Tim Roca MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I do. One interesting thing to note after Munich and recent discussions is that some of this stuff is not new. The United States has been telling Europe to pay for its own defence and to step up for many, many years. If the commitment to 2%, made in Wales in 2014, had been kept by all the countries that signed up to it, we would have spent another £800 billion on our collective defence since that time. Countries need to step up and ensure that they meet their commitments. We need to be realistic about our role. We are a leading European partner, a leading member of NATO, and a leading ally of the United States. I worry that in the past two weeks, some people have been very quick to throw out 80 years of important transatlantic alliance, but it is crucial for the security of this country, and the security of our continent.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree, and that is why I have been reassured by the Government talking about our having a NATO-first defence policy; the Prime Minister reaffirmed that this week. Given all the drama in the past couple of weeks, it has been reassuring to see the steady hand and leadership that the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Government as a whole have shown on these issues. They have reacted calmly and coolly to the challenge that has been posed. Yesterday we saw the whole House give the Prime Minister its good wishes, and offer him good luck with his urgent task of convincing President Trump of the importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe. There is also the very important link, referred to earlier, with dictatorships across the world; we should not allow the principle of “might is right” to succeed, because then we go down a very dangerous road indeed. When this country was fighting for its life—there is a dangerous tendency for British politicians to always refer back to that time; I am going to fall into that trap—Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s great personal friend, was here in the UK. He gave a speech in Glasgow, to reassure Churchill in those dark days of December 1940, which he finished with a quote from the Book of Ruth: “‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people…’ Even to the end.” That should be the attitude of Britain, Europe and the United States to Ukraine—solidarity, unyielding support, and remembering that the glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the astonishing 10 days we have had, and we should be under no illusion that they have been astonishing, there has been reassurance to be found in the Government’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and the leadership they have been showing. The Foreign Secretary alluded earlier to Vladimir Putin’s penchant for lying: he lied about the invasion; he lied about Ukraine’s territorial integrity; he lied about the rules of war; and he abducted thousands of Ukrainian children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should Ukraine be at the centre of the negotiations, but that we should be clear-eyed about the character of the man we are dealing with?

• 3 Feb 2025 · AstraZeneca · Hansard source

  More

  More than 5,000 people are employed at AstraZeneca’s Macclesfield campus, producing world-class medicines and contributing £1.8 billion in GVA and 1% of total UK exports. AstraZeneca has confirmed to me that the Speke decision does not impact Macclesfield, a site that it is committed to. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to working with AZ so it continues to have a bright future in Macclesfield?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank those who secured this debate on a really important issue. I hope all of us here are committed to the fundamental principle that we should have a functioning, representative democracy; and that elections should reflect the will of the people, and endow this place with the democratic legitimacy to make laws and form Governments that govern the country in the best interests of the people. Principles are tough, but we have to stick to them. I am conscious, as I argue in favour of proportional representation and electoral reform, that had there been a different system in the election last year, the natural consequence would have been more Members in the mould of the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), and for Clacton (Nigel Farage). We have to take the rough with the smooth and accept that legitimacy is important, and that the will of the people should be reflected in the number of seats that parties secure in this place. Members have very ably made the point that the system simply does not reflect the will of the people. At our most recent general election, 58% of people who voted ended up with an MP they did not vote for. Some 554 Members of this House were elected with less than 50% of the vote. The trajectory is that turnout is declining, and the legitimacy of this place will inevitably start to decline as well. Decades ago, parties used to need close to 50% of the vote to win a majority; last year, the Government secured 34% of the vote. It is possible that there will be Governments in the future who secure even less of the popular vote. We have known that this system is failing for many, many years. It has been discussed historically a number of times—we had the Jenkins commission; there was a royal commission in 1910; and there was a Speaker’s Conference in 1917. In fact, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was where we got