Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Tim Roca Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who made some very powerful points about parallels with the Baltic states that I completely agree with. I think all Members in attendance are absolutely clear that if a state that invades its neighbour and holds territory by force gains political or territorial reward for that, it is not buying peace; it is simply queuing up the next war. Borders should not be changed at the barrel of a gun.

At the same time, it must be said plainly that it is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone to decide what compromises, if any, it is prepared to make. It is not for us, not for allies and not for foreign politicians sitting far away from the frontline. That is why I am deeply concerned by suggestions that Ukraine is being asked to give up Ukrainian-controlled territory in the Donbas as a precondition for peace or even as the price of future security guarantees.

Let us be honest about what that means. My hon. Friend made the point earlier. The frontline in the Donbas is among the most fortified places on earth. It was built at great cost and defended with extraordinary courage. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives defending it, and they did not do so lightly or on a whim. One must have solid grounds to do so, and it must come concurrently with solid security guarantees.

History warns us where this road leads. In 1938, Czechoslovakia was forced to hand over the Sudetenland, where most of its defences were, in the name of peace, and that peace lasted months. By 1939, the country was occupied and its independence was destroyed. Concessions do not bring security; they can sometimes invite catastrophe.

When we talk about security guarantees, let us not overlook the most real and effective guarantee Ukraine has right now: the brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces. They are the reason why Ukraine still exists as a sovereign state. Their courage, discipline and sacrifice are what stand between freedom and occupation, and any peace must allow those forces to be equipped and manned at a level that deters future attacks.

I worry that parts of the international community are not doing their bit. In my view, the United States Administration has been leaning far too heavily towards accommodating the Kremlin. They are talking tough but failing to use the enormous economic, military and political levers they have to apply real pressure. I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing to make sure that British sanctions and support have been robust for Ukraine.

I am very concerned by data showing that overall military aid to Ukraine actually fell last year, even though countries such as the US, France and Germany stepped up their support. At this stage of the war, any drop in assistance sends the wrong signal. We need to give the Ukrainians everything they need and avoid the drip, drip of capabilities and arms that we have seen since the war began.

Finally, we need to be honest about how Russia has used frozen conflicts to its advantage. Across the post-Soviet space, including Transnistria, Abkhazia and the Donbas, Moscow has deliberately kept territorial disputes unresolved as a way of holding its neighbours in limbo. Those conflicts are not accidents; they are tools used to maintain influence, block stability and make it harder for countries to choose their own future or their own alliances. We should not kid ourselves about what these frozen conflicts really are. They are not peaceful compromises; they are pressure points. They allow aggression to fester, and they show us that peace built by accommodating an aggressor does not resolve the case; it simply locks injustice in place.

If, to stop the bloodshed, we have to accept non-recognition of occupied territories but de facto control by Russia—a frozen conflict—that again is for Ukrainians alone to decide. We must support them in their decision, but ensure that in this country we do not recognise Russian claims for one minute. A just and lasting peace cannot be built on coercion or enforced surrender. It cannot be built by asking the victim to pay the price for the aggressor’s crimes. I stand with all my parliamentary colleagues today in standing firm for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, its right to choose its own future and a peace that is real and genuinely durable.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

To get the last two speakers in, will Members stick to roughly four minutes or just under?

British Indian Ocean Territory

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I feel I should put on record at the beginning that I am not the Government’s trade envoy to Mauritius—[Hon. Members: “Yet!”] Hansard can record a diplomatic silence at this point.

This debate ultimately turns on whether we understand the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be, much as some believe otherwise. We still live in an economically, militarily, politically and morally interconnected world, and that interconnectedness has not gone away. It has become more contested, more multipolar and certainly more strategic, but it has not ended. That matters, because this deal must be judged not on slogans or hyperbole but on whether it secures the United Kingdom’s security interests in that interconnected world.

One of the central lessons of recent years is that uncertainty invites challenge. We see that every day in the South China sea. China has asserted expansive territorial claims that many countries do not recognise and that the international courts and tribunals do not recognise. What happens in response? Other states deliberately sail ships and fly aircraft through those waters and airspace to contest those claims and to test resolve. Uncertainty becomes a pressure point and ambiguity becomes an opportunity for interference. If we allow ambiguity to persist over the Chagos islands, and in particular over Diego Garcia, the same dynamic could apply.

Our claims may be strong historically, but they are being increasingly contested in international courts. That does not make the base more secure; it makes it more vulnerable. It creates exactly the kind of grey zone in which hostile actors thrive, including an ever-expanding Chinese navy. This treaty removes that uncertainty. It closes off the space for challenge, rather than leaving it open.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The mistake the hon. Member makes is in buying into China’s narrative that there is a grey zone in the South China sea. There is no grey zone. China should not be there, but it could not care less. It goes there anyway. The idea that some agreement we make with Mauritius is going to stop China acting at a later date is complete nonsense, as China proves in the South China sea every day.

[Tim Roca]

I disagree with the hon. Member, because the two situations do have parallels. In the South China sea, people are challenging Chinese sovereignty, and it has been proved not to have standing in international courts. At the moment, ambiguity is starting to arrive in our position over the Chagos islands. This treaty would remove it and remove cause for the Chinese navy to take advantage.

Against this backdrop, I want to restate the tests that I set out in an earlier debate on this deal. Does the agreement protect our national security? Does it command the support of our allies and professional security community? Are the costs proportionate to the benefits? On each of these tests, the answer remains yes. Diego Garcia is a keystone of our joint security architecture in the Indo-Pacific. It is where UK and US forces operate together against terrorist threats. It is a logistics, communications and intelligence hub, and it is central to safeguarding the global trade routes on which our economy depends. Without a secure base, all of that is placed at risk.

Our Five Eyes allies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand support this deal, and our strategic partner India supports this deal. I want to address briefly the noise around President Trump’s social media posts, which the Minister dealt with very well earlier. Social media is not statecraft. What matters is the settled position of the United States, its military leadership and its security agencies. On that, there has been clarity for some time. The Pentagon, the State Department and successive US Defence Secretaries—Republican and Democrat—have supported this agreement.

As I said at the beginning, interconnectedness is incredibly important and we cannot ignore the fact that international opinion matters. Yes, the world has changed. Power today is exercised through force—hard power has become incredibly important—but it is also still exercised through legitimacy, alliances and rules. If we expect others to respect international rules where it suits us, whether in Ukraine or the South China sea, we cannot be seen to apply them selectively elsewhere, except in the supreme national interest.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman; he is courteous and thoughtful, and I always listen to what he says with great focus and attention. He is criticising the dangers of ambiguity, and I agree with that point. Does he accept, however, that we have not cleared up the ambiguity about whether nuclear weapons could ever be on Diego Garcia if the Americans and the British wanted them to be? It is no good saying, as the Minister did, “We never talk about deployments of nuclear weapons.” We are not asking about deployments of nuclear weapons. We are asking about the legal position if the case was that the Americans or the British wanted to have nuclear weapons, temporarily or permanently, on Diego Garcia. If we transfer sovereignty to a country that is signed up to be part of a nuclear-free zone, that is bound to call into doubt the ability to have nuclear weapons there in the future. Can he clear up that point?

[Tim Roca]

I cannot clear up that point for the right hon. Member, but I have great confidence that ministerial colleagues would be able to. We have been told at all points that this treaty would ensure the continued effectiveness of the base in the way that it is run now. There was an Ohio class submarine there in 2022, and I hope those arrangements continue under this treaty. From what I have heard from Ministers, there is no reason that they would not.

Let us turn to the costs of the deal. It will cost a fraction of the defence budget for an irreplaceable asset—

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Could the hon. Member clarify precisely how much of the cost of the Chagos islands deal will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

[Tim Roca]

I am sure that has been set out already in several debates. The point that has not been set out adequately and cannot be set out in huge detail is that, in exchange for providing the United States with facilities on Diego Garcia, the in-kind support in terms of intelligence and other matters that we receive from the United States must run into the billions every single year. Although we cannot put a figure on that, it is a really important element in this debate.

There is no prosperity without security, and there is no security without certainty. In an interconnected world, those are not abstract principles; they are strategic necessities. That is why, in my view, this is a sensible, hard-headed deal, and a confident assertion of the United Kingdom’s national interest.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that Labour Members are prepared to defend the deal, while admitting that they do not even know if our accusations are correct. They could say that they do not agree with what we are proposing, but to admit that they do not know whether nuclear weapons will be allowed on the island and that they are happy to support the deal anyway is disgraceful.

