State of Climate and Nature

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It was clear at London climate action week that the energy and climate transition is already well under way. With the British Standards Institution, we have worked to set nature standards so that when nature projects and large financial funds want to invest in nature, they have the confidence to do so and are not accused of greenwashing as they have been in the past. We also want to learn from some of the issues about investing in carbon markets so that companies feel comfortable insetting carbon and nature losses in their own supply chains, where the first rule is to do no harm. A huge amount of money is going into nature projects and I am excited to see how that will develop in the future.

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

I express my gratitude to the Minister and to the Government for delivering this second nature and climate statement, as they promised to do during the conversations around the time of my Climate and Nature Bill last year. It may not be exactly what I had envisaged, but I welcome it none the less. Perhaps we can discuss it further in our meeting on Wednesday.

Despite all the money being put into various climate and nature measures, there seems to be agreement among the environmental non-governmental organisations that the 30 by 30 plan will not deliver on 30 by 30. For example, in the last three years, Natural England has not designated any new sites of special scientific interest, and over the last 20 years the area covered by those sites has increased by only 2.8%. What further funding will be given to Natural England so that it can expand on its important mission?

[Mary Creagh]

I was discussing that very issue with Natural England this morning. Land covering about 32% of England is already likely to, or has the potential to, contribute to the 30 by 30 target, including through our landscape recovery projects, and local nature reserves and national nature reserves. We are creating 3,000 hectares a year of national nature reserves, which makes a very significant contribution to that. We have also set out the route to 30 by 30, talking about bronze, silver and gold land. I understand why the ENGOs want everything to be gold, but we must live in the real world and show what the pipeline towards gold looks like.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

We are told that access to green and blue space improves mental health and could save the NHS more than £2 billion annually. We are told that urban nature provides around £823 million a year in air pollution removal benefits. We are told that England’s natural capital is valued at around £1.3 trillion, and we are told that ecosystem services deliver more than £37 billion in annual benefits. I want to discard my prepared remarks and speak more idealistically. That same idealism led me to abandon a normal life and row alone across our three oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis. It is this mindset of putting a price tag on our natural assets that has led us to the predicament—this heartbreaking situation—that we find ourselves in.

To reduce our natural environment to mere pound signs is an insult—a very anthropocentric perspective, where we value nature according to what it delivers to us. I suggest that we have a moral duty to future generations to halt the extinctions. It is not our job to play God—to decide which species are worth saving and which are not based on whether we find them useful, charismatic or cuddly. Every single species plays a crucial role in the web of life that we are far from fully understanding.

I thank the Minister in advance for her remarks today—in many ways, I feel that I am preaching to the converted, because I know that she already gets this. I wish that we could get any other Minister or Secretary of State into this Chamber to hear these arguments; we need to put respect for nature at the heart of all decision making across Government if we are truly going to get on track for the future that the next generations deserve.

Woodland Creation

Roz Savage Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing this timely debate and his thoughtful and heartfelt opening speech.

Who does not love trees? They enhance our lives so much. In the past 18 months, morning walks in the woodlands below my house have helped to keep me sane-ish. On a London day, I can take a walk among the urban trees along the South Bank—not quite the Cotswolds, but it will do. Never has woodland creation seemed more important. As our climate changes and nature declines, trees are not a luxury—they are part of the solution. Done well, woodland creation enhances biodiversity, captures carbon, improves flood resilience and supports local economies.

Yet, we are not where we need to be. Although canopy cover has increased slightly, we consistently miss national planting targets. The overall quality of our woodland remains generally poor and, according to the Woodland Trust, is in decline. In England, just 13% of the land area is covered by trees, compared with an EU average of 38%. Only about 7% of native woods are in good condition. Meanwhile, in a heartbreaking statistic, nearly 70% of our ancient woodland has been lost or damaged.

We have a stated ambition to reach 19% cover by 2050 but that is looking increasingly challenging on current trends. If new woodlands are to thrive in the changing climate we must focus not just on quantity but on quality. As has been pointed out, planting alone does not necessarily create woodland. Saplings need careful aftercare, long-term management and protection. That means not just boasting about how many trees we have planted, but how many trees actually survive. Along the A14 in Cambridgeshire, around 860,000 trees were planted, yet 70% died soon after completion. It was admitted that they were probably the wrong species, in the wrong place and planted in the wrong season—other than that, it went really well.

