Ukraine

Ian Roome Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I very much welcome the debate, although it did come as a bit of a surprise. I think one of the reasons why not many Members are in the Chamber is that they were not really prepared for it, the Prime Minister is not here and there is no proper motion. Out of 400 Labour MPs, fewer than 20 are in the Chamber, which I think projects an unfortunate message for a Government debate on Ukraine. I welcome it nevertheless, but I look forward to a proper debate on a proper motion to which everyone will have to turn up—there might even be whipping—to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, particularly about the deployment, which I will come to.

I will not repeat the speech I had the privilege of delivering in the debate granted to me by the Backbench Business Committee on 4 December. However, I will reiterate that Russia cannot win this war militarily; it will only win because of western weakness—our weakness and lack of resolve. If we support Ukraine, Russia cannot win. That is why its diplomatic efforts are so vigorous.

There is far more that we could do. In particular, we could rearm our own armed forces much more quickly. I get smiles from Government Front Benchers when I say that, because they agree with me, but the Government are not delivering the scale of defence spending increases that we need.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Briefly, because I want to be as swift as possible.

[Ian Roome]

Just today it has been reported that 18 tankers from the Russian shadow fleet have passed through the channel since the Defence Secretary’s statement to the House on 7 January on curtailing Russian oil exports. Does the hon. Member agree that we must show the Russians that we mean what we say?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I completely agree. There should be a NATO operation to intercept every ship that comes into NATO’s operational area in the north Atlantic and the North sea around the north of Scotland. We could choke off a significant amount of this, but we are not doing so; we are letting it carry on. Getting all of Europe’s NATO powers in line with that is a problem, but let us do it. Together, the NATO nations in Europe could show Trump that we are prepared to deliver for European security, but we are not doing that at the moment.

It is essential for us to discuss the so-called coalition of the willing. We all know that there are already some armed forces personnel in Ukraine providing advice, logistics, training and intelligence, and supporting planning and headquarters—that sort of thing. There is probably more that we can learn from the Ukrainians about fighting the Russians than we can teach them. But is 7,500 troops in formed units—a brigade—supporting a combat battalion or two what we are talking about? I have grave doubts about that, including on the rules of engagement and how we would provide core security. Would we not just be presenting a lovely target for the Russians to attack? They might not attack it directly—it might be “accidental”—but it would blur areas and create all sorts of problems if we were so overt. I have my doubts, unless we have a force in there that can actually fight and defend itself against the Russians. How we would respond in such a situation, were Russia to escalate, is a very open question.

I have no desire to be an armchair critic of the Government’s policy, and this brings me to the main point that I want to make. It has become fashionable to believe that Parliament has a right to tell the Government when and when not to deploy troops, but there is no constitutional basis for this whatsoever. In fact, the Prime Minister assumes his office, takes the seals of office and takes the responsibility upon himself about when to direct the armed forces into harm’s way. There is no constitutional impediment to him doing that.

What we saw in the Syria debate—I commend the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) for his excellent speech—was a humiliating abdication of the Government’s responsibility. They knew that it was right to deploy armed force in Syria, but they then volunteered not to do so because of a finely balanced debate and vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stood there and said, “I get it.” This was really O-level politics and O-level statecraft. It was ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that it projected weakness when we knew that the Russians were supporting the Syrian Government in deploying chemical weapons and murdering their own people. It was also weak of Obama to say this was a red line and then fail to do anything about it. We projected weakness and we invited Putin to try again, and I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences.

The point is that the Government have the responsibility to make this judgment. They cannot pass this judgment on to 650 armchair generals jaw-jawing in the House of Commons when we do not have the intelligence or the assessments. We can express our views and we can hold the Government to account for the outcome of what they decide, but I put it to the Minister that in that debate on Syria we learned that a Prime Minister does not resign when he loses such a crucial vote. Part of that was to do with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. If he had made it a vote of confidence, would he have won it? If not, would there have been a general election? No, there would not have been. He might have had to resign, but there would not have been a general election. We were at a very artificial point.

I put it to the Minister that if the Prime Minister were to bring a vote to the House of Commons this time and lose it, he would either have to resign and hand over to somebody else or call a general election, because we no longer have a fixed-term Parliament. We are back to real accountability, and the accountability that counts is at the ballot box, in the final analysis. The one power the Prime Minister has is to call a general election and ask the King to dissolve Parliament. If he had lost such a vote, that would be the only honourable thing for him to do. He cannot come here and engage in the kind of abject, humiliating abdication of responsibility that we saw before.