closest to reform. Not only did it secure votes for women, but the initial draft of the Bill legislated for an alternative vote in single-Member constituencies and PR in multi-Member constituencies. Of course, single-Member constituencies are relatively new; for the majority of the history of this place, we had multi-Member constituencies. As Members can tell, I was looking back through the history of how PR has advanced, or not, in this place. I was very taken with an argument made by Herbert Fisher, a Liberal President of the Board of Education 100 years ago. He had a florid way of speaking, but I thought I would repeat his words: “I see before me and around me prosperous and popular heroes of many a stricken electoral field, members who have entered into every home, subscribed to every fund, and by a thousand and one meritorious processes have acquired what is known as the ‘intimate touch’ with their constituencies. It is very natural that such hon. Members who have laboriously perfected themselves in the polite art of electoral intimacy should be unwilling to see any relaxation or change of system.” —[ Official Report , 13 May 1918; Vol. 106, c. 66.] It is natural, when we have been put in this place by a system, to be reluctant to change it. We need to be bold and make the case for electoral reform, even though the system we want to replace is the one that got us here. Sadly, a century on, we have made very little progress. I am glad that the debate is being held today, and I endorse the arguments made for a national commission. We are so behind other countries in this respect. It has been pointed out that we are in the minority of democratic countries in having a first-past-the-post system—130 other democracies use PR or a mixed-Member system. I hope that through this debate and the hard work of Members who continually raise the issue and call for a commission, we can eventually put a proposal to the people of this country, so that they can ultimately make a decision. I was very taken by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who talked constructively about how we get to that point. I hope that the decision will be taken to adopt PR—the system that is, in the words of Churchill, when it comes to addressing “constitutional injustice…incomparably the fairest, the most scientific and, on the whole… in the public interest” —[ Official Report , 2 June 1931; Vol. 253, c. 102.]

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I particularly welcome the fact that she raised the issues of Jimmy Lai and human rights in Beijing, which is really important. After 14 years of the Conservative party’s inconsistency on China, does she agree that we need a cross-Whitehall strategy and a pragmatic approach?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  I join both Front-Benchers in paying tribute to the communities, volunteers and neighbours who helped each other with the floods over recent days. Communities affected in my part of the world, particularly in Poynton and Bollington, all pulled together. The A555 road runs through a number of constituencies, and poor engineering has been raised several times as a reason why it floods, affecting local residents. Will the Minister join me in speaking with the Department for Transport and local authorities to try to get to the bottom of why it repeatedly ends up failing our residents?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, which demonstrates again the ironclad commitment of this country to the defence of Ukraine. Ministers will have detected nervousness across the House regarding political changes in January, so may I change tack? There are 6 million Ukrainian refugees across Europe and millions of displaced people within the country itself. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to communities across the United Kingdom who have supported the Ukrainian people, and indeed in many cases opened their homes to Ukrainians coming to this country?

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker? Does the Minister recognise that the issue is being raised by the Opposition again and again, despite the cognitive dissonance that it was they who opened the negotiations in the first place? I have to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the scaremongering and the irresponsible way in which the Opposition have conducted the debate with regard to other overseas territories and self-determination.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have to be careful. Of course we want to work cross-party, and should be cognisant of small business, but on the other side of the debate, campaigners are worried that the Bill is already leaning too much the other way, and we will start to lose proportionality if we adopt the shadow Minister’s amendments.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the progress of this important Bill. We know the danger of terrorism in this country for the constituents we represent. There have been 15 domestic terror attacks since 2017, as well as the tragic arena bombing. That excludes terrorism in Northern Ireland. There have also been 43 late-stage plots foiled by the security services. We recently heard from the head of the Security Service about a 48% increase in terror investigations in the last year alone, so the threat is absolutely real and it is always changing. We have had various attacks, including the marauding-style terrorist attacks that we saw so tragically here in London some years ago. The Bill is a crucial to making sure that premises, businesses and venues do what they can to keep people safe. We know from businesses and venues that they understand their obligations to their patrons, whoever they might be, and they want to keep them safe. We have had a healthy debate about the Bill’s provisions. There has been a sensible, mature, cross-party discussion about what works and what is practicable. I pay tribute to Manchester city council for the exercises it undertook. It worked with businesses to ensure that measures were both sensible and proportionate while keeping people safe. Across I think 10 sessions last year, and having spoken to 700 businesses and 2,000 people, it went through some of the measures in the Bill, and businesses overwhelmingly supported them. They understood the need for them, and that they were not onerous. Those ranged from businesses as large as Printworks, which many people in Manchester will know, down to local restaurants and bars, and the response was incredibly positive. I say that because I want to reassure hon. Members from across the House about the proportionality of the measures in the Bill. In fact, I will quote Gareth Worthington, the night-time economy officer at the Manchester business improvement district: “If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.” On the thresholds, we have arrived at a sensible place. We had a healthy debate in the Public Bill Committee on them, and I think they are reasonable. I reiterate that I think campaigners would perceive any tweaking of provisions on the thresholds or delegated powers for the Secretary of State as a watering down of the Bill.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I shall not, because I think we have touched on that point enough. Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent Figen Murray for her bravery in championing these measures. No parent would ever want to have the name of their child on a law if they could help it, but she has worked tirelessly to push forward these measures. I hope to see them enacted. I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for his hard work on it.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Tackling Stalking · Hansard source

  More

  I was glad to hear the good work of Cheshire police being commended in my area. May I also put on record my admiration for Nicola Thorp? Her terrifying ordeal at the hands of a man who had created 30 online accounts to stalk and abuse her should shock all of us. As we come to the end of the statement, may I ask the Minister to join me in paying tribute to her?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his comment that all the education spending that he mentioned came from general taxation? My understanding is that the figures that he just quoted include the student loan system.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her phenomenal maiden speech. She is already proving to be a powerful advocate for her constituents. The Finance Bill is a necessary corollary to the Budget. It is the beginning of a process that the new Labour Government are undertaking to rebuild the foundations of our country, after an incredibly poor inheritance from the predecessor Government. I have been quite shocked to hear the joy with which Conservative Members have been speaking about the phenomenal economy that they left the country with. It is an economy in which wage growth has flatlined at the lowest level since the Napoleonic wars, leaving households £10,000 worse off per person. Trade has fallen 15% lower than our neighbours’, and national debt went from 64% in 2010 to 96% just before the pandemic. I know they love blaming the pandemic for everything, but things were pretty bad before the pandemic. The heart of the problem is that the Conservatives lack credibility. In 2010, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) stood for election on a manifesto that said that the Conservatives would “eliminate” the deficit by the end of the Parliament. In 2015, he stood for election on a manifesto that said the same thing, as he did in 2017. In 2019, he and his colleagues decided to give up entirely on tackling the national debt, which is one of many things that we now have to tackle. Of course, that was the more rational end of the previous 14 years, and there were seven Chancellors in 14 years, by the way. We had the blip, which I know Conservative Members do not like talking about, when one of their Chancellors, with the backing of a Prime Minister, Liz Truss, promised £45 billion—2% of GDP—of unfunded tax cuts. I am incredulous that the Conservatives were talking about gilts earlier. Gilts moved more in one week under Liz Truss than in a whole year on average. There is no comparison—

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness a number of times, but he would not give way, so I felt I had to squeeze in a couple of points before getting to the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill includes many important measures that I support. The freeze on fuel duty is an important and welcome decision by the Chancellor. The Conservatives imposed a stealth tax on the country by freezing thresholds on income tax, and the Chancellor rightly committed to changing that in 2028. It was a revenue-raising Budget, but despite all the changes, we will have capital gains and corporation tax rates that are very competitive with those of our G7 colleagues. My constituency needs this Budget because it needs stability. It needs the investment that this Budget will bring. That investment is crucial because the legacy that I talked about spanned a number of areas, including a lack of public