As the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) said, the correct metric is not trees planted, but trees thriving. Also, saplings planted in one place are not an adequate replacement for mature trees in another place. Nature works to its own rhythms and it does best when we work with it, not at odds with it. Strategic woodland creation should also prioritise areas with low canopy cover so that the benefits of trees, such as cooler streets, cleaner air, flood protection and improved wellbeing, are shared more fairly. Access to nature should not be a postcode lottery, particularly as hotter summers make urban trees ever more essential. Anybody who has been out door-knocking on a hot summer’s day on a new estate, longing for the shade of a tree, will know exactly what I mean.

In my South Cotswolds constituency, housing targets are placing intense pressure on a district where 80% of the land is protected landscape and much of the rest is floodplain. People care deeply about the woodlands and green spaces that shape our identity. New developments must show that we can meet housing need while also expanding tree cover and strengthening biodiversity. Long-term stewardship and environmental sustainability must be embedded from the outset; without that commitment, we risk repeating past mistakes.

I am pleased to report there are encouraging examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has championed the Somerset tree strategy, a 10-year plan to protect and expand treescapes in areas where canopy cover in some neighbourhoods is below 10%. Increasing canopy cover reduces storm water run-off, prevents flooding and creates vital habitats. In the South Cotswolds, I am proud to say that many of our farmers understand that. Trees slow the flow of water, shelter livestock and protect the integrity of soil. They are an important part of a working landscape. I welcome the development of the Western forest, alongside the various other forests that have been mentioned today. It is the first new national forest in 30 years and will stretch across Bristol, Somerset and into parts of my constituency in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

Community stewardship is also important. In my constituency, groups such as Fruitful Malmesbury are leading what I like to call tree roots efforts, rather than grassroots efforts, planting and nurturing local orchards and woodlands. When communities feel ownership, the survival rates of trees rise, and so does social value and community spirit.

On the economic benefits, orchards provide habitats for pollinators and wildlife while sustaining livelihoods. The south-west cider industry partners with more than 300 farmers, manages more than 15,000 acres and produces around 670 million litres of cider each year—truly a benefit for nature and humanity. A new orchard may take seven years to break even, but it can yield environmental and economic returns for many decades. That is sustainable land use—patient investment for long-term gain.

We still import nearly 80% of the timber that we use. We could expand and actively manage domestic woodland, thereby supporting skilled jobs and making our supply chains more resilient. As construction increasingly moves away from high-carbon materials, we need renewable home-grown timber that stores carbon in our buildings and is backed procurement policies that support British growers.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to binding targets to halt nature’s decline and double nature by 2050, expanding protected areas, restoring habitats and increasing woodland cover. We support planting at least 60 million trees a year, alongside the aftercare already mentioned to ensure that they flourish. Will the Minister comment on the urgency with which the Government are acting, or failing to act? Continued subsidies for biomass power, including at Drax, rely on primary forests and undermine our environmental credibility.

[Jen Craft]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning biomass power, as I have a specific issue in my constituency, where the fuel that is used to power a biomass generator has unfortunately generated a significant amount of dust, causing a heavy amount of air pollution in the local area. It is a form of green energy, but it unfortunately has a local impact on the air quality that residents in Tilbury can expect. Does the hon. Lady support me in saying that the Government should look again at how much we rely on this kind of energy generation?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we are launching an inquiry into the importance of air quality, which needs to be addressed when we take a holistic view of how energy, humans and nature can thrive alongside one another.

COP30 offered an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on deforestation. The Liberal Democrats urge support for the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which is designed to provide permanent funding for conservation by rewarding countries for protecting forests. It was a golden opportunity to turn ambition into action, but, sadly, the Government chose not to commit public investment at that point. I hope that they will in the future.

The saying goes that the best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago, but the second best time is today. I know that the Minister has a genuine love for nature, as do I. Some people might think of me as more of an oceans person, given my past story, but these days I find that I am more and more drawn to hills and trees. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we all have a responsibility, both locally and globally, to protect and restore the forests on which we depend for so much. If we get woodland creation right, we do more than just plant trees. We invest in climate resilience, thriving wildlife, strong rural economies and healthier communities for generations to come.

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. I thank him and the Chair of the EFRA Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is also here today. The work that they have been doing in highlighting the issues endemic to water companies across this country could not have come sooner. The fixes that they have highlighted in their reports are important for driving this conversation as we look towards the future.

Turning back to Yorkshire Water, in the past two years, those payments—which were apparently not bonuses but rather “fixed fees”, or whatever Yorkshire Water called them—totalled more than £1 million, on top of the near £700,000 annual basic salary, at a time when pollution incidents were rising and trust was collapsing. Yorkshire Water’s chief executive has since said that it was a “mistake” not to disclose those payments and not to have been more transparent. Well, that is too little too late when Yorkshire Water has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. My message to Yorkshire Water is simple: it can rename a bonus to a “fixed fee” and apologise for getting caught out, but the stench of sewage still clings to it, and to the bosses at Yorkshire Water.