On the other experience, the Government of the day won the Iraq vote, and I happen still to think that was right. We have a democracy of sorts in Iraq, and Iraq is no longer a Russian puppet, but who in this House still believes that was the right decision? The polls went in favour of the Iraq war at the last minute, and maybe that helped Tony Blair get the vote over the line. Was that a good basis for making a decision? No, it was not. Either the Government make such a decision for themselves and hold themselves accountable to this House, or the Prime Minister should not accept the seals of office and become Prime Minister, because that is the job.

Parkinson’s Disease

Ian Roome Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies]

I agree. I will refer later to ICBs, which clearly have to ensure the full, necessary support, particularly for this community. I understand the pressures they are under—we all do—but taking away support from people is a much bigger issue than people not getting support in the first place. I am sure that all of us across the House would like to work on that issue.

This plan is rooted in lived experience and offers a practical road map for change, including renewed investment—I say that to give some context; otherwise we will lose track of where we are. In April, during World Parkinson’s Day, I attended the Big Sing for Parkinson’s. That uplifting event was quite amazing and inspiring; it was full of energy, music and community spirit. It was organised by the same “Movers and Shakers” group I referred to earlier, and brought together people living with Parkinson’s, and very importantly their families, in both London and Huddersfield.

I had the pleasure of speaking to Mark Mardell, the former BBC political journalist and the lead petitioner—he is sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, and I thank him very much for the petition and for the work he is doing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He shared his personal journey with me and emphasised the urgent need for reform. Like the charter, the Big Sing is a celebration of resilience and a call for action.

Since July 2024, the Government have taken the following steps. The autumn Budget last year included a £600 million increase in social care funding and an £86 million boost to the disabled facilities grant. In April 2025, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to improving outcomes for neurological conditions, through initiatives such as the RightCare toolkit, the Getting It Right First Time programme and the neurology transformation programme. Spending review 2025 also pledged £29 billion in additional NHS funding by 2029, including £10 billion for technology and GP training. This is just the start in addressing the needs of those living with Parkinson’s.

An estimated 253 people with Parkinson’s live in my constituency of Colne Valley. That is as per the previous constituency boundaries, but there will be revised figures in line with the new constituency boundaries, although they are hopefully not revised upwards. West Yorkshire NHS ICB plans and delivers care for people with Parkinson’s in the ICB area. In 2023-24, the spend on admissions to hospital in that area increased by 4.9%, and the cost of each admission was just over £6,000.

However, we face extremely serious challenges. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. Neurology services meet the 18-week referral target only about half the time. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, only 62% have access to a physiotherapist and just 40% have access to a speech and language therapist. Those professionals are essential; they are not optional. The Government are addressing that issue through the broader NHS workforce strategy, which includes expanding the number of training places and reforming medical education pathways to address shortages in specialist areas such as neurology.

However, the Parky charter also highlights the importance of timely medication. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time is not a convenience; it is an absolute necessity. Yet more than half of hospitalised patients report delays. The NHS’s medicines safety improvement programme, which runs from 2024 to 2027, is a step forward, but implementation must be consistent across all trusts.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Lewell. Earlier today, I was at the Parkinson’s event in the Palace, and I spoke to a surgeon who treats Parkinson’s patients every week. He told me that if more people were seen earlier, he could ensure better outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that this battle is partly about funding that is needed now, rather than later down the line?

[Paul Davies]

Once again, I absolutely agree. I will certainly refer later to funding, which is a key issue. This is about resources and about making sure that that help is there as quickly as possible. Obviously, the longer it takes to provide that support, the more this disease hits people—the impact is far greater.

The Parky charter also addresses the personal independence payment system. As we know and as was said earlier, Parkinson’s is a fluctuating condition, and assessments often fail to capture its complexity. The Government are now working with Parkinson’s UK and individuals with lived experience to reform the PIP assessment, aiming to make it much more reflective of fluctuating conditions. The review is expected to report in autumn 2026, and the Minister has pledged that the voices of the Parkinson’s community will be central to the process. The Government have expressed a desire to return to routine face-to-face assessments, but have also indicated that for those with very severe conditions, full assessments may be waived if sufficient medical evidence is provided.

Sudan: Government Support

Ian Roome Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew]

I heartily agree with the hon. Member.

