Debate on the Address

Debate between Jim Shannon and Roz Savage

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I add my voice to the many voices of appreciation from across the House for the two magnificent speeches from the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince), which were inspiring, moving and entertaining.

There is much to reflect on in the King’s Speech. There are 37 Bills, many of which have been amply covered by colleagues across the House. Of course, the King’s Speech is not truly the King’s Speech; it is the Government’s speech that His Majesty the King has the great joy, I am sure, of reading out in the other place. I would like to pick up on a matter that was not actually in the speech. Far be it from me to presume to guess what His Majesty might have wished to add to it, but having had the privilege of visiting his beautiful gardens at Highgrove House in my constituency on numerous occasions—sadly, not as a guest of their Majesties, but as a paying punter on a guided tour—I would like to think that His Majesty might have chosen to mention nature, which was not mentioned at all in the speech. Nature is a subject dear to my heart, as it is to those of my constituents, including the many farmers who farm in South Cotswolds.

We have talked about many different aspects of security today, but I would like to connect nature to security. The fourth sentence of the King’s Speech was:

“My Ministers will take decisions that protect the energy, defence and economic security of the United Kingdom for the long-term.”

In my view, those decisions absolutely have to factor-in nature. Natural security is an essential part of our national security. At the beginning of this year, the Government published a national security assessment on biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. It was not written by campaigners or charities, and certainly not by the Green party; it was written by the intelligence community using the same analytical frameworks that it applies to terrorism and state threats. Its conclusion was absolutely unambiguous: global ecosystem degradation threatens UK national security and future prosperity. Crop failures, intensified natural disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, geopolitical competition for food and water—these are the inevitable consequences that the assessment identifies will happen if we continue on our current trajectory.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Does she not agree that it is only fair that we should record David Attenborough’s 100th birthday? He epitomises the very person we would like to see and the world he wishes to preserve. Does she, along with me and others in this House, wish him well on his 100th birthday?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must be telepathic, because my very next paragraph is as follows.

Five days ago, Sir David Attenborough celebrated his 100th birthday, and I am sure that colleagues would like to join me in wishing Sir David the warmest congratulations on his long, wonderful and highly influential life. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He has spent much of his century on this planet showing us what the natural world looks like, but in the course of that long lifetime the UK has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth. I am sure the House has heard these facts before, but I remind Members that we have lost 38 million birds in the past 50 years; wildlife abundance has fallen by a third since 1970; we have lost 93% of our wild flower meadows; and only 15% of our rivers are in good ecological health. I am sure that those statistics cause Sir David great distress and anxiety, yet we continue to treat nature as though it were expendable.

I would like to pick up on some aspects of nature that are particularly worthy of our attention. Rivers are the lifeblood of our natural world, yet too many of them are in an appalling state. I commend the clean water Bill mentioned in the King’s Speech, which is a good start, but it does not address the underlying problem. Water is a vital public good that should not be owned and operated primarily in the interests of shareholders, many of whom are based overseas, extracting returns from an essential service while communities downstream live with the polluted consequences.

It is promising to see reforms coming down the pipeline, so to speak, that would see Ofwat replaced—something the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. However, my constituents need to see that legislation enforced more rigorously. South Cotswolds is the ninth most polluted constituency in the country, so my constituents want real transparency on what is being discharged and when—not just for how many hours, but in what volumes. They deserve bathing water designation for the sites that they have swum in for generations, and a Government who are willing to ask the deeper question: is the ownership model fit for purpose? The Government have to get upstream of the problem and ask whether profit-making monopolies, focused on short-term gains, can ever serve the long-term greater good of customers and nature.

On energy security, instability in the middle east, gas price volatility and the direct hit on household bills demonstrate why home-grown renewables are the right choice for the climate while also paying a security and peace dividend. However, I would like to see the public brought with us on the transition, not pushed away. In my constituency, a huge solar farm has been proposed that would industrialise thousands of acres of farmland.

I absolutely support renewable energy—I have spent decades campaigning for climate action—but the transition works best when communities have ownership and agency. I would like the Government to address the barriers facing community groups that want to supply local customers directly. Liberal Democrats believe that communities should be able to generate clean energy, sell it to local households and keep the benefits locally.

Food security is national security. To quote again from the Joint Intelligence Committee report:

“Without significant increases in the UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.”

Let that sink in for a minute. We are talking about the very real prospect of food and water shortages, not just in other countries but right here, if we carry on with the current trajectory.

What is to be done? Farmers are facing a tough time at the moment. Energy costs have risen sharply, fertiliser prices remain volatile, and rural crime is a growing burden. The abrupt cap and closure of the sustainable farming incentive was a decision that pulled the rug out from under farmers who had been planning to enter the scheme, with small-scale family farms being the hardest hit. That matters far beyond the farm gate.

