Official portrait of Tim Roca
UK Parliament, CC BY 3.0

Tim Roca

Labour Party MP for Macclesfield since (elected). An MP continuously since .

Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions

Entries on this tracker

180

Each filed under the party they sat for that day

Register entries

4

As currently published

Declared while sitting for Labour

£552

1 of 4 entries state an amount

Party affiliation

PartyOfficeAreaPeriodBeganEndedSource
LabourMPMacclesfield – presentelected—Party history

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).

Register of interests

Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.

Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.

DateCategoryEntryDeclared valueSitting forSource
4. Visits outside the UKInternational visit to Poland between 02 November 2025 and 04 November 2025European Jewish Association£552LabourRegister record
8. MiscellaneousPresident, Silk Museum Macclesfield (Silk Heritage Trust)—LabourRegister record
date registered8. MiscellaneousPatron of APARU - Association of Argentine Professionals in the United Kingdom. This is an unpaid role.—LabourRegister record
date registered8. MiscellaneousCouncillor, City of Westminster. This is an unpaid role.—LabourRegister record

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 180

  1. ParliamentTim Roca

    Budget Resolutions

    Although the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is no longer in his place, I start by thanking him and colleagues in the Department for the work they are doing with me and other local MPs in securing the <span id="774" class="column-number" data-column-number="774"></span>long-term future of Jodrell Bank. I am proud that it is in my constituency and I am grateful for the work that he is doing. Like many colleagues, I welcome the Budget. Businesses need certainty and stability in order to invest, and I welcome the prudent and targeted decisions, particularly around the cost of living, which other hon. Members have touched on. Absorbing some costs in a moderate reduction in the fiscal headroom, as set out by the Chancellor, is sensible and creates the stability that helps to maintain, rather than undermine, business confidence. In recent months, Britain has proved extraordinarily resilient to the shocks caused by the conflict in the middle east—a war that, as other colleagues have pointed out, was recklessly supported by Conservative and Reform Members. Despite oil prices remaining above $100 a barrel, growth has been better than expected in Britain. Because of the stability from this Government and the measures provided in this Budget and in previous Budgets, there is now renewed hope for the future. That hope should be cause for optimism and provide a check on the constant doom and gloom that we often hear—a reminder that official forecasts are not destiny, but a target to beat. In the past year we have gone from the Leader of the Opposition saying we might need an IMF bailout, to the IMF saying that we have the best deficit reduction plan in the G7. In the past two years, we have consistently performed better than the forecasts. In March 2025, the OBR forecast 1% growth, but we grew 1.4%. In April this year, the IMF forecast 0.8% growth, but we hit 1.2% in the first half of the year alone. Even after upgrading its original forecast, it was still behind the curve. Forecasts are not destiny—optimism is warranted. Opposition parties sometimes seem almost to want Britain to need a bail-out—to will debt to rise, growth to slow or inflation to be higher—for their own narrow partisan self-interest, and to paint the worst possible picture. But we should be talking Britain up, not down. This is a great country to live, do business and invest in. I say clearly to hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, believe in Britain or Britain will not believe in you. I welcome the pro-growth, pro-industrialisation policies in this Budget, particularly the plans to devolve power and funding so that Macclesfield, and every town, can invest in the things that matter to it—the plans to devolve business rates and empower local communities to benefit from the growth that they work hard to generate, and the devolution of income tax powers to follow in 2028. In Cheshire, we are very excited we are getting our first mayor in May. As Labour MPs in Cheshire, we have campaigned hard to get to this point. We want to replicate in our own area the tremendous journey that Manchester, Liverpool and other cities have had, so that we can unlock our potential. Fiscal devolution is an opportunity and a challenge: an opportunity to write our own destiny, and a challenge to say that if we invest in ourselves, back good growth projects and support innovation, industry and productivity, we can make ourselves richer without being reliant on Whitehall or the outside world. It is an opportunity that we in Cheshire and Macclesfield will seize with both hands. Breaking the link between Whitehall handouts and <span id="775" class="column-number" data-column-number="775"></span>investment in Cheshire is a huge step towards our having more control over our future, and I support this Budget wholeheartedly.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentTim Roca