investment. The Institute for Public Policy Research said that nearly £500 billion less was invested in the public sector than in comparable economies, as we can see in our public services, hospitals and schools. The Budget was about choices. It was a difficult Budget, and not a perfect Budget, because of the inheritance. We have to deal with the facts. There was disagreement on the Budget, but people who disagree with the revenue-raising measures and agree with the spending have to say what taxes they would have increased. I say gently to Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have found other sources of income, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies effectively said that their plans to raise income elsewhere had no real credibility. This is a difficult Budget, but it is the beginning of plotting a course for stability, economic growth and investment in public services in our country. That is what my constituents very much hope will be the legacy.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Defence Programmes Developments · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her fantastic maiden speech. She is a really powerful advocate for her constituents. She talked movingly about her father losing his voice, but she has certainly found hers in this place. I was with her on that visit to Ukraine in September, and I still find it incredible that in this day and age, in 2024, it is possible to visit the capital city of a fellow democracy on the European continent and hear air raid sirens and see civilians—women and children—heading for air raid shelters. That is the dystopian future that Vladimir Putin has set out for Ukraine in this terrible war, but also potentially for the rest of the continent if we do not get our act together. Several times this afternoon, hon. Members have made the powerful point that this is an existential war for the people of Ukraine. They are not fighting for some unforeseeable future, but to ensure their national independence and preserve their sovereignty. Some 3 million Ukrainians are living under occupation at the moment, and the people of Ukraine know what the full occupation of their country would entail: the destruction of their national life and of their liberty. We know this because, despite Vladimir Putin’s mendaciousness, he has set out time and again his historical worldview—his perverted sense of world history and Russian revanchism. There is the essay that he published just before the invasion and the strange speech he gave on the eve of the invasion itself, in which he basically posited the idea that Ukraine was not a real country. Well, it has very much proved to be a real country, and it has defeated him in his evil ambitions for the past two years. Because this war is existential and because it is crucial for the defence of this country, we have a duty to be realistic. I do not expect Ministers to comment on this today, but we in this Chamber are all very much aware that there has been a sea change in American politics, and that the comments from people who will either be part of the future Administration, or are likely to be part of it, suggest that the United States’ support for Ukraine might not be what it has been. That brings me to the issue that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) mentioned, which is that we are running up against the clock. We have limited time. We have to be realistic: there is a new Administration coming in, so Europe has to pick up the slack and provide greater leadership. However, we are also seeing massive changes in Europe. On the day that President Trump was elected, the German Government began to fall apart, and in France, we are seeing a presidency stumble towards the end of its term. The United Kingdom is the country that has to provide the leadership in Europe on these matters, as it has done since the start of the war, but we need to go even further. The support that Ukraine gets at the moment is already subject to so many restrictions. It has been drip-fed to them over the past two years, rather than giving them what they need right away, which has potentially made the war longer. We have not given the Ukrainians the tools they have needed when they have asked for them. Ukrainians talk about the “long yes”, where European partners say “Yes, of course” and promise delivery of arms, but those arms take months or even years to arrive and make a difference on the battlefield. I wonder whether we would be in a different place if all the systems that have eventually been given to Ukraine had been given at the start of the war. This Bill is absolutely crucial, as various Members have said, and I support it. I think it is extremely important, but Members have also talked about going further with Russian assets. I can completely understand why, a year or 18 months ago, it might have been rational to think that those assets could be used during the peace negotiations—that they could potentially be the source of funding for rebuilding Ukraine. However, as Members have pointed out several times, there may not be a Ukraine if this war is not won. That is why we have to give serious consideration to unlocking those funds and using them now for the defence of Ukraine. The last time this country was fighting for its life, in 1940, there was also a presidential election. We were much luckier back then, because both the Democratic and Republican candidates were stalwart allies of the UK in its fight against fascism. This election has changed things, but going back to that time, when President Roosevelt