Around 70% of the UK’s land is under the stewardship of farmers. If we want cleaner rivers, healthier soils and more pollinators, then farmers need reliable and well-funded support for environmental stewardship into the future. Disrupting that support harms not just farms but the rest of us. I would like to hear about a good food Bill. Food is essential and we need to secure its future.

The national security assessment is explicit that ecosystem collapse is potentially irreversible; once those habitats are destroyed, they cannot be recreated with an offset calculation on a spreadsheet. Degraded ancient meadows and woodlands, fragmented hedgerows and lost wetlands and peatlands cannot simply be replaced elsewhere. We will pay the cost of their losses for generations.

Alternative Measures to GDP

Debate between Jim Shannon and Roz Savage

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of use of alternative measures to GDP within Government.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and an honour to introduce this debate on what I believe is a very important subject: alternative measures to GDP. Gross domestic product is still the predominant metric that we use to measure whether Governments are succeeding. I want to suggest today that it is not just an imperfect measure but the wrong one. Before we can agree on a better measure, it might first be helpful to ask what we are measuring for. That means asking a more fundamental question: “What is Government actually for?”

My thoughts on that are that Governments exist to do five things in particular that individuals, families and markets are not able to realistically do on their own. First, to keep people safe, from crime, from conflict and from harm. Secondly, to provide common rules and fairness, the laws, rights and frameworks that stop power being abused. Thirdly, to provide public goods: clean air, clean water, flood protection and infrastructure, the things that markets cannot easily deliver because they are not profitable. Fourthly, to support stability and reduce risk through things such as healthcare and social security, the safety net that helps people to cope with illness, unemployment and old age. Fifthly, and finally, to represent our collective choices about the future, things such as how we balance growth with nature, freedom with fairness, and short-term need with long-term resilience.

To sum up, Governments exist to do together what we cannot do alone. In a democracy, they must do so accountably, so we need an appropriate way of measuring their success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for a very commendable speech in setting out what we are trying to achieve. She rightly highlights that, while GDP measures the monetary value of goods and services, it fails to capture critical aspects of life, such as environmental sustainability, income distribution and health. However, it is also a well-established measurement. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that we do not see a new measure that allows failures to be hidden by new definitions?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with, and will elaborate on, his points about what GDP fails to measure and how it must be complemented by other metrics.

So the crucial question is: if those five things are indeed what Governments are for, how well—or not—does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding?

Social Housing: South Cotswolds

Debate between Jim Shannon and Roz Savage

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Savage]

That does indeed sound like an excellent idea.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to get an idea of what she would be referring to. We had a debate in Westminster Hall this morning on homelessness, and one point that came through very clearly was affordability. House prices can sometimes be over 10 times the average of what people can afford from their earnings. In my constituency—I suspect it is the same in the hon. Lady’s—many young people want to buy for the first time but cannot get a mortgage because the houses are too expensive. Does the hon. Lady agree that to address the needs of those who want to buy a house or access social housing, the Government must build more houses to bring the prices down so that people can actually afford them?

Solar Farms: Agricultural Land

Debate between Jim Shannon and Roz Savage

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I totally agree and will be coming to that point shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose the issue is twofold. First, the farmers who sign up to solar farms are committed to a long-term lease, and that will impact the family inheritance tax potential. The second point comes in relation to using land better for food production, as it should be used, so that only land that is of a lesser quality, or rocky land, would be more suitable for solar farms. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the way forward?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree that that is the way forward.

Let us consider the facts. Our agricultural land is dwindling at an alarming rate. We are down to 14.8 million acres of arable land, the lowest amount since world war two, and we are losing nearly 100,000 acres annually. We already import nearly 60% of our food. Do we really want to increase that dependency on foreign supply chains?

Climate and Nature Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Roz Savage

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Climate and Nature Bill has been four years in the making. The enormous amount of support that it has garnered from campaigners, trade unions, scientists, faith leaders, non-governmental organisations, businesses and especially young people means that it is both an honour and an enormous responsibility to set out what it entails, what it adds to existing law and why I believe it addresses the most important existential challenge of our generation: the intertwined climate and nature crises.

This country has signed up to various international commitments, but we still have work to do to fully connect them to real and measurable action. We need to close the ambition gap between what is needed and what is promised, and the delivery gap between what is promised and what is actually happening. That is what the Bill aims to do, because too many metrics are still heading in the wrong direction.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is important, as the hon. Lady has underlined, that we move forward together. She has not mentioned the National Farmers Union. Can she reassure me and others in the House that the National Farmers Union, and the Ulster Farmers Union in Northern Ireland, are happy with the Bill and accept the impact that its proposals will have on them?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would be delighted to have that conversation with representatives of the NFU in Northern Ireland and to reassure them on that point.

As an environmental campaigner for the past 22 years, it has sometimes been easy for me to fall into doomism. Wild fires have ravaged Los Angeles, floods have devastated Valencia and the recently elected leader of the free world is urging us to “drill, baby, drill” in the name of making America great again, but I do not believe that doomism is helpful. Yes, the best time to take bold action on climate and nature would have been 50 years ago, but the second best time is now.

The Bill is very ambitious for a private Member’s Bill, but not ambitious enough for a climate and nature Bill. It is not trying to be over-ambitious or pretending to be a silver bullet, but it aspires to answer the question: from where we are now, what is the right next step to take? The Bill’s guiding principle is that we have a duty to be good ancestors. Now that we know what we know about the impact that human activity is having on the liveability of our planet, how do we strike the right balance between present and future thriving? How do we ensure that we are not stealing health, wealth and wellbeing from generations not yet born? While we enrich our lives, how do we ensure we do not impoverish future lives? What do we want our legacy to be—a world with a strip mine next to a rubbish tip next to a shopping mall, or a world with clean air and drinkable rivers, regenerated soils and vibrant oceans, teeming with wildlife and alive with birdsong?

As I speak, I am looking around to spot my three young friends in the Gallery—Polly, Amber and Bobby from Gloucestershire youth climate group. I spoke to the group recently and, by chance, bumped into them on the train into London this morning. When I was their age, I was blissfully ignorant of the looming environmental crisis: they do not have that luxury. They, and the rest of their generation, will face the consequences of our choice here today. I want to be able to look into their eyes after today’s debate and feel proud that this House rose to the challenge, that we did what was necessary, rather than what was politically expedient, and that we pledged to protect their future.

What is in the Climate and Nature Bill? The Bill has been drafted by world-leading climate scientists, ecologists and conservationists, and aims to deliver an integrated plan to tackle the twin climate and nature crises. It would bring massive benefits for local communities, including my constituents in the South Cotswolds: improving the air we breathe; giving us clean water to drink, swim and row in; revitalising local populations of cherished wildlife, such as voles, otters, kingfishers and shrews; and providing cheap energy bills, warmer homes, green jobs, better food and happier lives.

The Bill would create a joined-up strategy for the UK to tackle the interconnected climate and nature crises together. It is the only proposed or actual piece of legislation to create the link between the UK’s responses to climate change and nature loss. We cannot solve one without tackling the other. We risk making each crisis worse if they are tackled in silos, so the Bill supports a whole-of-Government approach to prevent the issues becoming siloed. Everything in nature is connected with everything else in nature, but sadly not everything in Government is connected with everything else in Government, but it needs to be. Housing, transport and even health are inter-related with climate and nature, so we need a strategy that transcends departmental boundaries.

The CAN Bill would enshrine international commitments made by the UK into national legislation to cut emissions and to restore nature by 2030, as outlined in the global biodiversity framework. The Bill would bring the UK public along with that agenda via a climate and nature assembly, which is key to ensuring that all voices from across our country are heard, enabling workers to transition to low-carbon jobs and ensuring vulnerable communities are protected. It provides for a fair and just transition that does not come at the expense of the rest of the world. For centuries Britian prospered by exploiting resources overseas: animal, vegetable, mineral and human. The Bill requires the accounting for our environmental footprint to be honest, taking into account the carbon emissions and impacts on nature that are incurred overseas in producing the goods and services that we enjoy. It is disingenuous to offshore most of our manufacturing, and then congratulate ourselves for having reduced our environmental impact.

I am delighted to say that the Bill has a long history of being supported by the party now in government. I trust that their ecological concern while in opposition has survived their transition into power, as they are now in a position to act on their pledges. Labour Members may try to tell us that His Majesty’s Government are already doing everything that is in the Bill, but looking at the metrics, we are still far adrift of where we need to be. Ultimately, our future will not be determined by our strategies and intentions—nature cares only about results.

The Office for Environmental Protection recently published its progress report on the Government’s environmental improvement plan. It found that the Government are largely off track in achieving their legal environmental commitments. I acknowledge that this Government have been in power for less than seven months, so I do not hold them entirely responsible for that state of affairs. But I struggle to see how expanding our airports by approving two new runways will help them get back on track. The OEP assessment shows that on their current trajectory the Government will meet only four of their 40 environmental targets.

The “State of Nature” report 2023 showed that nearly one in six species are at risk of being lost from Great Britian, and the UK now has less than half its biodiversity remaining. Out of the wildlife habitats assessed, only one in seven were found to be in good condition. Only one in 14 woodlands and a quarter of peatlands were in good ecological state. None of the seafloor around the UK was in good condition. Just 44% of woodland is sustainably managed, and only half of fish stocks are sustainably harvested.

It is my view that the Government need to prioritise three things. The first is support for nature-friendly farming. Around 70% of land in England is used for agriculture. Supporting farmers to manage their land in a nature-friendly way will deliver significant environmental improvement at scale.