Humanitarian workers are also under threat, and I commend the work being done as we speak by groups like Doctors without Borders—MSF—and the International Committee of the Red Cross. MSF has been treating hundreds fleeing El Fasher over the last week, including men, women and children suffering from severe malnutrition, gunshot wounds and other injuries linked to beatings and torture. As a former aid worker who has lived and worked in Sudan, although many years ago, I want to express my deep sadness over the killing of five Sudanese Red Crescent Society volunteers in Bara, North Kordofan. Humanitarian workers are often the first and sometimes only responders for people in desperate situations around the world, and they selflessly give their time and skills, as well as their courage and compassion. My heart goes out to their families.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that part of the great tragedy of Sudan has been the way it is unfairly overshadowed by conflicts happening elsewhere in the world, and we should be less squeamish about pointing that out to the public here in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world?

[Brian Mathew]

I totally agree; we need to be far more outspoken on this issue.

Korean War: 75th Commemoration

Ian Roome Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the tens of thousands of British veterans who served in the Korean war, and who ensured the survival of a free and democratic South Korea.

Many veterans of Korea are now in their 90s, and so, just as the second world war is passing from living memory, we should remember that the Korean war is about to do the same. With just under 1,100 British casualties, many war memorials across the country include a small number of names from Korea, which adds to the idea of what is often unfairly called the forgotten war. In my constituency, the war memorial in the small coastal village of Mortehoe bears only a single name from Korea—that of Mr W. J. Yeo—added to one side of the stone, almost like an afterthought. Forgetting Mr Yeo, however, and many like him, would be a disservice to the remarkable achievement of all those veterans who served, many of whom were doing national service at the time.

Earlier this year, the South Korean ambassador to the UK again praised the bravery of British troops, who not only risked their lives but defended a distant land and the freedom of a people they had never met. Today, South Korea is not only a democratic society, but a resolute British ally in the far east, and a global economic success story. In July 1950, that future hung in the balance. Communist forces controlled nearly all the Korean peninsula, and only a determined counter-offensive by the US, Britain and our allies secured a future for South Korea as an independent nation.

The lesson is so clear, because north of the demilitarised zone, we can now see an alternative version of history that might have played out. North Korea remains a deeply repressive dictatorship and an economically backward rogue state. Amnesty International describes its militaristic regime as

“violating every conceivable human right.”

It allows torture and starvation. It does not allow

“any organised political opposition, independent media, free trade unions, civil society organisations, or religious freedom.”

The north continues to align with Russia and Iran, violating international sanctions and heightening nuclear tensions. It threatens democratic neighbours such as South Korea and Japan, and even provides military aid to Russia’s war against Ukraine. As we reach this anniversary, that stark contrast between north and south should strengthen the UK’s resolve.

Many Members will have seen those astonishing satellite photographs of the Korean peninsula, which show the bright lights of South Korea and near-total darkness across the north. It is in no small part thanks to courageous British efforts that the lights did not go out entirely, and 75 years on, we must never forget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Roome Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

1. If he will have discussions with his European counterparts on a potential youth mobility agreement.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

The Foreign Secretary cannot be at today’s Question Time because he is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa with His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) is also travelling, in Vietnam.

We will not give a running commentary on our discussions with the European Union. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and others have already made a clear statement on the matter. We will continue to look at EU proposals on a range of issues, but we will not return to freedom of movement. However, we are committed to finding constructive ways of working together and delivering for the British people.

[Ian Roome]

Does the Minister agree that if Iceland and Monaco can be approved countries under the reciprocal UK mobility scheme, our closest neighbours, such as Ireland and France, should be too? Many schools in my constituency would like a youth mobility agreement because it would be beneficial to our youth.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was in Iceland the other day. Iceland is, of course, a member of the European economic area and we are not, and we do not seek to rejoin the single market, the customs union or the EU, or to return to freedom of movement. However, the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission met in Brussels on 2 October and agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK and put it on a more solid and stable footing. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 14 October. Both those meetings mark a significant moment in our reset with Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Roome Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anneliese Dodds)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, which we have discussed previously in this Question Time. We are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza; we have reflected that in our policy response, but also in our humanitarian response. For example, in the statement that the Foreign Secretary made on his visit to the region, he committed £5.5 million to UK-Med, which is providing a field hospital on the ground that is desperately needed. We have also ensured that there will be continued provision of the items of medicine, food and nutrition that are required; we will play our part in that.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

T4. The united support for Ukraine is not shared in the United States; there have been worrying comments by the Republican vice-presidential candidate. The Foreign Secretary knows Mr Vance. What assurances has he had from him regarding financial and military support for Ukraine should Trump win?

[Mr Lammy]

The US has committed over £135 billion in support for Ukraine, including the supplemental $61 billion, and we thank it for that. I was very pleased to meet with J. D. Vance at the Munich conference and subsequently in Washington DC, and I continue to have good conversations with him about these very important issues.