Tim Roca
MP for Macclesfield · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. If he gives me time, he may find that comes later in my speech. We should not allow Russia to make us talk ourselves into a place of weakness.”
“There is a significant difference between spending 2.8% in 2028, 2.9% in 2029 and 3% in 2030, and remaining broadly flat and trying to make a leap—if we can prove that we can do that—at the end of that spending period.”
“I agree with the right hon. Member, but I am not sure whether his point is relevant to the one I was making about the broad context of defence procurement. There has been great cross-party consensus on what we are doing with Ukraine, and we should ensure that that continues. I also want to comment on the defence nuclear enterprise.”
“My hon. Friend makes the point well. Indeed, in a recent interview my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about how the recent attacks on Iran had destroyed a huge propaganda apparatus, which had contributed to 3% of total nationalist propaganda for Scottish separation from the United Kingdom.”
“Every capability we field, every production line we expand and every drone we manufacture add to our deterrence, and that is incredibly important. At the beginning of the debate we talked about the credibility of getting to where we need to be. To be straightforward, it is my belief that we need to reach 3% of GDP by 2030.”
“I do not intend to focus on that too much, but I am sure that others will make the point about the decline in the size of the Army over the past 14 years, the decline in the size of the Air Force, and about the frigate fleet—we talk about the frigate gap—and what happened to frigate and destroyer construction.”
The complete record
Every one of 364 lines we hold for Tim Roca, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“He slept in his coat because the windows had no glass. Rats ran freely at night across the prison. Fatally, Sergei was denied medical treatment. Despite a diagnosis of pancreatitis and escalating pain, and despite written pleas, verbal pleas and petitions to judges, prosecutors and officials, his requests were ignored. One official told him plainly that he would get help only after release and that nobody was obliged to provide it to him in detention. Sergei’s last note asked when the ultrasound prescribed months earlier would finally be done. It never was. On 16 November 2009 he died on a prison floor after being restrained, isolated and denied emergency care: clearly a gross breach of human rights. Even then in death, the system denied responsibility.”
“Even as his world narrowed to concrete walls and iron doors, he documented everything, with over 450 complaints, petitions and diary entries written by hand, often without a table, sometimes in freezing cells, under conditions designed to break the human spirit. In a letter to his lawyer in August 2009, he said: “Justice, under such conditions turns into the process of grinding human meat for prisons and camps.” That phrase was not rhetoric; it is a description of a system where detention itself becomes the punishment and where exhaustion, humiliation and neglect replace the rule of law. Sergei was moved repeatedly between cells—often at night—and deprived of sleep, but he still refused to withdraw his testimony or plead guilty, so his conditions worsened. He was placed in cells flooded with raw sewage.”
“Sergei was a Russian tax lawyer—not an activist or a dissident—but he uncovered fraud of extraordinary scale involving the theft of millions of dollars carried out by state officials in Russia using the very institutions meant to uphold the law. He did what the law demanded of him: he documented it, testified and trusted that evidence would matter. Instead, the state turned on him. He was arrested by the very officials he had implicated and placed in pre-trial detention, where punishment begins long before guilt is even alleged. What sets Sergei apart, and why we still speak his name, is what he did next.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate and for being a doughty champion for British citizens unfairly imprisoned abroad. Colleagues have already made clear that Magnitsky sanctions are not an abstract policy instrument but a really powerful tool, so for me the debate is really about whether we are prepared to use that tool fully and consistently on behalf of our citizens. It is worth reminding ourselves of how this all began. We call these measures Magnitsky sanctions for a reason: a young man, Sergei Magnitsky, paid with his life for exposing corruption. He left behind an irrefutable paper trail that shows us exactly how authoritarian injustice works.”