I remain concerned about the overreliance on fines as a primary enforcement tool. In recent years, we have seen Yorkshire Water and many other companies facing record-breaking fines, but the problem remains: the lack of accountability that they face, even when such astronomical penalties are imposed on them. Simply put, we cannot fine our way out of failure when customers end up footing the bill.

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

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?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting across that argument, and I completely agree with her. She has outlined the case and the reasoning very well.

Moving on to today’s water White Paper, it is right that we recognise that the current regulatory system has failed, that Ofwat has not provided the hands-on oversight required, and that prevention must replace crisis management. Proposals for a new regulator, stronger inspections and greater transparency are a step in the right direction—if long overdue—but a White Paper and those new proposals will only be as strong as their enforcement.

I want to press the Minister on three specific points. First, will the Minister confirm that the new regulator will have an explicit duty to close remuneration loopholes, so that executives cannot simply comply with the letter of the law while undermining its purpose? Secondly, will the Minister commit to ensuring that criminal liability for water bosses is not merely theoretical but actively pursued where there is evidence of serious or repeated environmental harm? Thirdly, will the Minister set out how enforcement action will target decision makers, not just balance sheets, so that customers are no longer left paying for failure through higher bills? Those are the tests that will determine whether today’s White Paper represents a genuine reset or simply another missed opportunity.

Ultimately, this debate is about accountability. Pollution on this scale is not an accident; it is a result of decisions, incentives and failures of leadership. When executives are rewarded while rivers are polluted, that is not mismanagement; it is environmental vandalism. Nicola Shaw remains in post despite rising bills, collapsing trust and one of the worst pollution records in this country. In any other industry, that level of failure would end in resignation. So today I say clearly: Nicola Shaw, do us a favour and go.

A new regulator must come into post and go further than we have seen with Ofwat. Water bosses who preside over illegal pollution should not just have their bonuses blocked; they should face criminal consequences for their environmental damage and harm. No more hiding behind corporate structures, no more excuses and no more polluting with impunity: if they poison our waterways, they should answer not just to shareholders but to the full force of the law.

Rural Communities

Roz Savage Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. As a chartered surveyor who has studied rural properties and farms, I do not think we should be putting wind farms or photovoltaics on the best farmland in this country.

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

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?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I have very little time, and it is clear that my constituency neighbour—uncharacteristically—did not listen to what I said, which was that we should not put solar panels on the best farmland in the country.

In my constituency, hospitality contributes an estimated £220 million to the local economy, and we know that business rates are rising by, on average, £32,000. An average of two pubs a day are closing; they are literally being taxed out of existence. Moreover, we should not be banning trail hunting, which adds £100 million to the rural economy. I am lucky enough to represent some of the most famous hunts. If we carry this policy through, how many people will, directly or indirectly, lose their jobs? How many thousands of hounds will be euthanised to support this unwelcome measure?

A further threat is to the shooting industry. Shooting directly contributes £3.3 billion to the rural economy and £9 billion to the wider economy. Last year we saw a staggering 245% increase in shotgun and firearms certificate bills. What is worrying the shooting community at present, however, is the moving of shotguns from section 2 to section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, which will involve a huge amount of extra bureaucracy. A petition opposing the move, organised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, now has well over a million signatories. I urge the Government to reconsider that damaging proposal.

Rural Britain is the backbone of our nation, yet it is being systematically disadvantaged by this Government. These issues—from food resilience to hospitality, from farming to country pursuits—are not niche. They are fundamental to our economy, our environment and, above all, our rural way of life. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not only livelihoods but the very fabric of our countryside.

Future of Thames Water

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does the hon. Lady regret that the Liberal Democrat manifesto said that the Liberal Democrats want to build even more houses than the Labour party?

[Dr Savage]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roz Savage Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I do agree. I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion on air quality in his constituency. While the Conservatives have pledged to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008 in the face of protest from business groups, scientists and even their former Prime Minister Theresa May, this Government will tackle the climate and nature crisis. I will be travelling to COP30 in Brazil in a couple of days, where I will discuss how we will embed nature into every element of climate action to tackle global nature loss on land and in the ocean.

