Tim Roca
MP for Macclesfield · Labour · United Kingdom
“It calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish inheritance tax, but it does not tell us which services they would cut, whose support they would withdraw or which communities would pay the price.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Conservatives spent years telling people that there was no alternative to difficult decisions, yet when it comes to their own priorities, they make the promise and leave somebody else to deal with the bill. That is not fiscal responsibility; it is fiscal incontinence. Their priorities are clear when we look at the two-child limit.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Estimates suggest that around 90% of the gains would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households, with around 40% going to the wealthiest 5%. Around 70% of the benefits would go to London and the south-east, despite those areas accounting for only a quarter of pensioner households.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Madam Deputy Speaker, “We do not only ask today, ‘How much have you got?’, we also ask, ‘How did you get it? Did you earn it yourself, or has it just been left to you by others?’”. The estate duties provide a “corrective against the development” of the “idle rich”.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But wrapping a policy in the language of family farms does not mean that we should stop asking who benefits, and this proposal goes much further than targeted help—it is a wider tax break for the very wealthiest in society. There are questions about how it would work in practice.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Lady wants to have an argument with Churchill, she may do so, but I will not join her. I believe he was a great man. Why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy? Why should families inheriting millions take priority over families struggling with bills?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
376 held · 355 searchable for Tim Roca. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I have spoken in this Chamber at some length about defence and the urgency of rearmament, and I was proud to join the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and Field Marshal Lord Richards in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. Before I turn to what the Government are doing about defence readiness, I think it is worth pausing, as we always should, on how we got here, because context always matters. A century ago, the Member for Epping—one who understood well what it meant to watch a nation sleep while danger gathered—described the period of neglect and lost opportunity in defence as “the years that the locust hath eaten”. I think we can apply the same epitaph to the years of stewardship of defence of the previous Government and the coalition Government.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The legal and institutional framework for defence readiness matters and I think we all want to see that Bill come forward. I am by temperament an impatient person when it comes to defence—as you will be impatient for me to finish the speech, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the threats are not waiting for us. I am a fair person and it is only fair to say that in my view the Government are doing serious and sustained work for the renewal and rebuilding of our armed forces, restoring our industrial base and making Britain once again a country capable of defending itself. I certainly hope that the years the locusts have eaten are behind us.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning briefly to something I hope will receive the attention it deserves, the SDR rightly made several important recommendations on strengthening home defence and resilience in the context of a whole-of-society approach to national security—several hon. Friends have talked about that today. The threats we face are not confined to the battlefield. They reach into our infrastructure, our supply chains and our communities. Resilience must be built across the whole of society, not just within the wire fences of our military establishments. With that in mind, I was reassured to hear the Minister, at the beginning of the debate, say that Ministers are working hard and that we will in due course see a defence readiness Bill.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to acknowledge the other work the Government have done: last year, £1.5 billion was committed to building the factories of the future, including the first energetics factories in two decades, creating over 1,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands; the £8 billion deal with Turkey sustaining a 20,000-strong workforce across Scotland, Lancashire and Bristol; and the Type 26 frigates selected by Norway which were mentioned earlier in the debate. I was disappointed to see Sweden choose France over the UK in its frigate decision today, but we will just leave that to the traditional UK-France enmity. There is a genuine defence dividend that is measured not in press releases, but in real jobs in real communities the length and breadth of this country.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was in Bristol recently at the National Armaments Director Group, the renamed defence Government support group, and I was glad to hear that it is doing more on SMEs. Maybe the Government Front Bench will comment more on that later, but it is right to recognise that SMEs are crucial and that, in the hon. Gentleman’s area of the country, they are really important. These are livelihoods, communities and the kind of good skilled unionised jobs that those of us on the Labour Benches have always stood for.”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mechanisms are already in train, including the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Humble Address, and last week the Prime Minister answered questions for nearly three hours. That is important. Referral to the Privileges Committee is not a partisan tool or a device to be deployed because one side sees a political opportunity. It exists for a clear, serious and evidenced prima facie case of misleading the House—cases that go to the heart of ministerial integrity.