“Disley in my constituency saw its post office close in July last year in slightly dubious circumstances. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made the powerful case that post offices are really important in rural and semi-rural areas. Will the Minister join me in asking the Post Office to redouble its efforts to reopen the post office in Disley?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon the proposal for a new town in Adlington, Cheshire. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003154]”
“The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon the proposal for a new town in Adlington”. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Macclesfield and neighbouring boroughs, Declares that the small village of Adlington, Cheshire (with a population of approximately 1,250) has been highlighted by the New Towns Taskforce as a potential site for large-scale development; further declares that, while the plans are only in the early stage of consideration, the scheme would risk inflicting significant, large-scale and irreversible harm to a cherished area of Green Belt on the edge of a National Park; further declares that the construction of the indicated minimum of 14,000 homes there would completely change the nature of Adlington village and the surrounding area, and put immense strain on already stretched local services; and further declares that Cheshire East Council has met its housing targets in the past and would do so again under a democratically agreed local development plan, which would ensure that development happens in the right places, with the right infrastructure.”
“I begin by offering my deepest sympathy to the family of Ethan McLeod, who died tragically in a car accident yesterday. He was a brilliant footballer and an inspiration to young people across Macclesfield. I am proud to present to the House a petition signed by 7,200 residents on paper, complemented by a further 11,714 online—totalling nearly 19,000 people—who express their clear opposition to this proposal. That is a view I wholeheartedly share. Residents and local councils are united in concern about the loss of green-belt and agricultural land; the strain on already stretched roads, schools and services; and the impact on local wildlife and the rural character of our communities. I thank the volunteers who worked tirelessly to raise awareness, collect signatures and make their voices heard.”
“I welcome the increased funding. Victim support and the commissioning of those services is incredibly important, and the operational independence of police and crime commissioners has been invaluable in that regard. What assurances can Ministers provide that, with the abolition of PCCs, victim support will not be led by forces themselves and that we will keep the important progress we have made over recent years?”
“We had warning after warning, but we never did enough—the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion several years ago, yet still we did not ramp up defence spending. The British armed forces have experienced years of hollowing out, cuts to troop numbers and chronic under-investment. Only now are we finally beginning to reverse some of that decline, but can we honestly say that the pace is adequate to the threat we face?”
“After three years of missile and drone attacks, millions of Ukrainians endure repeated power outages, damaged infrastructure, deep psychological trauma and limited access to heating, electricity and clean water. Mental health support has deteriorated sharply, especially as winter approaches. Displaced families have exhausted their savings, livelihoods have vanished, and the cumulative stress of air raids, mourning for the dead and uncertainty has driven a marked rise in depression, anxiety and long-term trauma. Communities live in a cycle of destruction and partial recovery, eroding resilience with each passing month. We should be clear-eyed about our own position.”
“There are hundreds of thousands of cases of desertion—a stark measure of exhaustion and eroding morale among frontline soldiers. Many units are under-strength and increasingly reliant on poorly trained conscripts rather than experienced volunteers. Some brigades operate without adequate rest, rotation or munitions. Commanders describe troops who are physically depleted, mentally exhausted and losing confidence in the strategic direction of the war. The result is a brittle front, with units stretched to breaking point, lacking resilience and vulnerable to sudden local collapses. Without substantial support, I really worry that the Ukrainian military could face a cascading breakdown as Russia continues to pile on the pressure. The strain on Ukraine’s civilian population is equally acute.”
“Secondly, it means that the fate of Russian sovereign assets is not a technical financial matter but a strategic one, and every delay, hesitation and concession on this issue weakens Ukraine and emboldens the Kremlin. Thirdly, it means we must recognise that 2026 will likely be the decisive year in this war. Yes, Russia faces mounting economic difficulties, fuel shortages and internal discontent, and the Kremlin still insists on its war aims, but its capacity to sustain the war is not limitless, and a sense of futility in Moscow is a necessary condition for peace. Ukraine’s ability to hold the line, supported through European unity, is central to bringing that moment closer. I do not think that we have touched this afternoon on the fact that Ukrainian resilience is not endless either.”
