards, in effect, to get Owen Paterson off the hook. Overwhelmingly, those on the Opposition Front Bench voted to rip up the rules on standards.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Later today, we will debate a Bill to protect entertainment events from terrorism. It comes in the aftermath of the terrible terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. In more recent months, Taylor Swift has had to cancel a concert, owing to the risk to her life and the lives of concert-goers. Does the Minister agree that when we debate the Bill, it is important that we take the politics out of the debate, recognise the real risk to life, proceed with due caution, properly talk about the loss of life in Manchester, and aim to avoid any future loss of life at entertainment events?

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. The Bill will put Martyn’s law on the statute book, for which victims of the awful Manchester Arena terror attack have campaigned long and hard, and I hope that it will be debated in the tone and spirit that my hon. Friend set out.