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was the goal” ahead of the local elections. The goal was not the truth, not the outcome, and not the merits of the case—it was simply to force the spectacle of a vote. That tells us everything we need to know about the intent behind what is happening this afternoon. It is therefore no surprise that this debate has been widely characterised, even by those observing closely—political correspondents—as a win-win exercise for the Opposition. If they secure an inquiry, they claim vindication; if they lose, they still bank the headlines, the insinuation and the noise. That is not how the House should conduct itself when invoking one of the most serious mechanisms at its disposal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) powerfully pointed out, we are not dealing with a vacuum.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The appointment of Mandelson was a profoundly flawed process; it was also a profoundly flawed choice—it was the wrong choice. I think of the victims of Epstein; I also think of Alistair Darling, who was a fine, committed public servant, and what he would be thinking today. This afternoon, we are being asked to make several leaps of faith, one of which is to believe that just nine days from local and national elections, we are here not because of a political stunt co-ordinated by the Conservative party but to accept that the Conservatives have turned into a sober, principled set of defenders of parliamentary standards who are not interested in pre-election theatre. Nobody seriously believes that. Even their own press briefings give the game away: a senior Conservative source was reported as saying “we got the privileges vote.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Because it is so evident that what the hon. Member is participating in this afternoon is partly political. In fact, he is partaking in a particularly dishonourable act in doing this in such a partisan way. To carry on with the case that I was making, I do not believe that what has been presented meets the bar that I just mentioned.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I am going to make some progress. At most, what we are dealing with is an argument about, as I said, a deeply flawed appointment, a deeply flawed process and the judgments around it. Those are matters for political debate, for scrutiny and for challenge across the Chamber, but they are not in themselves grounds for alleging contempt of Parliament. If they were, the Privileges Committee would be constantly in session. That brings me to the question of consistency. In recent years, the House has had to confront genuinely serious breaches: cases where standards were not just questioned but plainly and repeatedly violated; findings of bullying at the highest levels of government in the last Government; and Ministers in the last Government falling short of the standards expected of them.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The motion speaks the language of contempt—contempt of Parliament—but actually it reveals something else: the contempt in which the Opposition hold the British people.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will finish this point; I might then give way if I am feeling generous. That conduct was so grave that it resulted in a damning report, which I think the Leader of the Opposition abstained on, rather than voting in favour of it. Of course, that is quite aside from the fact that it also involved a criminal conviction. There is no equivalence—none—between those cases and what is before us today. If there was, there would have been a genuine attempt at a cross-party piece of persuasion. Instead, what we got from the Leader of the Opposition was a rambling rollercoaster on Iran, the two-child benefit cap, U-turns and so on. To attempt to draw that comparison is not just wrong but diminishes the seriousness of those findings in the past. It risks turning the Privileges Committee from a guardian of standards into a weapon of convenience.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister will have recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about wanting to see the defence investment plan published as soon as possible, and I hope Treasury Ministers will share that understanding. I believe that history is important. When Russia annexed the Crimea, we saw no meaningful increase in defence spending. When Russia violated Minsk I, we saw no increase, and when it violated Minsk II, we saw no increase. When it launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European country, we saw no meaningful increase. Does the Minister agree that the debate about defence needs to be constructive and, hopefully, cross-party, and that the country expects us to fund defence properly and urgently?”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Dan Blackman and in thanking all others at the Silklife church food bank, along with the other food banks and community groups across Macclesfield, including Cre8 and the CORE pantry, for their extraordinary dedication in supporting people who face food poverty? As Dan steps aside after six years of service, will the Leader of the House set out what the Government are doing to tackle food poverty, and wider poverty, including by increasing the national minimum wage, expanding free school meals and dealing with the cost of living for families?”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For my part, when I visited Gibraltar last year and met community leaders, including senior business leaders, I was very struck by how low the stock of the Conservatives had fallen with the people of Gibraltar. I think the Conservatives have some bridges to mend.