  3. ParliamentTim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    Madam Deputy Speaker, “We do not only ask today, ‘How much have you got?’, we also ask, ‘How did you get it? Did you earn it yourself, or has it just been left to you by others?’”. The estate duties provide a “corrective against the development” of the “idle rich”. And, “It is a far better thing to tax the accumulation of the past than to burden the industry of the present.” Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of Winston Churchill, speaking 100 years ago. They raise a question that remains relevant today: do we want a country that gives people a fair chance to get on in life or one that keeps finding new ways to protect the wealth of those who already have the most? This motion tells us exactly where the Conservative party’s priorities lie. It calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish inheritance tax, but it does not tell us which services they would cut, whose support they would withdraw or which communities would pay the price. It simply says “cut public spending.” That is easy enough to demand when one does not have to explain what it means for people’s lives. The Conservatives are asking us to approve billions of pounds in tax cuts without telling us how they would pay for them. That is not a serious plan; it is a tax giveaway looking for someone else to pick up the bill. They say that the proposals would cost around £6 billion by 2029-30, but as we have already heard from other hon. Members, once we take behavioural effects into account, the cost could be up to £10.8 billion.<span id="451" class="column-number" data-column-number="451"></span> Who would benefit? Around 30,000 estates are expected to benefit. Estimates suggest that around 90% of the gains would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households, with around 40% going to the wealthiest 5%. Around 70% of the benefits would go to London and the south-east, despite those areas accounting for only a quarter of pensioner households. Meanwhile, under the current system, fewer than one in 20 estates face an inheritance tax charge—a figure that has remained relatively stable for several decades now. Let us stop pretending that this is a tax cut for everyone; it is a substantial giveaway that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest households to the tune of £10.8 billion. Nobody disputes that family farms matter, and families should be able to pass on and plan for the future of those farms and businesses. But wrapping a policy in the language of family farms does not mean that we should stop asking who benefits, and this proposal goes much further than targeted help—it is a wider tax break for the very wealthiest in society. There are questions about how it would work in practice. Conservatives say that they want to help people to pass on their homes, but what happens if those tax changes give older people a reason to stay in a larger property rather than downsize? Someone might want to sell a large home, move somewhere smaller and release money to support their retirement or help their family, but if inheritance tax treatment makes moving financially unattractive, their policy could discourage exactly the behaviour that they say they want to encourage.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentTim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    The Conservatives point to stamp duty as a barrier and promise to scrap it on a home, but removing one cost does not automatically resolve every other tax consequence, and we know that changes in tax policy are very behaviour sensitive. This is what happens when a party writes a policy to win a headline for a conference. It brings me back to Churchill. More than a century ago, he challenged the idea that inherited wealth should be waved through simply because it happened to belong to the right family. He asked the straightforward question that I quoted at the beginning: did you earn your wealth, or was it left to you? As my hon. Friends have said, people want to leave something to their children. There is nothing wrong with that. But why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy pass on even more while telling everyone else that public spending should be cut?

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentTim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    If the hon. Lady wants to have an argument with Churchill, she may do so, but I will not join her. I believe he was a great man. Why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy? Why should families inheriting millions take priority over families struggling with bills? That is the choice at the heart of this motion: invest in services and support people who rely on them or hand a huge tax break to a small minority and leave everyone else to bear the cost. The Conservatives’ record makes their claims of fiscal responsibility even harder to take seriously. Between 2010 and 2019 the national debt increased from £1 trillion to £1.8 trillion. That was before covid and the war in Ukraine. Debt to GDP increased from 69% to 84%. As Members have pointed out, we then got treated to the Liz Truss magic of a disastrous experiment in unfunded tax cuts that sent markets into turmoil and damaged confidence in the UK. Then before the 2024 election we had many other promises of tax cuts worth billions that did not have any credible funding plans set behind them. Here they are again with another enormous tax giveaway but unable to tell us precisely which public services would pay the price. They have not learned the lessons of their failure; they just found new ways to replicate them. The public finances are not a bottomless pit that politicians can dip into whenever they fancy announcing a tax cut. Every promise has to be funded properly, because it has consequences for real people. The Conservatives spent years telling people that there was no alternative to difficult decisions, yet when it comes to their own priorities, they make the promise and leave somebody else to deal with the bill. That is not fiscal responsibility; it is fiscal incontinence. Their priorities are clear when we look at the two-child limit. The Conservatives indicated that they would reinstate a policy that would push 500,000 children back into poverty. At the same time, they want to direct a substantial tax benefit towards a tiny number of wealthy estates. The contrast is clear: they tell families on low incomes that the country cannot afford to help them, but they propose billions in tax cuts for the very wealthy. That is a choice, and it tells us who they put first in our society.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentTim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    As they say in “Father Ted”, that is an ecumenical matter. I am sure that the Minister will pick it up in his wind-up. Labour Members have done a great job of outlining the fantastic measures that the Government are taking, including measures on VAT and electricity bills, capping bus fares and 24-hour bus travel for disabled people from next April, so I will not touch on those. I will finish on what has—I hope—been the main theme of my speech. Today is all about one thing: tax cuts for the wealthiest, cuts to public services for everyone else. It is the same old Conservatives. They have not changed at all.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentTim Roca

  8. ParliamentTim Roca

  9. ParliamentTim Roca

    Inheritance Tax

    I was quoting Churchill, in particular from a lecture given by Professor Daunton at Gresham College in 2021, when he directly quoted Churchill when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer as a Conservative.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentTim Roca

    Ukraine and Russia

    I welcome the Defence Secretary to his place, his absolute commitment to our national security, and the mature tone of his statement, in which he talked about working cross-party on what is in our national interest. We have seen the critical importance of integrated missile and air defence, as evidenced by the war in Ukraine, and the need for low-cost options that tackle everything from cheap Shahed-style drones through to ballistic missiles. We have also seen that we need not only the asset, but the ability to replenish stocks rapidly. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T systems, but the UK lacks a ground-based missile interceptor. What progress have the Government made on procuring the right range of air defences for our national defence, and on building our industrial capacity?

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Macclesfield

Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 9,120. 52,792 votes cast from an electorate of 76,416. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.

CandidatePartyVotesShare
Tim RocaLabour24,67246.7%
David RutleyConservative15,55229.5%
Steve BroadhurstReform UK6,59212.5%
Amanda IremongerGreen Party2,4934.7%
Neil ChristianLiberal Democrat2,4824.7%
Christopher WellavizeIndependent7791.5%
Dickie FletcherSocial Democratic Party2220.4%

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Seats held

SeatDates
MacclesfieldElected 1 time – present

Committee memberships

CommitteeDates
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill – present
Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill –
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee –
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill –
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Programming sub committee –

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Parliamentary office

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

[email protected]

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site

Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .