Tim Roca MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2025 · Victim Support: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Victim Support: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps his Department is taking to provide adequate funding for victim support services.

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Alaa Abd el-Fattah · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Thank God.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Jul 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department for Education · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for sharing that traumatic experience with us, and to the bravery that it must have taken. I also pay tribute to teachers in my constituency. I met secondary heads just before Christmas, and will meet all our primary school heads together in the coming month. I am proud that there is so much to welcome in this estimate. I particularly welcome the capital investment in schools across the country, which I think presents a dual opportunity—not just an opportunity to rebuild the crumbling schools that were left to us by our Tory predecessors, but an opportunity to invest to make them greener, so that increased energy efficiency can save money and reduce school bills. I welcome the extra £1 billion to reform and enhance special educational needs and disabilities provision, and I look forward to more announcements about SEND—I share some of the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I welcome the investment in further education and apprenticeships, and the breakfast club funding. I congratulate the Ministers, because this means that children will stop going to school hungry and will be given the best chance to learn regardless of their background. The clubs are being brilliantly piloted by Pott Shrigley church school in my constituency and Disley primary school, where I went myself. I particularly welcome the funding that has been allocated in the spending review to expand eligibility for free school meals, which means that an extra 1,200 children in Macclesfield will receive free lunches. Each one will mean a life changed and a trajectory altered, breaking down barriers to opportunity and success. However, what the estimate does not contain is a significant real-terms increase for Cheshire East schools. Head teachers in my constituency still tell me that things are tough because of an historical funding formula that leaves Cheshire East as one of the lowest-funded authorities in the country. It receives the 13th lowest share of DSG per mainstream pupil—five grand less than the highest share, and £2,200 less than the highest non-London authority. The high needs block is worse: we rank 12th out of 151 local authorities, receiving two and a half grand less per pupil than the 151st. This is entirely explained by the school funding formula, and it is an important formula. Schools in metropolitan areas are more expensive to run. Of course schools should receive additional investment based on deprivation, language needs or rurality, but when the basic grant funding does not keep pace with basic costs, things become very tough. Macclesfield is not quite rural enough and not quite deprived enough, without the “English as an additional language” numbers required, which makes life very difficult for head teachers who are trying to balance the books—particularly after 14 years of making cut after cut. The funding formula works only if there is a significant increase in the basic entitlement, so that all schools, whether in Cheshire East or elsewhere, have a budget that is sufficient to make ends meet. I say that because I have difficult conversations with teachers in my constituency, some of whom are spending as much as 88% of their budgets on fixed staff costs because they are having to retain—and want to retain—hard-working, talented teachers who, in the long run, are more expensive. I recently saw an example of that at Rainow, an excellent primary school in my constituency, which has full classes but is finding it difficult to make the numbers work. I am grateful for my recent meeting with the Minister to discuss these issues with her, and I welcome the work that the Department is doing in tackling them. Change does not come overnight, and changing a funding formula as historic as this cannot be done overnight, but I hope that everyone who supports fairness and agrees that deprived areas should receive more funds will also agree that every school deserves to receive the basic funding that will enable all our children to be taught, and will ensure that they are not at schools that are finding things tough. I will make no apologies for continuing to fight, on behalf of all my constituents, for fairer funding for all schools.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has worked very hard on the issue of compensation for LGBT veterans because of the disgraceful way they were treated by the British state, which has been raised at various points this evening. I wonder whether he would comment more on that and on Lord Etherton’s landmark report.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I rise with personal pride as Macclesfield’s first openly gay Member of Parliament, and with real pride at how far Macclesfield and the country have come over the years. I grew up in the Macclesfield constituency, and if anyone had told me back then that we would have our own Pride, I would never have believed them. People lining the streets in celebration and solidarity is a wonderful thing to see, and I know Members across the House have the same experience in their area. It is joyful and defiant, but as the Minister and others have said, it is also political. It is a protest as much as it is a party—a refusal to accept that anyone should be ashamed of who they are. That matters because, as Members have said—or, I am sure, will say—we have seen a shocking rise in homophobic and transphobic hate crimes over past years. That is why I was proud to support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), to make those hate crimes aggravated offences treated with the seriousness they deserve. Hate has no place on our streets, in our schools or in our politics, but we have seen that hate even in Macclesfield. Just recently, anti-LGBT posters appeared around the town—nasty, cowardly attempts to intimidate and divide—but just as quickly as they went up, they were taken down. They were taken down by neighbours, by volunteers, and by people who simply refused to let that kind of poison define our community. 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. 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.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. Rural businesses are a core part of the economy in places such as Macclesfield, which—as you will know, Mr Western—is a beautiful part of the world, on the western edge of the Peak district. Field, farm and forest bring, in equal measure, community and economic activity. Businesses are vital in rural areas, be they the local pub, the farms that feed us or the businesses that support the tourism industry—a critical part of the economy in my area.