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I put on record that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Spain. I congratulate the Government on this significant agreement. Can the Minister confirm that it provides additional safeguards to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, while creating new economic opportunities? I think he was alluding to that with the airport. I thank him for the hard work he and colleagues have done in rejuvenating our important relationship with Spain, which is a key NATO ally and our seventh-largest trading partner. While I am speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her commitment to the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar?”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must support them in their decision, but ensure that in this country we do not recognise Russian claims for one minute. A just and lasting peace cannot be built on coercion or enforced surrender. It cannot be built by asking the victim to pay the price for the aggressor’s crimes. I stand with all my parliamentary colleagues today in standing firm for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, its right to choose its own future and a peace that is real and genuinely durable.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Across the post-Soviet space, including Transnistria, Abkhazia and the Donbas, Moscow has deliberately kept territorial disputes unresolved as a way of holding its neighbours in limbo. Those conflicts are not accidents; they are tools used to maintain influence, block stability and make it harder for countries to choose their own future or their own alliances. We should not kid ourselves about what these frozen conflicts really are. They are not peaceful compromises; they are pressure points. They allow aggression to fester, and they show us that peace built by accommodating an aggressor does not resolve the case; it simply locks injustice in place. If, to stop the bloodshed, we have to accept non-recognition of occupied territories but de facto control by Russia—a frozen conflict—that again is for Ukrainians alone to decide.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are talking tough but failing to use the enormous economic, military and political levers they have to apply real pressure. I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing to make sure that British sanctions and support have been robust for Ukraine. I am very concerned by data showing that overall military aid to Ukraine actually fell last year, even though countries such as the US, France and Germany stepped up their support. At this stage of the war, any drop in assistance sends the wrong signal. We need to give the Ukrainians everything they need and avoid the drip, drip of capabilities and arms that we have seen since the war began. Finally, we need to be honest about how Russia has used frozen conflicts to its advantage.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By 1939, the country was occupied and its independence was destroyed. Concessions do not bring security; they can sometimes invite catastrophe. When we talk about security guarantees, let us not overlook the most real and effective guarantee Ukraine has right now: the brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces. They are the reason why Ukraine still exists as a sovereign state. Their courage, discipline and sacrifice are what stand between freedom and occupation, and any peace must allow those forces to be equipped and manned at a level that deters future attacks. I worry that parts of the international community are not doing their bit. In my view, the United States Administration has been leaning far too heavily towards accommodating the Kremlin.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why I am deeply concerned by suggestions that Ukraine is being asked to give up Ukrainian-controlled territory in the Donbas as a precondition for peace or even as the price of future security guarantees. Let us be honest about what that means. My hon. Friend made the point earlier. The frontline in the Donbas is among the most fortified places on earth. It was built at great cost and defended with extraordinary courage. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives defending it, and they did not do so lightly or on a whim. One must have solid grounds to do so, and it must come concurrently with solid security guarantees. History warns us where this road leads. In 1938, Czechoslovakia was forced to hand over the Sudetenland, where most of its defences were, in the name of peace, and that peace lasted months.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who made some very powerful points about parallels with the Baltic states that I completely agree with. I think all Members in attendance are absolutely clear that if a state that invades its neighbour and holds territory by force gains political or territorial reward for that, it is not buying peace; it is simply queuing up the next war. Borders should not be changed at the barrel of a gun. At the same time, it must be said plainly that it is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone to decide what compromises, if any, it is prepared to make. It is not for us, not for allies and not for foreign politicians sitting far away from the frontline.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It creates exactly the kind of grey zone in which hostile actors thrive, including an ever-expanding Chinese navy. This treaty removes that uncertainty. It closes off the space for challenge, rather than leaving it open.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We see that every day in the South China sea. China has asserted expansive territorial claims that many countries do not recognise and that the international courts and tribunals do not recognise. What happens in response? Other states deliberately sail ships and fly aircraft through those waters and airspace to contest those claims and to test resolve. Uncertainty becomes a pressure point and ambiguity becomes an opportunity for interference. If we allow ambiguity to persist over the Chagos islands, and in particular over Diego Garcia, the same dynamic could apply. Our claims may be strong historically, but they are being increasingly contested in international courts. That does not make the base more secure; it makes it more vulnerable.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I feel I should put on record at the beginning that I am not the Government’s trade envoy to Mauritius—[Hon. Members: “Yet!”] Hansard can record a diplomatic silence at this point. This debate ultimately turns on whether we understand the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be, much as some believe otherwise. We still live in an economically, militarily, politically and morally interconnected world, and that interconnectedness has not gone away. It has become more contested, more multipolar and certainly more strategic, but it has not ended. That matters, because this deal must be judged not on slogans or hyperbole but on whether it secures the United Kingdom’s security interests in that interconnected world. One of the central lessons of recent years is that uncertainty invites challenge.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said at the beginning, interconnectedness is incredibly important and we cannot ignore the fact that international opinion matters. Yes, the world has changed. Power today is exercised through force—hard power has become incredibly important—but it is also still exercised through legitimacy, alliances and rules. If we expect others to respect international rules where it suits us, whether in Ukraine or the South China sea, we cannot be seen to apply them selectively elsewhere, except in the supreme national interest.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is where UK and US forces operate together against terrorist threats. It is a logistics, communications and intelligence hub, and it is central to safeguarding the global trade routes on which our economy depends. Without a secure base, all of that is placed at risk. Our Five Eyes allies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand support this deal, and our strategic partner India supports this deal. I want to address briefly the noise around President Trump’s social media posts, which the Minister dealt with very well earlier. Social media is not statecraft. What matters is the settled position of the United States, its military leadership and its security agencies. On that, there has been clarity for some time. The Pentagon, the State Department and successive US Defence Secretaries—Republican and Democrat—have supported this agreement.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I disagree with the hon. Member, because the two situations do have parallels. In the South China sea, people are challenging Chinese sovereignty, and it has been proved not to have standing in international courts. At the moment, ambiguity is starting to arrive in our position over the Chagos islands. This treaty would remove it and remove cause for the Chinese navy to take advantage. Against this backdrop, I want to restate the tests that I set out in an earlier debate on this deal. Does the agreement protect our national security? Does it command the support of our allies and professional security community? Are the costs proportionate to the benefits? On each of these tests, the answer remains yes. Diego Garcia is a keystone of our joint security architecture in the Indo-Pacific.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot clear up that point for the right hon. Member, but I have great confidence that ministerial colleagues would be able to. We have been told at all points that this treaty would ensure the continued effectiveness of the base in the way that it is run now. There was an Ohio class submarine there in 2022, and I hope those arrangements continue under this treaty. From what I have heard from Ministers, there is no reason that they would not. Let us turn to the costs of the deal. It will cost a fraction of the defence budget for an irreplaceable asset—”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that has been set out already in several debates. The point that has not been set out adequately and cannot be set out in huge detail is that, in exchange for providing the United States with facilities on Diego Garcia, the in-kind support in terms of intelligence and other matters that we receive from the United States must run into the billions every single year. Although we cannot put a figure on that, it is a really important element in this debate. There is no prosperity without security, and there is no security without certainty. In an interconnected world, those are not abstract principles; they are strategic necessities. That is why, in my view, this is a sensible, hard-headed deal, and a confident assertion of the United Kingdom’s national interest.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard from chief Ministers and leaders of the other British overseas territories how disappointed they have been in the rhetoric used by the Conservatives in trying to drag them into the situation. There is no question about our commitment to the British overseas territories. This deal is a completely separate matter.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Adlington does not meet that test. I will end with a bit of history, because this House likes its history. In the Minister’s office hangs a picture of Clement Attlee, who I think is a hero to both of us. It was Attlee’s Government that created the green belt, precisely to protect landscapes like this from unchecked development. It was not anti-housing; it was pro-planning. It is about balance, foresight and stewardship. We owe it to that legacy and to future generations to show the same care now, so let us support new towns, let us build the homes our country needs, but let us also say calmly and clearly, in the Attlee spirit, that Adlington is the wrong place.