We must address the wider consequences of this decision. If Labour is willing to abandon the Chagos islands so easily, what message does that send to our other overseas territories? The International Court of Justice may have issued an advisory opinion in 2019—[Interruption.] What I say is true; the world is watching. We have had pressure put on us in relation to a sovereign territory and we have collapsed, but Labour Members want us to think that the rest of the world will not interpret our standing from that.

[Tim Roca]

We have heard from chief Ministers and leaders of the other British overseas territories how disappointed they have been in the rhetoric used by the Conservatives in trying to drag them into the situation. There is no question about our commitment to the British overseas territories. This deal is a completely separate matter.

[Dr Mullan]

The people who we should be worried about are not the people in charge of the British overseas territories—we should be worried about the people who are watching what we do and making decisions about how they will act, as we saw with previous attempts to take control of those territories. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Argentina will observe this situation and not draw a lesson from it? Of course it will.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Tim Roca Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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? 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. 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.

The inconsistency is particularly evident in cases involving UK strategic partners or trade allies, and in relation to conflict-related sexual violence, despite the UK's preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. There is also a clear failure to use the regime robustly in response to British nationals arbitrarily detained abroad, such as Ryan Conelius.

Beyond designation decisions, weak enforcement is further undermining the regime. To date, no fines have been imposed for breaches of Magnitsky sanctions. Reports indicate widespread evasion involving professional enablers, opaque corporate structures and overseas territories, as has been capably pointed out. In addition, there is no obligation for the Government to report to Parliament on the use of these sanctions. I believe that should change.

The UK lacks a strategy for managing frozen assets and ensuring that sanctions contribute to justice for victims and survivors. Funds can remain untouched for years, losing value while survivors receive no reparations. I think here particularly of the family of Ryan Cornelius; his wife Heather is effectively homeless as a result of the circumstances she faces. At present, all the proceeds flow back to the Treasury rather than to those harmed by the underlying violations. Let us use these sanctions ambitiously, consistently and appropriately in combination with other mechanisms if they are effective in upholding human rights, tackling illicit finance and preventing this country from becoming a haven for war criminals and kleptocrats.

Sergei Magnitsky showed us what courage looks like when the law collapses. Ryan Cornelius reminds us what happens when we hesitate to act. Sanctions are not about vengeance; they are about drawing a line and saying that no official, no banker and no judge is beyond accountability when they participate in grave injustice. If we honour Sergei’s legacy, we must be prepared to act with the same clarity he showed even when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, especially when one of our own is still paying the price.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Roca Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out some of the steps we have taken already. I met Mr el-Fattah in Cairo last month, and am in regular contact with his family. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this case is right at the top of my priority list, as well as that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty advocacy for Mr Cornelius and a range of other consular cases overseas. He will know that the former Foreign Secretary has raised this case with the UAE and met the families on 4 September, and we will continue to provide them with support. I have seen these families myself, and I am sure that we will continue to do so at times that they find useful.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for the generally constructive way in which he and his colleagues have approached the process. He is absolutely right to speak about the Chagossians. Indeed, as I have pointed out many times, the Chagossians’ interest in this matter has been at the heart of our discussions. We have the trust fund; we have the agreement to start visits again. Of course, Mauritius will be able to restart a programme of resettlement. He has heard the remarks made by my noble Friends in the other place, in response to the questions that his honourable colleagues raised. We have been very clear about what we will do in that regard, and I hold to that here today.

I have to challenge the suggestion that the treaty has not received scrutiny. It is receiving scrutiny right now. It has been receiving scrutiny in the Foreign Affairs Committee, it has received scrutiny in the other place, and it has received scrutiny through parliamentary questions. It is receiving scrutiny and it is absolutely right that it does.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. Since the treaty was laid, I have had 50 written questions from the right hon. Lady. In comparison, I have had four on Gibraltar, two on Ukraine, and one on Poland. He is right that this matter has received scrutiny.

Political Prisoners

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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.

