Roz Savage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this debate and for his patient and gracious fielding of so many interventions. I express my thanks to Ash Smith and the phenomenal team at Windrush Against Sewage Pollution for bringing this petition before Parliament and for their dedication and commitment to protecting our rivers. I also thank the other campaigners who are in the Gallery; they are passionate and perseverant in their pursuit of cleaner water across our country. More than 208,000 people signed the petition, including over 600 of my South Cotswolds constituents, which is the ninth most sewage-polluted constituency in the country. Last Saturday, I stood beside the River Coln at Fairford in my constituency with residents who are sick and tired of seeing their river used as a sewer. I spoke with Debbie Campbell, who is in the Gallery and who was most charmingly dressed as a poo emoji. Debbie became a campaigner after swallowing polluted water while open water swimming and ending up doubled over in pain. Her experience is shocking, but sadly the pollution that caused it is no longer exceptional; it has become the norm. Behind the sewage scandal lies another scandal—what has happened to customers’ money? The promise of privatisation was that private capital would bring investments and efficiency, but research from the University of Greenwich estimates that between 1991 and 2023, shareholders extracted around £85 billion more from English water and sewerage companies than they actually contributed in new equity.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point that I totally agree with. This is not private enterprise riding to the rescue; it is customers being made to pay yet again for the consequences of corporate failure, and we cannot take our business elsewhere. If I do not like my supermarket, bank or mobile phone provider, I can take my custom elsewhere, but I cannot change from one water company to another unless I physically move house. We are captive customers of a monopoly, which gives water companies an extraordinary responsibility, but they are not living up to it. Too often, we see risks pushed onto customers while the rewards go to investors. Going back to Fairford, we can see exactly how that plays out in the real world. Fairford sewage treatment works was among the approximately 120 deferred Thames Water investment schemes. Thames Water’s former chair told the EFRA Committee that more than £1 billion was removed from its capital programme to preserve liquidity. In other words, the investment that was needed to protect communities, rivers and nature was postponed because the company needed to shore up its financial position. Now my constituents are living with the consequences. The analysis of Professor Peter Hammond at WASP records that, at Fairford alone, more than 8,100 hours of sewage spills have flowed into the River Coln since the beginning of 2024. Under the Environment Agency’s “heavy rainfall” methodology, only 347 of those hours—just 4.3%—were assessed as compliant. That means that more than 95% of that outflow was not compliant. This is not an occasional emergency measure; it is sustained pollution on an industrial scale. It is not only an assault on people: rivers are living ecosystems that sustain fish, birds, insects and plants. Pollution strips oxygen from the water and destroys habitats, but nature has no seat in the boardroom and no voice with the regulator. Nature depends on us to speak for it today, and I am doing what I can, as many colleagues have, to speak up on behalf of our waterways. I feel like I have spoken time and time again in this House about sewage, failing infrastructure and Thames Water, yet the sewage keeps flowing, the debts keep mounting and customers keep being asked to pay more. Frankly, they have had enough, and so have I. I share the petitioners’ diagnosis that the present model has failed, but the Lib Dems differ from others on what we believe should happen next. We do not believe, as a number of colleagues have mentioned, that we need to spend a long time waiting for a national referendum to tell us something we already know. The Liberal Democrat answer is mutually owned public benefit water companies that are professionally managed but owned by and accountable to the customers who depend on them, with profits reinvested into the water system rather than extracted for shareholders. For Thames Water in particular, that journey should begin with special administration now. Take on the creditors, restructure the company and bring it out the other side under a fundamentally different ownership model. Ownership change alone is not enough. The new Clean Water Authority must have the teeth that Ofwat so conspicuously lacked. It must inspect assets, publish open data and require companies to measure what they actually put into our rivers—not just the duration, but the volume and toxicity. I want to see citizen scientists and environmental experts formally represented in water company governance so that somebody is at the table to speak for the river itself. I would like to ask the Minister for three further commitments: ban bonuses until spills end and leaks are fixed; introduce a three-year cooling-off period before the new regulator can employ people from the industry it regulates; and create a single social tariff so that nobody is priced out of the precious water that they cannot do without. The River Coln flows into the Thames, and the Thames flows past this Parliament. The evidence of the failure of privatisation is literally on our doorstep. The petitioners are right to demand fundamental change: the question at the heart of the debate is not simply whether ownership should be public or private, but who is the water system here to serve? For too long, customers have paid the bills, carried the risk and lived with the pollution while money flowed elsewhere. Our water system should serve customers, communities and the environment, not shareholders, creditors and bottom lines. I do not want to have to come back to this Chamber to again state the obvious: we have to get upstream of the sewage crisis and change the ownership of the water companies, and change it now.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that we need to get upstream of the problem, and I assure her that I always try to step out of pubs carefully. The supposed justification for private ownership was that investors would bring money into our water system. Instead, over those three decades, vastly more money has flowed out to shareholders than shareholders put in. Money went out, infrastructure deteriorated and debt piled up, and now customers are being told that they must pay to put it right. That is what makes the British public and me so furious. The water companies need to come clean and so does the Government.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree—much like our water supply, these arrangements need to be more transparent and stink less. Ministers have been talking about the forthcoming £104 billion investment programme as though the private sector has suddenly reached into its pockets and found that £104 billion to rescue our crumbling water infrastructure, but it has not. Ofwat has confirmed that that money will come through a mixture of customer bills and yet more borrowing and shareholder equity.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard a lot from the Government about energy security, but if Rosebank were to go ahead, we would not own the oil or set its price and most of it would not be refined here. Thousands of homes in my constituency are off the gas grid and are heated with oil bought by the tankful at whatever the international price happens to be that week. Will the Minister explain what security a barrel sold on the international market at the international price buys for the households of the South Cotswolds?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  The threat is real. The assessment makes three judgments with high confidence: that global ecosystem collapse threatens UK national security and prosperity, that every critical ecosystem on earth is on a pathway to collapse and that those ecosystems include those that underpin global food production. Yet the accountability is non-existent. The assessment does not live within the climate change risk assessment, so no Minister has a legal duty to do anything about it. Under the previous national risk assessment, the Government named an owner for each of the 61 identified risks, but this one has none. Instead, everything the Government have offered in response to the national security assessment is discretionary. The gaping hole in ownership is matched by one in funding. The Government’s own assessment places the annual value of ecosystem services to the UK at £87 billion, yet for every £100 of annual value that nature provides to us, public biodiversity spending is barely £1.20. We would not fund railways, hospitals or defence in this way. The choice is not between spending money on nature or saving money by ignoring the assessment, but between investing in resilience for our grandchildren or passing the considerable cost down to them when the consequences manifest. Yet it feels as if ignoring it is precisely what the Government intend to do. The report was published on the final day of a freedom of information internal review, after an initial refusal. It was pulled from a launch event. We still do not have the unredacted version. I have three asks of the Minister. Who in Government owns this risk? When will the Government publish a cross-Government action plan in response to it? Will Ministers reconsider publication of the full assessment?

• 13 Jul 2026 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. My constituency is the ninth most sewage-polluted constituency in the entire country, with thousands of hours of sewage pouring into the Thames, Avon and Coln, but that metric of hours conceals the truth. It does not convey the actual volume, and clearly a trickle is very different from a gush. Will the Deputy Prime Minister arrange for me to meet the relevant Minister on requiring water companies to report on the volume and concentration of sewage discharges, as well as the number of hours?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. The Government recently shelved plans to require solar panels on new car parks, despite the significant potential to generate clean electricity, support electric vehicle charging and provide greater shade cover. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of abandoning those proposals on the Government’s clean power and net zero ambitions?