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before I finish, I want to thank local campaigners and activists—people who never expected to become planning experts, transport analysts or ecology specialists, but who have given up their evenings, weekends, and indeed savings, to engage constructively, responsibly and in good faith. They have not shouted from the sidelines; they have done the hard work of evidence, scrutiny and civic engagement. That is democracy at its best. They deserve recognition. Let me be absolutely clear once more that this is not about saying no to development; it is about saying, “Not like this, and not here.” We should be building homes where infrastructure already exists, where growth can be absorbed sustainably, where local authorities are partners rather than bystanders, and where the environmental cost is justified by an overwhelming and proven need.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Powerful points have been made already this afternoon about infrastructure. Those concerns have not been convincingly addressed in the case of Adlington, which has limited rail services, constrained road capacity and utilities that were never designed to support a town 20 times its current size. Fixing that would take decades, not years, and there remains no clear answer about who would pay, who would deliver or when any of it would realistically be in place. That has been compounded by the way that we have gone about this. We need engagement with residents, but there has been only one engagement session with local residents by the company Belport. Communities have been left scrambling for information about the proposal. That is not how to build confidence in a major national project.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The council has delivered before, and with its new plan it will deliver again—but without dropping 20,000 homes into the open countryside, against the opposition of local communities. Opposing the Adlington site does not mean opposing housing; it means respecting the plan-led system rather than bypassing it. I mentioned brownfield land, and there are brownfield sites across Cheshire, Greater Manchester and the wider region that are crying out for regeneration, many of them close to jobs, transport, schools and services. Building there first is not anti-growth; it is sustainable planning. Indeed, there are alternative new town sites in the north-west that could be considered. Let us not jump straight into one of the most sensitive stretches of green belt in the region, next to a national park. Let us think again.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That almost never happens in local government, and that alone should tell us that this is not a narrow ideological objection, but a considered judgment by the democratically elected planning authority for the area. I want to talk a little more about Cheshire East, because it really matters. It is not a council that avoids building homes. It has met its housing targets consistently in the past, it has adopted a sound local plan, and it has delivered thousands of homes and continues to do so. It is not a planning authority that is dragging its feet or shirking its responsibilities. It is now preparing a new local plan, which will set out how housing need will be met in years ahead—transparently, democratically and with proper public engagement. That is how planning should work.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Among all the sites recommended, Adlington stands out, not as the most suitable, but as the one that has faced the greatest opposition. That opposition has come not from one group, one parish or one campaign, but from across the community, across political lines and across civic society. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me before Christmas to discuss those concerns. It is particularly striking that the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has not opposed a number of the other new town sites recommended by the taskforce, has taken a clear and firm position against Adlington. When it singles out one site among many, it is because something genuinely does not stack up. If that were not enough, Cheshire East council has voted unanimously against the proposal.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a place shaped by continuity, with fields and farms; its working farmland is still producing food, supporting local jobs and sustaining wildlife. The proposal before Macclesfield would place up to 20,000 homes on 1,000 hectares of strategic green belt, wiping out 15 working farms, ancient hedgerows and bluebell woodlands, and fragmenting some of the most environmentally sensitive land in Cheshire. That matters, because the green belt is not an accident. It exists for a reason: to stop urban sprawl, protect countryside and make sure that we regenerate brownfield land. Once green belt on this scale is gone, it is gone forever. I want to make a broader point about the new towns taskforce and its shortlist, because it is quite telling.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I support house building and development, and I support the principle of new towns, done well, in the right places, with proper planning, and in the right manner with proper infrastructure. This country needs homes, especially genuinely affordable ones, and new towns have a proud history of delivering them, when they are carefully planned and sensibly located. I do not oppose that ambition; I welcome it. But supporting the principle of new towns does not mean signing a blank cheque for every proposed site, and it certainly does not mean abandoning the basics of good planning—which brings me to Adlington. Adlington is not an empty space on the map. It is a small rural community of about 1,000 people, first recorded in the Domesday Book.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Macclesfield, one topic has dominated conversation for several months: the proposed new town at Adlington. It has been talked about on every street corner, in every coffee shop and at every parish meeting. Well, almost—for one glorious weekend, Adlington was briefly knocked off the top spot by the small matter of Macclesfield beating Crystal Palace in the FA cup. I am on dangerous ground, because I think the Minister was brought up in south London, so I will leave the football at that. Jokes aside, this is an important debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing it. I am not a nimby.”
