Roz Savage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for introducing this important debate—I have to say, it feels like the nth debate that we have had on this issue. I am getting a very strong sense of déjà vu from standing here and in the Chamber and speaking about water. Sadly, I suspect I will stand here and speak on this subject many more times over the coming years. I know the Minister is passionate about this subject. There are some aspects of the White Paper that I welcome, but I feel that it does not go far enough. I will come on to specifics in a moment, but right now I want to share a mental image. In my constituency, at least 16 sewage outflows are spewing sewage into our rivers—just picture that. With the current stuck weather system and more rain expected, that is set to continue. I find that really distressing and I am sure that everybody here does too. The central problem is that the water system is now built around profit. The privatised model has failed. That is a serious market failure, and it needs to be remedied. I am not here to defend Margaret Thatcher’s vision—far from it—which was that we would go from being a nation of shopkeepers to a country of shareholders. The somewhat foreseeable consequence of that was that people—individuals and private share owners—would sell their shares, and so we have ended up with big institutions owning our water companies and exploiting them as vehicles purely for profit. That profit motive does not sit well with a vital public utility. I will point out four recurring failures in the Government’s approach, on this issue and possibly on others: they lack the courage to truly grasp the nettle on failing systems; they are overlooking nature-based solutions, despite strong evidence that they work; they are misunderstanding farming, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) referenced, and ignoring the dual role that farmers play as part of the problem and as a big part of the solution; and they are failing to unleash people power. Nature-based solutions are still being treated as an afterthought, despite evidence that constructed wetlands can remove 60% to 90% of nitrates and phosphates. Nature can be a great ally in this, and there is no downside to using nature-based solutions. The approach on agriculture is piecemeal and inadequate. Agriculture accounts for about 40% of water pollution in English rivers, but the proposed action is seriously underpowered. We need environmental land management funding to be better targeted at water outcomes, and we need to include farmers to unleash what they know about their land. To restore faith in the water industry we need transparency and accountability. We could unleash the power of citizen science to monitor water, as residents are the people most motivated to track water quality. Finally, I return to the fundamental issue of water company ownership. The Liberal Democrats are calling for Thames Water to be converted into a public benefit company, or possibly a mutual company owned by its customers. Changing ownership of Thames Water is the only way to solve this problem for the long term. I thank the Government for where they have gone, but I beg them to go so much further.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are many reasons people end up on universal credit and in family situations with more than two children. It is because of those blended families that Cotswold district council chose not to apply the two-child limit in its welfare support scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that such councils—which have, in these cash-strapped times, supported blended families with more than two children —should not end up out of pocket and should be compensated by the Government for that support?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The treaty does not yet go far enough on plastic pollution, and I hope that the countries of the world will bring their best endeavours to achieving an international agreement in that regard. So far, sadly, those negotiations have not succeeded. I also want to recognise the serious, constructive work of our Liberal Democrat peers. They chose not to delay ratification, but they worked hard to strengthen the Bill. Lord Teverson pressed Ministers on enforcement gaps, flags of convenience, illegal fishing and human rights at sea, reminding us that the high seas cannot be a legal vacuum for either nature or people, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer pushed strongly on plastic pollution, especially the plastic pellets that now turn up throughout the marine food chain. Those issues have not gone away, and they now form the implementation agenda. As Lord Teverson observed during the debates in the other place, this may be one of the last major environmental agreements that we see from the United Nations for some time, given this era in which respect for international law appears to be under strain in a way that we have not seen for many decades. That makes the treaty not just important but precious. We are under a moral and existential obligation to make it work. This ratification must be the start, not the finish. If the UK wants to lead, the Government should aim to arrive at the first Conference of the Parties with a clear plan for implementation, and I suggest that the plan should include the publication of a proper implementation road map including timelines, responsibilities and funding, so that delivery does not drift. We should back our world-leading scientific institutions, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the British Antarctic Survey and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. They should be fully supported to provide the evidence, training and technology transfers on which this treaty depends. We should strengthen enforcement using our satellite-monitoring capability and our experience in monitoring vast protected areas in the overseas territories. As a priority, we should get our own maritime house in order. We cannot in good conscience call for protection overseas while allowing destructive practices like bottom-trawling in our own MPAs. Credibility must start at home. At a time when multilateral co-operation often feels fragile, this treaty shows what is still possible when countries work together to protect the global commons. The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but future generations will not judge us on whether we ratified the treaty; they will judge us on whether the oceans are healthier because we did something. Let us match warm words with hard action, and show that Britain still leads when it matters, not just by signing agreements but by protecting the blue parts of our planet, which give us food to eat and oxygen to breathe. To quote Sir David Attenborough, who turns 100 this coming May: “If we save the sea, we save our world.”

• 2 Feb 2026 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the Bill, and it is wonderful to hear support for it on both sides of the House. The global ocean treaty is one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time. It is currently the world’s only viable pathway towards meeting the global 30 by 30 target of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The scale of the challenge is monumental. Right now, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected—less than one penny in the pound of the global ocean. That is the gap that the treaty begins to close. The ocean underpins everything. It feeds billions of people, absorbs about a quarter of global carbon emissions, regulates our weather and supports livelihoods across the world. However, it is under extraordinary and growing pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution and climate change. I have seen those pressures at first hand. Rowing solo across three oceans, I saw both the beauty of the high seas and the damage that we are doing to them. Out there, beyond national borders, the ocean can also feel beyond human laws. The treaty is about bringing rules, responsibility and stewardship to those waters. It also discharges one of the commitments made to me by the Government during discussions about my private Member’s Bill, the Climate and Nature Bill, and for that I thank them. While we Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, we regret the delay. The UK helped to negotiate this agreement, and it would have been fitting had we been among the first to ratify it rather than trailing behind. I thank the campaigners who have kept up the pressure, and the colleagues throughout my party who have long championed ocean protection. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has consistently made the case for stronger high seas governance, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings).

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  There are many fine pubs in the South Cotswolds, such as the Old George Inn in South Cerney and the Rattlebone Inn in Sherston. For many of our small rural communities, these are the only freely available spaces where people—faith leaders and football fans alike—can meet, yet many pubs are really struggling. Although I welcome today’s statement, £1,650 per pub is better than a poke in the eye, but not by much. Would the Minister be kind enough to meet me to discuss how his Department could further support the pubs of the South Cotswolds? Given today’s run-ins with the Chair, I suggest the Trouble House near Tetbury as a suitable venue.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I have encountered similar challenges in my constituency of South Cotswolds when playgrounds are not well maintained, or when developers, having promised to provide them, shove them off into a muddy corner of a field that is entirely inappropriate for children’s play. It is essential for the sake of our children that we make sure that safe, enjoyable and not-too-muddy spaces are provided. I thank the creator of the petition, Ruth Lue-Quee, who is in the Public Gallery with many others who feel passionately about this issue; Ruth is a former deputy headteacher and now an education consultant. I also thank the more than 106,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 200 people from my South Cotswolds constituency. That scale of support reflects a widespread sense that our education system, as it is currently structured, fails too many children. At the all-party parliamentary group on play last week, I heard even more from education experts on that very point. One experienced schoolteacher told me bluntly that the present model works well for perhaps 10% of pupils, but not for the majority. That is not because teachers lack skill or commitment—they have those in abundance—but because the system is fundamentally misaligned with how a child’s brain works and learns. On a personal note, I should say that this debate goes to the heart of why I decided to stand for Parliament. The preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution commits us, as a party, to building a society in which no one is “enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity” and in which every person is empowered to develop their potential to the full. The journey towards fulfilled potential begins in childhood. Play is one of the primary ways in which human potential, creativity and confidence are formed; that is why I was keen to put my hand up to introduce this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Let me return to that first key distinction: the difference between enrichment and play-based learning. Enrichment, as I have said, means activities added on around the edges of the school day. Play-based learning, on the other hand, is about how learning itself is designed and delivered. It is a planned, teacher-guided pedagogy in which reading, writing, arithmetic and wider knowledge are learned through exploration, talk, movement, construction, role play and problem solving. Teachers are not stepping back—far from it. They are actively shaping the environment, setting challenges, modelling language, asking probing questions and intentionally extending children’s thinking while giving them genuine agency over how they engage in an embodied and creative way. Practitioners give powerful evidence of what that looks like in practice. In one platinum-rated primary school that uses a play-first model, the headteacher told me that children must complete all must-do tasks, which are aligned with national expectations, but the children get to choose when and how to do them during extended play-based learning sessions. The school has academic standards at or above national averages. Attendance is described as “through the roof”: the children cannot wait to get there in the morning and they are a bit reluctant to leave at the end of the day. Behaviour problems fall and children almost cannot wait to participate. Globally, across more than 2,000 schools and 1.8 million children using high-quality play approaches, we see the same pattern emerging: higher engagement, better attendance, fewer behaviour issues—because children are not wired to sit still for hours a day at age five—and much greater professional satisfaction for teachers, who see their students really thriving. That brings to me to the second distinction: guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds. Guided play in the classroom supports cognitive and language development. Children experience what psychologists call “productive struggle”. They plan, manage resources, seek help when they need it, collaborate, persist and reflect. They develop independence, motivation and embodied understanding, not simply compliance and conformity. Free play, especially outdoors and in nature, serves a different but equally vital purpose. It is where children develop physical confidence and learn to negotiate rules, to resolve conflict, to take manageable risks and to build friendships while experiencing a real sense of autonomy. Free play supports mental health, resilience and social intelligence in ways that no formal lesson, no matter how well designed, can fully replicate.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that point. I hope that I speak for the entire Chamber when I urge the Minister, one final time, to convey this message to the rest of her Department. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I again thank the amazing petitioners and all my colleagues who have contributed to this important debate. I echo the request already made, that the Minister go back to her Department to reconsider this issue. I feel passionately about it; I have spoken with many educators over the last few weeks in preparation for this debate and they have educated me, deeply impressing on me the critical value of play within the curriculum as a pedagogical method. Wales and Scotland are already aware of that, as are many countries in Scandinavia, and the evidence suggests that they are raising children who are happier and more engaged in their lessons and are doing extremely well. This feels like a critical moment for the debate; with AI so high on the political agenda, we really need to nurture those skills of creativity, confidence and imagination—all those essentially human things that AI cannot produce. The Minister spoke about giving teachers the flexibility to introduce more play to the curriculum if they think it is appropriate, but play should not be a postcode lottery. It should be a right for children in schools across the entire country. I urge and beseech the Minister, please, to take these passionate requests from Westminster Hall today back to her Department.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker, and a real privilege to present this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Before I turn to the detail, I want to set out three key points that frame the debate. First, England is now an outlier in the United Kingdom as the only nation with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. Scotland and Wales already have legal frameworks and national strategies that embed and protect play into the early primary years; only in England does the statutory requirement for learning through play effectively stop at the end of reception, creating a cliff edge between reception and year 1. Nobody’s brains, let alone four or five-year-old children’s brains, respond well to cliff edges. Such an approach runs counter to everything we know about children’s developmental needs and the evidence on how young children learn. The second key point is that play-based learning is not the same as enrichment, which usually means activities that sit alongside the core curriculum such as clubs, sport, music, trips or recreational time. Those activities are valuable, but they are by definition additional. Play-based learning is something quite different: a structured, evidence-based way of teaching the core curriculum itself. The Government’s response to the petition appears to misunderstand that distinction and thereby misses the point. Thirdly, we must distinguish between two different but equally vital kinds of play. There is purposeful, guided play in the classroom as a core teaching method; and free, social, physical play in playgrounds and outdoor spaces. I happen to live next door to a primary school and can vouch for the fact that the latter is a great deal noisier than the former, but it is a joyous and happy noise—the sound of childhood. Both kinds of play are essential and both are currently being squeezed to the detriment of our children.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Woods for Learning sounds marvellous. We know that time spent in nature punches above its weight in terms of psychological and physical benefits for children, so I absolutely agree.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. The evidence is incontrovertible: free play benefits students, teachers and parents. The two forms of play are complementary, but not interchangeable; a truly child-centred system must value and protect both. Neuroscience helps explain why that matters so profoundly. Play activates almost every region of the developing brain, strengthening connections between emotional, social and cognitive systems. It stimulates dopamine and serotonin, creating what might be called a happy, relaxed, learning-ready brain. Those rich, flexible neural networks support memory, creativity and adaptability. By contrast, chronic stress and over-formalisation create rigid neural pathways that inhibit curiosity and learning, and create more stress that is not conducive to a receptive brain. In simple terms, joyful, playful brains learn better. The issue is not just about short-term wellbeing; it is about future-readiness in the age of artificial intelligence. The skills that will matter most in the future are not rote recall, but creativity, adaptability, collaboration, emotional intelligence, imagination and the ability to navigate uncertainty. Those are precisely the same attributes that high-quality play develops. If we want children to thrive alongside AI, rather than be diminished by it, we must nurture the uniquely human capacities that play supports. However, practitioners have told me that teacher training in England contains remarkably little on child development, neuroscience or the pedagogy of play. Many teachers know how play works, but feel constrained by rigid tests and by inspections that prioritise uniform outcomes and control rather than curiosity and agency. That contributes not only to poorer outcomes for children, but to burnout, demoralisation and a recruitment and retention crisis across the teaching profession. It is also vital to remember that the effects of depriving children are not equally felt. Children in low-income families or those with special educational needs and disabilities are most likely to experience barriers to play while also being the children most likely to benefit from it. If the Government are serious about taking into account the educational needs of each individual child, play must form a vital part of their SEND strategy and curriculum reset. That is why the petitioners are not asking for just warm words; they are asking for statutory recognition for play-based learning and continuous provision to be embedded in the national framework, and for every single school to have a proper strategic plan for play, just as they have plans for literacy, safeguarding or special educational needs. Finally, I return to the three points with which I began. England is still the only country in the home nations with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. That is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Secondly, play-based learning is not enrichment; it is different. It is a core pedagogical approach grounded in evidence about how young children’s brains develop and how deep learning takes place. Thirdly, guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds are not luxuries. Together, and complementing each other, they build the cognitive, emotional, social and creative foundations that children need—not only to pass tests, but to flourish as human beings in a rapidly changing world. I hope that the Minister will respond directly to what the petitioners are asking for: for the Government to recognise play-based learning as core and not peripheral; to address the reception-to-year-1 cliff edge; to strengthen teacher training in child development and play; and to ensure that our curriculum and accountability systems give every child the chance to grow into a confident, curious, resilient and creative adult. If we want a generation who are able to think, collaborate, imagine and thrive in a world shaped by AI, we must start by taking play seriously. Play is not a distraction from education, but one of its most powerful enablers.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned speech on this very important subject. My constituents in the South Cotswolds will be deeply disappointed by this White Paper. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get literally upstream of this question, and address the question of water company ownership? When we look to Europe, we see models such as mutual or public-benefit ownership working much more effectively. Does he also agree that the profit motive does not sit well with an essential public utility?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her determined and dedicated advocacy on behalf of the farming community, especially around mental health. Although my farmers and I welcome this U-turn, I wonder how much damage has been done, not just to the farming sector directly but to the many businesses that surround the farming sector—the suppliers of equipment, grain and so on. I wonder how much damage has been done to the economy of our country, and how many irrevocable decisions have been made about the future by farmers and others in the farming industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must get it right this time around?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The farmers of the South Cotswolds warmly welcome this increase in the threshold—better late than never—but does my hon. Friend agree that this Government need to move beyond not punishing our farmers and instead actively support them in being the stewards of our countryside and protecting our future food security?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The wording of the motion seems to imply that the Conservatives are against any and all renewables in the countryside, but even the most ardent opponents of an oversized industrial-scale solar farm in my constituency of the South Cotswolds would still support rooftop solar. Could the hon. Member please clarify whether the Conservatives are indeed against all renewables in the countryside?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this very important debate. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and perhaps we can now see clearly that privatising water companies in a monopoly situation, with a toothless watchdog, was never going to be a good idea. Unfortunately, we do not have a time machine, but we can still put this right. For a long time now, the Lib Dems have been calling for Thames Water to be put into special administration and restructured as a public benefit company. Through my mailbag and the flood summit I hosted last year, I have heard so many stories of sewage on farmland, in gardens, in people’s houses and on playgrounds. I do not want to go into specifics, because those homes and businesses have had their value and their business base affected by the awful pollution from Thames Water. It is adding insult to injury that many of those customers are now being asked to pay more and more, mostly to service Thames Water’s debt. One of my constituents remarked: “We are being treated as cash cows”. It is just not fair. A Lib Dem freedom of information request found that Ofwat has failed to force water companies to pay any fines for sewage discharge cases since 2021. Meanwhile, water company bosses earned a collective total of over £20 million in the financial year to 2024. Some people might think MPs get paid too much, but the chief executive officer of Thames Water gets paid 10 times as much as we do as a base salary, with a bonus on top of that. That really is an insult to Thames Water’s customers. Let us put Thames Water out of its misery and end the misery for its many customers. I beseech the Minister: please, take action on this. The best time to have seen what is going on would have been 40 years ago, but the second best time is now. We need urgent action.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just yesterday, I was talking to a pub landlord who wants to expand his business and has acquired a new building. He has found that even though the new building is derelict, his business rates on it have increased by 89%. He is eager for his pubs to continue to be the heart of the community, but he is finding it difficult to recruit workers since Brexit, when all the casual workers went back to Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that these policies profoundly undermine not just growth but the heart of our communities?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), I am a survivor of COP15 in Copenhagen. I have seen just what hard work it is, and I commend the cross-party delegation for representing our country so well in Belém. However, environmental campaigners have raised concerns over the carbon budget delivery and the growth plan’s reliance on unproven technologies such as sustainable aviation fuel and carbon capture and sequestration. How will the Government ensure that the UK is not simply offshoring ecological impacts, including deforestation, or relying on fantasy future technologies on our pathway to net zero?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. The number of competing demands on Britain’s land is growing rapidly. To put that into context, Britain has about the same population as France, but the area of England, Scotland and Wales combined is only about one third of the area of France, and most of us live squished into the bottom half of it. Of course, land is the one resource that we cannot create more of—as Mark Twain allegedly said, “Buy land, they’re not making it any more.” I am keenly aware of that situation in my South Cotswolds constituency where a housing development in one place means a risk of flooding in another, and a solar farm or gravel extraction means less grazing land for Wiltshire’s cows—a subject that I am sure is dear to your heart, Dr Murrison. I was therefore delighted earlier this year when the Government launched their national consultation on land use, highlighting the potential to restore nature, support food production, strengthen climate resilience and deliver new housing and infrastructure. I absolutely applaud those ambitions, which matter deeply in an age of current and potential global shocks. As already mentioned, at the moment the UK imports about 40% of its food, and for fruit and vegetables that proportion is even higher. In 2023, after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, food price inflation reached its highest point in 45 years, adding to the pain of families already struggling to afford the basics. Food and energy sovereignty are not abstract concepts—they are the foundations of a healthy population and a resilient nation—yet sadly, some of the actions taken by the Government since launching the land use framework conversation suggest that they see land as a zero-sum game. House building is pitted against biodiversity, and renewable energy projects come at the expense of food production. That is not going to work. I will make a couple of points. First, we must recognise the need to move beyond departmental silos and work across Departments in a truly systemic, holistic approach. At the moment, it all feels rather piecemeal, which leaves farmers, councils and communities grappling with apparently contradictory demands. We need a genuinely multi-functional, multi-layered land use framework—one that recognises each piece of land’s ability to meet multiple needs at once. The amazing pilot programmes conducted by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission show what is possible. These pilots in Devon and Cambridgeshire show that co-ordinated planning can support housing, energy, transport, net zero, biodiversity, food production and nature recovery all at the same time. Planning decisions must reflect the local geography, economies, needs and opportunities, and they must incorporate the detailed local knowledge of residents. If not, their implementation will likely fail and they will not be welcomed by our communities. In my constituency, housing targets have doubled under the Government’s house building plans. The proposed 2,000 acre Lime Down solar farm would remove a huge area of farmland from production, which is causing huge local concern and pushback. Of course it is true that we need to decarbonise and protect our natural environment, but that does not need to come at the expense of local communities and food production capability.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  We are calling for more affordable houses and social housing. I stand by that commitment. What we are seeing at the moment is a free-for-all for developers. Unfortunately, now that we no longer have the five-year housing land supply, we cannot be sure that we are going to build the right kinds of houses in the right places at the right price. I call on the Government to publish the land use strategy as soon as possible. It must extend far beyond DEFRA. Multi-functional land use is about transport, housing, energy, local government and more, so we need a genuinely joined-up approach. My second and last point is that our farmers need clarity and support. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy describes the vicious cycle where agriculture both contributes to climate change and is threatened by it. Instead of breaking the cycle, the Government are creating an economic environment that pushes farmers towards damaging practices, such as excessive fertiliser use and intensive animal agriculture, because farmers see no other viable option if they are to stay in business. From speaking with my farmers across South Cotswolds, I know that they are keen to be allies in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, but they are being met with mixed messages and one economic blow after another, such as the family farm tax and the abrupt end of the SFI, as has been mentioned. Those decisions undermine both climate resilience and farmers’ livelihoods. We need a strategy that aligns the land use framework, the food strategy and a credible farming road map. We need transparency about how the Government intend to deliver the 10 priority outcomes set out in their food strategy. That is eminently possible. With thoughtful, holistic planning, collaborative working and genuine respect for local knowledge, the Government can chart a path that strengthens our food system, restores our natural world and delivers the development our country needs.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity. While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean. This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home. As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well. I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction. The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome. We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender. The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners. We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of many of my constituents, I rise to speak in strong support of Lords amendment 40. Nature unites us in a way that few other things can. Even the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told me of his love for nature after the Second Reading of my Climate and Nature Bill. Our love for the fields, woods and waterways that shape our lives can cut across deep political divisions, ages and backgrounds. We all want future generations to walk the same landscapes, hear the same birdsong and feel the same sense of belonging to the natural world that so many of us have known. Lords amendment 40 recognises that truth. It would ensure that nature is treated not as an optional extra but as an essential—something that must be protected and restored alongside meeting our urgent housing need. It would limit environmental delivery plans to areas where a broad, strategic approach genuinely works, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned; examples include nutrient neutrality, and water and air quality. Without this safeguard, the Bill risks undoing decades of progress in protections for our most vulnerable species. A big-picture approach cannot replace the precise protections that bats, dormice and great crested newts depend on. One cannot ask a dormouse to move house, or offset repeated local losses somewhere else. If we allow that pattern to continue, national extinction becomes a real possibility. This is how nature, the web of life, works. We cannot dismiss small snails simply because they are small. It is the smallest creatures that inhabit our topsoil that form the foundation of the entire ecosystem. In South Cotswolds, the bond between people and nature is strong, but our area is one of the most environmentally constrained: about 80% of the Cotswolds district lies within the Cotswolds national landscape, and with much of the remainder already developed or at flood risk, we will struggle to meet our target of more than 1,000 new homes every year. Constituents who cherish our wildlife and landscapes have written to me expressing heartfelt concerns about what that level of development will mean for the places that have defined their lives. The Labour manifesto promised planning reform that “increases climate resilience” and “promotes nature recovery”, yet the Secretary of State recently rejected amendments that would do exactly that. His “Build, baby, build” slogan suggests that we must choose between growth and nature, but that is not true: wildlife protections are not blocking new homes. Councillors and developers alike point to land availability, infrastructure and delivery capacity as the constraining factors. There is no justification for weakening nature protections when it is entirely possible to build in ways that benefit both people and planet. Lords amendment 40 reflects a real cross-party consensus and is backed by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the Better Planning Coalition. It would offer clarity, reduce legal risk and support sustainable development while strengthening genuine nature recovery—which, incidentally, will also help in climate change mitigation. Above all, the amendment recognises that we are not, and do not need to be, in conflict with nature; we are part of it. This is our chance to show that good planning can be both responsible and ambitious, and that we can deliver the homes that people so urgently need while safeguarding the natural world that sustains us all. I urge Members and the Government to support Lords amendment 40. I urge this House to choose clarity over confusion, evidence over ideology, and long-term stewardship over short-term slogans. Today we have the chance to choose a planning system that is efficient and fair, that is good for business and for communities and, above all, that is good for the wildlife and landscapes that define our country. We can choose to honour our responsibility to future generations, who will judge us not so much by how fast we built, but by what we protected and what we passed on.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?