[James Naish]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The number of organisations involved was referenced earlier; in the case of Jimmy Lai, different countries and Congress have also lined up in support. What are my hon Friend’s reflections on the fact that even the support of all those organisations is still not making a difference?

[Tim Roca]

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.

Gavi and the Global Fund

Tim Roca Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing the debate. I want to speak in strong support of continued investment in these organisations, but particularly the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. As my hon. Friend said, it is one of the most impactful partnerships in global health history.

Since its founding in 2002, the Global Fund has saved more than 50 million lives. That is 50 million mothers, fathers and children who are alive today because of international collaboration, targeted investment and shared resolve. The death rate from AIDS, TB and malaria has been halved in the countries where the fund operates. That is a success that we should all be proud of. In an era when, as colleagues have mentioned, global co-operation seems to be going out of fashion, that is a living, breathing example of it working.

The UK has played a major role in that success but, as hon. Members have said, with the next replenishment fast approaching, we must reaffirm our commitment. The needs remain urgent and the case for investment remains overwhelmingly strong. I am proud that the fund has been a cross-party endeavour, but I want to acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central did, the crucial role that Labour has played in establishing and supporting it. Under Tony Blair, the UK helped to found the fund in 2002, recognising that tackling the world’s deadliest diseases required global leadership. Under Gordon Brown’s leadership, both as Chancellor and, later, as Prime Minister, the UK strengthened its support, with a focus on long-term funding and international co-operation. That legacy of action, compassion and multilateralism is one we will all want to uphold.

Like colleagues, I want to speak about my constituency’s role in this issue. I am proud to represent Macclesfield, which people will know is a thriving town, with a brilliant grassroots arts and culture scene, nestled on the edge of the Peak district. But it is also a key centre for UK life sciences, with AstraZeneca, the major employer in the town, playing a vital role in the production and distribution of life-saving medicines. However, AstraZeneca’s contribution goes beyond local jobs, and it has supported the wider global health agenda, particularly through working on the covid vaccine and other initiatives to improve treatments in low and middle-income countries. We know that our life sciences sector across the country, anchored by companies such as AstraZeneca, benefits from the innovation, data sharing and global networks that initiatives such as the Global Fund foster. This is what is called win-win.

Let us not forget that the diseases we are talking about have not gone away. As has been pointed out, TB is one of the world’s deadliest infectious diseases. Malaria continues to kill a child nearly every minute. Although AIDS is more manageable, it still devastates millions of families. Our support is therefore as important as ever. I urge all Members, and especially the Government, to continue to recognise the fund’s enormous value. From the laboratories of Macclesfield to the clinics of Malawi, let’s continue to make a difference.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Apologies, but I will have to reduce the time limit to two minutes.

Ukraine

Tim Roca Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

In the end, the United States is leader of the free world. President Trump had an election in which 77 million people voted for him and he holds both Houses on the Hill, and as we would expect, he is of course buoyed up—as, indeed, was my party—by such a democratic mandate. We will have conversations with him over the coming days on a range of issues. Friends agree and can sometimes disagree, but I think it is definitely the case that we support his desire for bringing this horrendous war to an end. We will now play our part in Europe to ensure that we raise defence spending and that Europe steps up to the necessary burden sharing. President Trump’s analysis of the huge problems in the Indo-Pacific are correct, and we must recognise that successive US Presidents have been clear about their responsibilities in relation to the Indo-Pacific.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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?

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

When we are looking to protect the national security of this country, we will operate at the fastest and most appropriate pace that we can. This matter had been left languishing under the previous Administration, with the future of the base unsecure. We have secured it.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am a little bit concerned, as I granted the urgent question. I have taken a judgment call; I hope we are not questioning that.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Tim Roca Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I remain hugely concerned about the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it must always rightfully be a matter for the International Criminal Court and others to make a determination of “genocide”, not for national government.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Following his recent visit to China, the Foreign Secretary also met with our partners in South Korea. Does he share my concern about reports of North Korean troops taking part in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and did he raise that?

[Mr Lammy]

I went up to the demilitarised zone to see for myself some of the harassment that South Korea receives on a daily basis from North Korea, and of course I raised the issue in China and with the South Korean President himself. There is huge concern about this development, which is escalatory in nature and must command a response in the coming days.