“Russia can fight indefinitely; Ukraine cannot.” In my view, this is not diplomacy; it is coercive pressure on Ukraine, and it carries an unmistakable message that the United States Administration are now structuring their policy around the assumption of a Russian victory in the long term. Many of us will be incredibly worried that Trump will pressure Ukraine into giving up territory and ultimately fail to give any meaningful security guarantees. It is for Ukrainians who have paid a price in blood to decide for themselves what price they are prepared to pay for peace. What does this mean for Europe and for Britain? First, it means that we must accept the truth that if Ukraine is to resist Russian maximalist aims, we must step up now, not in six months or in two years.”
“Even now, European leaders remain hesitant, while Washington has now made its position unmistakably clear that Ukraine is expected to accept a settlement that has been shaped by Russian interests—because, I believe, it is Trump’s assessment that Russia will ultimately prevail. We have to face the facts: the September-October pivot, when Trump and Vance claimed that Russia was losing and Ukraine could win, was most likely theatre. Trump has always accepted the Russian narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat, and once the pretence ended, US officials made their message clear to the Ukrainians: “Accept a deal now or face a worse one later.”
“But we now know from reports that US officials have been placing intense pressure on European Governments to leave those assets untouched, and indeed insisting it is their view that they be returned to Russia after any peace deal, while feigning, for months, a willingness to ramp up support for Ukraine. That illusion was crucial, because the more Europeans believed that Washington might still back Ukraine, the less likely European Governments were to take unilateral steps, including seizing or repurposing those Russian assets. It was a calculated sleight of hand, and it succeeded.”
“What at first seemed like a genuine pivot towards supporting Ukraine now appears, in retrospect, to have been a carefully orchestrated performance designed to protect Russian assets, pave the way for future business dealings and shape a narrative in which Ukraine’s defeat was treated as inevitable. At the heart of that strategy lies the $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets that hon. Members have mentioned repeatedly this afternoon. For many years, including in this place, we have debated whether those assets should be used to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild.”
“I add my commendation to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. Hearing the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) speak reminded me of our trip to Ukraine earlier in the year. Thinking of surreal moments, it cannot be more surreal than being on a road outside Kharkiv watching him try to fix a car that was not working properly. In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that many of us underestimated the sophistication and intent behind the Trump Administration’s manoeuvres regarding Ukraine, Europe and Russia.”
“Let us be clear in this place that we stand with Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and security, because we do not want to repeat the errors of the past.”
“Every equivocation, delay and wavering signal emboldens Putin and his gang of thugs. We are clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom but for the principle that aggression should not be rewarded. I believe that Members of this House agree with those principles. Therefore, we must act with urgency, clarity and resolve. I think there have been two references by hon. Members this afternoon to Munich. We are 87 years on from what was described as a “total and unmitigated defeat”. Today, I do worry that the Trump Administration’s push for peace, shaped by Putin’s interest, risks making the same mistake in pressuring Ukraine to accept a settlement that serves the aggressor rather than justice or security.”
“We all have a duty to contribute to the understanding of the threat that Russia faces to our security here at home. We must speak honestly with the country about the risks that we face, the commitments we may be asked to make, and the moral and strategic imperative of ensuring that Russian aggression does not succeed. If Ukraine falls or is coerced into a settlement that gives the Kremlin what it could not win on the battlefield, Europe will not be safer. An essential truth that has been revealed in recent months is that Ukrainian resilience is not infinite. Its morale depends on it knowing that the world has not forgotten it. Every air defence system, shell, economic sanction on Russia and measure to support Ukraine and its statehood matters—not just materially but psychologically.”
“I completely agree. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised earlier, it is the Baltic countries—Poland, Finland, those that have had direct experience of Russian aggression—that are most clear-eyed about the Russian threat. We do not want a wishy-washy peace that does not deliver genuine security. There has to be genuine security as the basis of any peace. We in this House must not dodge. We are building a coalition of the willing, and in any peace agreement we may potentially be asked to agree to put British troops on the ground and contribute to maintaining ceasefire lines or to deter Russian aggression. We have to be honest about where the British public are at, and I am not convinced that the British public are yet psychologically in the place they need to be in for that commitment.”
“Ryan Cornelius, a British citizen, has been unfairly incarcerated in Dubai for the past 17 years. His son was six when he went to prison; he is now 23 years old. Some 150 parliamentarians from both Houses wrote to the Dubai authorities asking for Mr Cornelius’s release on the UAE’s national day—today—to no avail. Can the Foreign Secretary use her good offices to bring some urgency to the issue of freeing this British citizen from unfair detention?”
“T8. In Macclesfield we are lucky to have a thriving life sciences sector. At AstraZeneca, we have 5,000 people employed in well-paid jobs across the pharmaceutical value chain. What are the Treasury and the Government doing to ensure that we take advantage of the innovation we produce here in the UK for the benefit of our local life sciences economies?”
“I spoke earlier to Dr Marco Longobardo, a specialist in international law, and it is clear that even the non-binding ICJ judgment is nevertheless a matter of international law and potentially gives hostile countries the opening that they need to contemplate interference in the islands—in the same way that Chinese claims in the South China sea are not recognised by many countries. That is all at risk. Our ability to berth submarines, patrol waters or launch operations would be compromised, and a vacuum would be created.”
“I believe the answer to those three tests is yes, and I will address them in turn. Diego Garcia is not just another overseas facility; it is fundamental to our security. It is where our forces and US forces have launched operations against high-value terrorist groups. It is a communications and logistics hub, and it is where we monitor hostile states and safeguard global trade routes that underpin our economy. Without this treaty, all that is at risk. Ministers have outlined that international rulings could make the base inoperable.”
“It has been a long afternoon, but I should say from the start that I genuinely believe that the motivation of all of us is the national interest of the United Kingdom. Whatever differences of opinion there might be, I think it is important that we try to avoid hyperbole in this matter and think coolly and calmly about what is in the UK national interest. There are tests we need to apply to what we are discussing: first, does it protect UK national security; secondly, do our allies and the professional military and security establishment support it; and thirdly, are the costs and obligations reasonable and proportionate? We also need to have a weather eye to our responsibility to the Chagossians, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for speaking passionately on behalf of his constituents.”
“He said: “I contend that Beijing privately views the agreement, even if modified to ameliorate some Chagossians’ outstanding demands, somewhat as a setback. In practical terms, it gains little if any advantage from it.” He added: “The Chagos issue constituted a perennial problem for British foreign policy; one that China could simultaneously exploit to demonstrate its supposed adherence to existing RBOs”— rule-based orders— “and undermine the UK’s traditionally important role in maintaining it.” He also said that the deal deters Port Louis—Mauritius—from becoming an effective client state of Beijing. On the point of whether our allies support it, I believe that the treaty meets the test.”
“In the United States, where there is not much that gets bipartisan support, it is a bipartisan matter. Antony Blinken said that America “strongly supported” the negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended the “leadership and vision” shown. The Democratic former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the agreement will “safeguard strategic security interests into the next century.” I believe an hon. Member has already quoted President Trump, who described it as an amazing deal, a beautiful deal or whatever kind of deal—but a good deal, that is the main point. The international consensus is clear. Our allies, partners and experts back the deal. I was very taken by the comments of Professor Benjamin Sacks of the RAND school of public policy in the United States.”
“We have talked about how it protects a unique maritime environment and provides tangible support through the trust fund for Chagossian communities. On the first test I am satisfied. On the second test—whether the agreement commands the backing of allies and experts—other colleagues have spoken powerfully about this, but Lord Goldsmith, a former Attorney General, said it was “consistent with our national security interests and with our respect for international law”. The international support is equally strong. Australia’s Kevin Rudd called it a “good outcome for Mauritius, for Australia, for the UK and for our collective security interests”. Canada’s foreign ministry said that it ensures “the long-term, secure and effective operation” of the joint base, strengthening a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
“I believe that the hon. Member has had quite a lot of turns today, and I have been waiting a long time without intervening, so I will proceed. If we allowed a vacuum to be created, it would be filled by China or others in a region that is vital to our security. I will come back to China in a moment, because what China thinks about this treaty is important as well. Turning to the first test, the treaty secures 99 years of guaranteed access, with the option to extend it by a further 40 years; 99 years was good enough for Lord Salisbury, so it is good enough for me. It gives us full operational control over installations, logistics, communications and the electromagnetic spectrum. It establishes a 24-nautical-mile buffer zone and bans any foreign military presence on the outer islands.”
“I will not. I experienced the right hon. Gentleman defending the hereditary principle last week, and I do not think I have the strength in me this week to listen to another argument. The final test was on costs and obligations. Again, Ministers have talked powerfully about the deal being less than 0.2% of the defence budget. Comparisons have been made with what the French are paying in Djibouti, and I am glad that we are getting a better deal than the French. Of course, Diego Garcia is 15 times larger than those bases and in a more strategic location. The treaty gives us immense operational freedom. It therefore seems to me that this is a modest investment for an irreplaceable asset. The risks from delay or abandonment—in this argument, we have to balance the treaty with the risks of what could happen—are vastly greater.”
“A couple of months ago, I was in Gibraltar with colleagues who privately told me they were horrified that party politics were being played with their communities. I am glad to see that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister was clear on the record that there was “no possible read across” to Gibraltar, and the Governor of the Falklands said that the “historical contexts…are very different.” I am confident that we meet the three tests.”
“I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. We should all be honest that, as was put powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), our country’s history with the Chagossians has been very poor—if we look at some of the diplomatic cables from the 1960s, we see that disgraceful language was used—but I was reassured by what Ministers said about the preamble of the treaty and some of the provisions put in place. It is a matter of fact that the previous Government were in negotiations with Mauritius over this issue. That was the case, and there will have been motivations for their doing that. I am worried about how our other overseas territories are being dragged into this.”
“No, I am afraid that I will not. In closing, I believe that the three tests have been met: the treaty meets our national security requirements, it has the backing of our allies, and it comes at a reasonable cost. It would be very dangerous for us to dither or delay any longer in view of the potential threat to that base.”
“Q10. I com-mend the Prime Minister on his work to tackle the arbitrary detention of British citizens abroad and warmly welcome the creation of a special envoy. He will know of the anguish of the families of Jimmy Lai, Ryan Cornelius, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Jagtar Singh Johal and others. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he anticipates the appointment of the envoy will happen? Will they have real powers, like their counterparts in Canada and the United States, to help bring our people home?”
“The Minister has just set out the scrutiny that this matter has received in various places, but I was really taken by the number of questions that he said he had received from the shadow Foreign Secretary on this subject. Can he tell me how many questions he has received on other matters of global importance?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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 congratulate my right hon. Friend. With over 5,000 Macclesfield jobs dependent on AstraZeneca, I welcome the health data research centre, the slashing of trial times and the focus on life sciences. Will he set out how he is supporting Department of Health and Social Care colleagues to further deliver for life sciences by finalising a realistic settlement on the commercial agreement over the pricing of medicine, and VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—in particular, as that is very important to my constituents?”
“Progress is not permanent; it has to be protected, nurtured and renewed. The same is true with equality. When we stop fighting for it, we risk losing it. These can be difficult times, but I am an optimist and I remain hopeful, because I have seen the resilience of our community. I have seen it in Macclesfield with the rainbow flags flying from shop windows, and I know that people across this House will stand with the LGBT+ community to say loudly and clearly that nobody should be made to feel afraid, ashamed or excluded because of who they are or who they love.”
“In their place came messages of love, solidarity and inclusion. That is the Macclesfield I know and am incredibly proud to represent. We cannot ignore the wider context. The UK has dropped dramatically in the ILGA-Europe rankings for LGBT+ rights, which is a signal that we are no longer the standard bearer we once were. The recent Supreme Court decision has created confusion and concern among the trans community. People are left asking what rights they can rely on and whether the protections they thought they had still apply. That uncertainty feeds fear, and fear is something that no one should have to live with simply because of who they are. We must all redouble our efforts to uphold equality in law and in life. I welcome the statement earlier about trans conversion practices and the ban on it coming soon.”