announced lend-lease, he said that when your neighbour’s house is on fire, you do not haggle over the cost of the hose. You give them the hose—you give them what they need to put out the fire—and then you go back to the details later. That is the attitude European partners should have towards the defence of Ukraine. Earlier today, I mentioned that one of the Defence Ministers has said that the world is becoming darker every day. If this war is not won, the world will be plunged into darkness, because it will send an incredibly dangerous message to other autocracies around the world about the rules-based order and “might is right”, and the refugee crisis that we see here in Europe at the moment will pale into insignificance as millions of Ukrainians flee the prospect of living under Vladimir Putin’s tyranny. As such, I welcome this Bill, but like many colleagues, I hope to see Britain’s leadership continue to grow and for us to go further, seizing Russian assets and giving the Ukrainian people what they need.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ryan Cornelius: Detention in UAE · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He has also been vocal in his support for British citizens who have been arbitrarily detained, and on wider human rights issues. I commend him for his work on that agenda. The FCDO point about the toolkit is really important. The difficult question that we have to ask ourselves is: how have we reached the situation where one of our citizens is languishing in the jail of a friendly country—a close ally—with all the potential damage to UK-UAE relations that that does? I have huge admiration for the work of the FCDO and its staff, and I know from colleagues and friends around the globe how much its work is appreciated and respected on the world stage. We have many fine diplomats and public servants, but I have to say in all candour that it has been failing for many years in its handling of state hostage taking and arbitrary detention of British nationals abroad, Ryan Cornelius included. In the last Parliament, the Foreign Affairs Committee published a significant report with a number of recommendations, not all of which were taken up. It criticised the FCDO for its “unnecessarily defensive culture” in this area, which “impedes scrutiny”, harms victims and their families and undermines public trust. The report found that previous Governments of all stripes had failed to learn the lessons from responding to such situations, and had been slow or unwilling to call out guilty countries. Our Atlantic allies, the United States and Canada, have learned those lessons, and created official roles to co-ordinate the response to state hostage taking and arbitrary detention in order to get their people home, which is, of course, a priority for all of us. Indeed, the creation of such a role was one of the Committee’s recommendations to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary. This time last year, when the Foreign Secretary was the shadow Foreign Secretary, he committed a Labour Government to creating a special envoy for arbitrary detention and state hostage taking. I warmly welcome the Minister of State to her role—I think I can still call her a new Minister a few months into the new Government —and I know that she takes these matters seriously. I ask her to reflect back to her colleagues and the Secretary of State that we should stick to that commitment. Let us follow in the footsteps of Canada and the United States, and let us not be advised out of that promise by officials. As I conclude, I return to the heart of the debate with one simple request to His Highness Sheikh Mohammed. As a gesture of friendship, for the continued prosperity of our countries and for our mutual security, I hope that he will grant clemency to Ryan Cornelius. The UAE’s national day, Eid al Etihad, is only around the corner on 2 December. I hope that on that day of great celebration, the Dubai Government will find the good will to extend a pardon to Ryan and allow him to return home to the United Kingdom and his family.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ryan Cornelius: Detention in UAE · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on a matter of great importance, namely the arbitrary detention of a British citizen by a close ally and friend of the United Kingdom. This case is deliberately being raised as we approach the national day of the United Arab Emirates, 2 December, in the earnest hope that the authorities in Dubai will consider granting clemency and pardoning Ryan Cornelius as a gesture of friendship towards our country, building on our important alliance. As Members will know, this is not the first time that Ryan’s case has been raised. His name has featured in the press, and the matter has been scrutinised by the United Nations and raised by our Foreign Affairs Committee, and now by the new all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs, of which I am proud to be vice-chair. Before we start properly, I pay tribute to Ryan’s wife Heather, and her family, Chris, Diane, Gilly and Sam, who are in the Gallery. Before getting to the details of the case, I would like to reflect briefly on the important relationship between the UAE, particularly Dubai, and the United Kingdom. The relationship is built on a long history of friendship. Since its foundation in 1971, the United Arab Emirates, particularly Dubai, and the UK have been trusted friends. The country, and the emirate specifically, have been a source of stability, economic growth, and innovation in the region, and