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

This afternoon, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will return to the Commons. I share the concern of many of my that the Bill seeks to rip up environmental rules to boost growth. Will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support Lords amendment 113, to ensure that development is balanced with protection for nature?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Lady for campaigning on climate and nature issues, in stark contrast with the Conservatives. I know that she will raise this issue during today’s debate. The nature restoration fund, which is a key plank of the Bill, will improve outcomes for nature, while unlocking the housing and infrastructure that this country urgently needs.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Roz Savage Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The oceans have long struggled to get the attention they deserve—there are no voters out there on the ocean. Thanks are owed to Sir David Attenborough and the many filmmakers and photographers who, over the years, have brought the oceans into our living rooms and helped us to get to know them and care about them. Most of us only get to experience oceans from a beach, or from 30,000 feet—looking down from an aeroplane window at a vast, endless blue expanse—but I have spent months and months alone on the ocean, a long way beyond national jurisdictions, rowing across oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis facing our world, particularly the parts of it that are blue. I was trying to bring a human face to the plight of our oceans.

Out there in the middle of an ocean, when you have not seen dry land for several months, thousands of miles separate you from the closest land mass and the nearest human beings are on the International Space Station, it feels like you are well beyond jurisdictions, and often beyond justice. It was out there in that lawless place that I came to understand both the power and the fragility of the ocean—you see its beauty and its bounty, but also its vulnerability to what we humans choose to do. The ocean has no voice in this place, so today, we are being its voice.

The ocean may seem boundless, but it is not indestructible. We have polluted it, overfished it, and warmed it. The deep sea is home to some of the most extraordinary forms of life on Earth—I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to sunfish, which are surely the weirdest creatures I have ever seen—but it is increasingly targeted for exploitation. We know the surface of the moon better than we know the bottom of the ocean. There is a real danger that we could destroy species before we even know they exist.

More than 60% of the world’s surface and nearly three quarters of its ocean volume lie out there in the places beyond any country’s control. For centuries, the high seas have been treated as no one’s responsibility—beyond the environment, a lawless expanse—and still today, only 1% is properly protected. Meanwhile, overfishing, pollution and deep-sea mining are degrading ecosystems that we barely understand. The ocean is becoming more acidic, threatening the existence of plankton—the base of the entire marine food chain—and weakening its capacity to absorb carbon and regulate our climate. That is what is at stake. The health of the ocean is the health of our planet.

That is why the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty matters so profoundly. It is the first global treaty to bring order, fairness and protection to the high seas. It offers a framework for managing those shared waters responsibly and ensuring that the benefits of ocean science are shared globally, not hoarded by the few. Earlier this year, when I brought the Climate and Nature Bill before this House, I further pressed the Government to commit to ratifying the BBNJ, and I am pleased and thankful that they are now delivering on that promise. I particularly thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), for her long-term persistence and commitment to this cause. It shows that when we work together across the House, we can turn ambition into action.

However, ratification is only the beginning; turning this treaty into a practical reality will demand co-ordination, funding and focus. As such, I would like to ask the Minister a few practical questions about implementation from the FCDO perspective, questions that I have sent to her office. First, on institutional co-ordination, how will Departments such as the FCDO, DEFRA and the Department for Transport work together to manage marine genetic resources, environmental assessments and new conservation tools under a single, coherent system? Secondly, on enforcement, what mechanisms will ensure compliance by UK vessels and research institutions operating beyond national jurisdiction, given the real challenges—of which I am keenly aware—of surveillance and jurisdiction at sea?

Thirdly, turning to resourcing and capacity, have the Government assessed the staffing, budget and technical resources needed to set up the new repositories, databases and administrative systems required by the BBNJ? Fourthly, on transparency and fairness, what plans are in place to ensure that the data held by repositories such as the Natural History Museum and the National Oceanography Centre are accessible and interoperable—especially for developing countries, including small island states—in line with the BBNJ’s principle of equitable benefit sharing? Finally, on international engagement, with the first oceans COP expected in 2026, how will the UK prepare to shape the operational details of the agreement at the international level, and who will represent us at that table?

These questions matter because they will determine whether the Bill delivers real protection, rather than just good intentions. Our scientists are ready to lead. The National Oceanography Centre, with its cutting-edge research and fleet of autonomous submersible vessels—including one known as Boaty McBoatface—is already mapping deep sea currents and gathering the knowledge we need to understand and protect the ocean. Under the BBNJ, that vital work will become part of a global effort to heal the seas.

The ocean is the blue heart of our planet. It gives us half the oxygen we breathe, shapes our weather, and sustains life on a scale that defies our humble human imaginations. If that heart falters, everything we depend on will be at risk. We often think of oceans as dividing nations, but actually, they connect and unite us; we are, so to speak, all in the same boat. As the great American oceanographer Dr Sylvia Earle said,

“We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if our lives depended on it. Because they do.”

By ratifying and implementing the BBNJ, we can help turn the tide—sorry, I just cannot help it. Let this be the Parliament that gave the ocean a voice and a future.