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we should be open-minded about such measures, just as I was open-minded about taking interventions—although that may change. On that point, I want to celebrate the value of the visitor economy, which has been mentioned. It has risen to more than £1 billion in Cheshire East, which means that 10,000 jobs depend on that sector in my area. Many hon. Members have spoken, and no doubt will speak, eloquently about the challenges facing rural businesses, and I will talk briefly about a couple of those challenges too. First, Macclesfield residents have great difficulty finding transport, so they are reliant on a car to get around. If they want to go to a local pub such as the Rose and Crown in Wincle or the Swan Inn in Kettleshulme, and they do not have a car, they must depend on bus routes that are unreliable, infrequent or simply not there. I welcome the more than £5.5 million in extra funding from the Government for Cheshire East council to improve local bus services, and I hope that we continue with efforts to improve rural transport connectivity and the road network—for those hon. Members were present for my Westminster Hall debate on roadworks in Cheshire, the B4570 remains closed from Macclesfield through Rainow. Secondly, digital connectivity is incredibly important. In many parts of my constituency, phone signal is impossible to come by. I looked at Ofcom’s network coverage map prior to this debate, and there is limited data and not much voice access over huge chunks of my constituency. That strongly affects businesses, because we all know that internet access is a critical part of the rural economy. I welcome the schemes that are supporting further roll-outs, but more needs to be done. Thirdly, I am sure that other hon. Members will talk powerfully about the impact of energy costs on rural businesses, and I am keen to hear more about what the Government are doing to ensure that those costs are reduced. The Country Land and Business Association powerfully said in 2024 that the rural economy was 14% less productive than the national average. If we close that gap, £40 billion extra could be added to England’s gross value added. Our rural economy is critical, as is investment in it. There is a great opportunity for us, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the good work that the Government are doing to support that.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sometimes seems that the full glare of publicity is needed to make any progress with a case; I am thinking particularly of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. As hon. Members have said, perhaps there is an argument for our being much more assertive in dealing with such cases—not to look solely through the lens of geopolitics, but to consider clearly and squarely the first priority of all Governments: defending their citizens. Other countries seem to have a better record on that. Clearly, there are things that we can be doing. I am looking forward, hopefully, to a Government announcement about a special envoy of some sort whose sole role would be to focus on getting British citizens out of these horrible situations. I believe that a cultural change probably needs to happen in the FCDO as well. We need to change what Chris Patten calls “by the way” diplomacy; he mentioned it when he was with Sebastien Lai at one of our hearings. At the end of a high-level conversation between a Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister it is, “By the way, this person is arbitrarily detained by you.” That does not give the sense of urgency and importance that the case deserves. We can do much more. I am sure that the Government will be enacting the recommendations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says because the issue is about serving British citizens and getting them out of horrible situations.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I put on the record my interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs. I am going to speak in general terms about the issue of state hostage taking and arbitrary detention. Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about some of the cases and the constituents for whom they are fighting for so powerfully. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about Ryan Cornelius, who has now been in prison for 17 years and in May 2018 was sentenced to a further 20 years, meaning that he will not leave prison in the Emirates until he is 84. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), who spoke strongly about his constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal. Many of us will know of the case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah as well. The individuals in those cases, along with Jimmy Lai, have something in common: they are considered by the UN working group on arbitrary detention to be arbitrarily detained. Their rights have been trampled on and they are being incarcerated effectively unlawfully, without any due process or regard. When we talk about victims of arbitrary detention, we need to remember the impact on their families as well as on them. Ryan Cornelius’s son was six years old when his father was imprisoned; he is now 23. Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s mother, Laila, has been on hunger strike for some time now. The impact still scars those lucky enough to have been released. I saw Matthew Hedges last week and hon. Members will have met Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband Richard, who fought so powerfully for her release. We need to have a conversation about why the UK struggles, in some cases, to free its citizens from arbitrary detention abroad. I have the highest regard for the Minister and our excellent diplomats, but the Foreign Affairs Committee report “Stolen years”, from the previous Parliament, highlighted some clear failings in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office approach to those who are arbitrarily detained. It talked about the need for urgency and to be clear about when our citizens are facing torture, interrogation and having their rights trampled on. Indeed, the case of Ahmed al-Doush is being considered at the moment by the UN working group on arbitrary detention because the UK has not explicitly said that it believes his rights are being trampled on. Saudi Arabia has said, “Well, the United Kingdom has not raised any issue about his rights being trampled on” and uses that as an argument in the working group itself. We have to be extremely clear when we see our citizens’ rights being traduced.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Victims of Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps her Department is taking to help support victims of sexual abuse.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Victims of Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  On the last Government’s watch, the backlog of Crown court cases rose to record levels, leaving too many victims, including those in Macclesfield, to wait years for their day in court. That backlog included victims of sexual abuse, unable to begin properly processing their trauma until their trial is over and stuck in a horrifying limbo. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims of sexual abuse are not left waiting for years to see justice done?