successive Governments in the UK have been a valued partner in its pursuits. Trade between our two countries covers a variety of areas, including energy, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, defence and aerospace. In an era of global insecurity, the UK and UAE have a long-standing strategic defence partnership to preserve peace and stability in the Arabian gulf. The UAE is the UK’s third-largest trading partner outside Europe, behind China and the United States. More than 5,000 British businesses operate in the Emirates, and around 240,000 British nationals live and work in the UAE. Total imports and exports between the UK and the UAE reached £24.2 billion in 2023. It is a valuable trading relationship. According to VisitBritain, in 2023 the UK welcomed 477,000 visitors from the Emirates. Going the other way, there are approximately 1.4 million visitors from the UK to the Emirates every year. Those statistics demonstrate the closeness of our nations on matters of tourism, business and defence. However, I am increasingly worried that the continued arbitrary detention of Ryan Cornelius will start sending the wrong message to tourists, expats and businesses, potentially threatening our valued and historic relationship. Before his detention in Dubai, Ryan had worked in the middle east since at least the 1980s, specialising in property and construction. At the turn of the millennium, with cheap credit, a booming market and plentiful opportunities, we all know that the Gulf began to attract many entrepreneurs, Ryan among them. He became an investing partner in three very large projects in Dubai, Bahrain and Pakistan. In the wake of the global financial crisis, Ryan’s lender, a German venture capital group, found itself unable to fund Ryan’s projects. Due to the dearth of alternative funding, he found himself drawn into restructuring negotiations between that group and their lender, the Dubai Islamic Bank. These negotiations resulted in a three-year repayment schedule, secured against Ryan’s businesses and personal assets. Repayments were made on schedule. The collateral provided by Ryan and his partners was considered more than enough to cover the borrowing from the DIB. Indeed, the Pakistan project that I mentioned—the Indus refinery—received two separate valuations in excess of $1 billion. In 2008, when Ryan was returning from a trip to Karachi to find a potential buyer for the refinery so that he could clear his outstanding debt—which, as I say, he was servicing on time—he was arrested while transiting through Dubai. He was detained and placed in solitary confinement for six weeks, and the Dubai Islamic Bank commenced seizure of his personal assets and businesses, eventually including his London home. In 2010, Ryan was put on trial for fraud. The case was initially dismissed for lack of evidence. Following a retrial, Ryan was charged with theft from a public body and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was ordered to repay the outstanding balance and handed a $500 million fine. In May 2018, he was issued with a 20-year extension to his imprisonment, meaning that he will not be eligible for release until May 2038, when he will be 84 years old.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ryan Cornelius: Detention in UAE · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point. I will return to the FCDO in a moment and perhaps address some of what he mentioned. As I said, Ryan was issued with a 20-year extension to his sentence in 2018. The law sanctioning such extensions was not brought in until after Ryan’s arrest. In April 2022, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention completed a detailed investigation that found that the UAE’s treatment of him contravened eight articles of the universal declaration of human rights, to which the UAE is a signatory. The group ruled that Ryan has been held in conditions amounting to “torture”, that he had not received a fair trial, and that his detention was “arbitrary”. It called for his immediate release. As things stand, he has not been released. He remains an arbitrarily detained British national in the United Arab Emirates—a country that is an ally.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you have to use every trick you can, don’t you? [ Laughter. ] In my constituency, many residents are worried about plans for flood alleviation works at Poynton pool, a much-loved beauty spot where local campaigners—the friends of Poynton pool—have raised real issues about the cost and the flawed nature of the underlying rationale. Will my right hon. Friend please make time to debate how we ensure that communities are properly listened to and that local authorities and the Environment Agency take local views on board?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State update the House on progress in creating three new national forests, and, as it is my birthday, may I extend to him an invitation to visit Macclesfield forest in my constituency?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents understand that tackling the climate crisis and getting lower bills go hand in hand, and they are excited about Great British Energy. Will GBE invest in community energy projects in places such as Macclesfield?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made the important point that the new Government inherited £167 billion-worth of projects, none of which were rated green by the National Audit Office. Does the Secretary of State agree that more money is one part of the equation, but spending it well is the other part?