House of Commons15 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ryan Cornelius reminds us what happens when we hesitate to act. Sanctions are not about vengeance; they are about drawing a line and saying that no official, no banker and no judge is beyond accountability when they participate in grave injustice. If we honour Sergei’s legacy, we must be prepared to act with the same clarity he showed even when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, especially when one of our own is still paying the price.”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The UK lacks a strategy for managing frozen assets and ensuring that sanctions contribute to justice for victims and survivors. Funds can remain untouched for years, losing value while survivors receive no reparations. I think here particularly of the family of Ryan Cornelius; his wife Heather is effectively homeless as a result of the circumstances she faces. At present, all the proceeds flow back to the Treasury rather than to those harmed by the underlying violations. Let us use these sanctions ambitiously, consistently and appropriately in combination with other mechanisms if they are effective in upholding human rights, tackling illicit finance and preventing this country from becoming a haven for war criminals and kleptocrats. Sergei Magnitsky showed us what courage looks like when the law collapses.”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The inconsistency is particularly evident in cases involving UK strategic partners or trade allies, and in relation to conflict-related sexual violence, despite the UK's preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. There is also a clear failure to use the regime robustly in response to British nationals arbitrarily detained abroad, such as Ryan Conelius. Beyond designation decisions, weak enforcement is further undermining the regime. To date, no fines have been imposed for breaches of Magnitsky sanctions. Reports indicate widespread evasion involving professional enablers, opaque corporate structures and overseas territories, as has been capably pointed out. In addition, there is no obligation for the Government to report to Parliament on the use of these sanctions. I believe that should change.”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While these measures have had a meaningful impact in some cases, overall we have applied them in a limited and inconsistent way. We know that the FCDO has received dossiers and evidence from civil society organisations in their hundreds—potentially thousands—implicating perpetrators, but only a small number have been sanctioned. The contrast has already been made with the UK’s response to Russia’s invasion. I do not want to denigrate that response, because the Minister in particular and his colleagues have worked incredibly hard on that, and I give credit where credit is due. However, it demonstrates that where there is a political will, we do act at scale. That is what we want to see in other cases as well.”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful that we have heard some of the names relating to Dubai Islamic bank. I hope that the Government will take them away and think carefully about use of the powers that we have, which seem wholly appropriate in this instance. What does the House want from the Magnitsky sanctions regime? I am grateful that several hon. Members have made these points. We want them to be more than just symbolic; we want them to be consistent, ambitious and principled. We have been honest about where our use of these sanctions has fallen short. On that, I am grateful in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton). Since we introduced the regime, we have designated 229 individuals and entities under it.”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Like Sergei, Ryan was arbitrarily detained, according to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. Like Sergei, he has been denied due process. Like Sergei, he has been punished for refusing to concede or comply. Like Sergei, he has endured degrading prison conditions and inadequate medical care during a serious bout of tuberculosis. But unlike Sergei—this should trouble the House deeply—Ryan Cornelius is a British citizen. The UN has ruled his detention arbitrary, and experts have raised the alarm. His family, some of whom are in the Gallery, have campaigned for years; some of them have lost everything. Members from parties across the House have spoken up, yet Ryan remains in prison. If Magnitsky sanctions are not relevant in this case, we must really ask ourselves: what are they for?”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why Magnitsky sanctions exist: because Sergei and the incredible campaign of Sir Bill Browder showed us that truth outlives prison walls and that accountability has to cross borders. Why does this matter today? We are seeing the same injustice applied to the case of Ryan Cornelius, not in Moscow but in Dubai. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked a little about Ryan’s case. He was arrested in 2008 and convicted of fraud in 2010, but the sentence that he received—harsh as it was—had an end date, and he had served it. But just weeks before his scheduled release it was extended by a further 20 years using a law introduced after his original conviction, with no proper hearing and no meaningful right of appeal. That is not justice; that detention is leverage. The parallels with Sergei are stark.”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