Roz Savage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  To go back to heating oil, 20% of households in my South Cotswolds constituency rely on heating oil—that figure is four times the national average—and many of them face high up-front costs. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting more flexible payment or credit schemes, and pooled purchasing models, which would enable villages to combine orders, secure bulk discounts and spread costs over time?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the House that RAF Fairford is in my constituency, so it is with grave concern that I note the news of two missiles being aimed at Diego Garcia. The Prime Minister previously pledged that we will not be drawn into the wider war, yet we have already shifted from the defensive to the offensive use of air bases on UK land. As almost 60% of the British public oppose the use of RAF bases in this war, will the Secretary of State commit to bringing back to this House the opportunity for open debate and full transparency on all the factors that are leading to this rapid descent down the slippery slope?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Enterprises and Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate, and for her inspiring opening speech. At a time when the Government seem to have no money and rural areas often feel overlooked, social enterprises and community-owned assets are more important than ever. I will relate that to the rural communities in my constituency, where the loss of a single pub, the village hall or another shared space is not just an inconvenience but can mean the loss of connection, support and community identity. I am constantly inspired by the amazing enterprises springing up across South Cotswolds. The Fleece Inn in Hillesley is one example. It faced closure in 2011 when the pub company went into administration, but local people stepped in to form a community enterprise. They purchased the freehold and reopened the pub in 2012 as a community-owned establishment, and today it is thriving again. In Christian Malford, the community-owned village hall plays a vital role. It hosts events, supports local groups, and creates connection in an otherwise widely dispersed rural population. One of my favourites is in Cirencester, where the new branch of The Long Table shows how community enterprise can go even further. Tom Herbert and his team have established a “pay-as-you-can” model that is based on the premise, “What would it be like if everybody had access to good food and people to eat it with?” It tackles food insecurity and rural isolation, re-imagining what a community space can be, not as charity but as dignity, equality and shared experience. Despite their success, many of these community enterprises are under pressure, with 32% of them only just surviving. Some are at risk of closure. The Christian Malford village hall is in urgent need of repair or upgrade, while community pubs often struggle to meet payroll. At the same time, demand is growing as rural populations age and rural transport gets worse. Will the Minister commit to boosting existing support, including the community ownership fund, which needs to be scaled up? We need a dedicated rural community ownership fund that provides the targeted, long-term support that communities need. A little goes a very long way when it is put in the hands of passionate, energetic and community-minded people who know exactly how to use the money to deliver the best return on investment, and to deliver for their communities.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Potholes are dangerous, they are expensive to fix, and they are everywhere. In the South Cotswolds, we know that rural areas are different. Rural roads are narrower, darker, faster and less forgiving, yet they risk being de-prioritised compared with urban areas. That cannot be right or fair. Chronic underfunding has left our council struggling to keep up. I commend Councillors Joe Harris, on the Gloucestershire side of my constituency, and Martin Smith, on the Wiltshire side, for their heroic efforts to turn the tide on potholes since coming to power last May. I draw attention to the fact that potholes are exacerbated by standing water. Here our farmers have an important role to play, but farmers are not charities. If we want them to keep gullies and ditches clear to drain the water off the roads, we need to pay them to do so. Will the Minister please work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that farmers are compensated for playing their part in reducing potholes?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank those who have shown up for this debate; we may not have a large quantity here, but I am sure that we will have quality. My role this afternoon is primarily to introduce the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, outline some of the arguments that have been raised and give colleagues an opportunity to consider the issue. Let me start by thanking the many thousands of people who signed this petition, which was started by Barry McIlhinney from Perth in Kinross-shire. It gathered more than 129,000 signatures, including 252 of my South Cotswolds constituents. It may not surprise anybody to hear that the four constituencies with the highest number of signatories were Fareham and Waterlooville, Newark, Romford and East Wiltshire—I shall leave it to hon. Members to spot the pattern. Whatever view Members may take on the proposal, it is clear that the petition touches on what some commentators have called a crisis of confidence in our democracy: the suspicion—we can debate whether it is a fair one—that some MPs are here less to represent the interests of their constituents, and more to represent their own. The petition reflects a wider public interest in the relationship between voters and those who represent them, and in how that relationship operates in the intervals between general elections. The key question is, when voters decide who to vote for, what exactly are they choosing? Some argue that voters elect an individual, full stop, and that what matters most is the person whose name appears on the ballot paper. However, others suggest that party affiliation is a significant part of how voters make their decision, as they view a candidate’s political party as shorthand for a particular set of values and attitudes. I would suggest that in the real world, for many voters, the decision that they make in the privacy of the polling booth at a general election is a complicated calculation: an algorithm involving party values, historical loyalties, headline policies, party leaders, local reputations and individual personalities. In our first-past-the-post system, that also increasingly includes tactical voting, as in many cases voters feel that they must choose not simply the candidate that they most admire, but the one most likely to defeat the candidate that they most fear. That is one of the quirks—some may even say flaws—of our electoral system. MPs may like to think that every vote that they win is the result of their particular blend of wit, charm and intelligence, but I suspect that, if elections were decided purely on our unique personalities, many of us might not be in this Chamber at all. My point is that voters often consider a range of factors when deciding how to cast their vote. This petition invites us to consider what should happen if one such factor—political party affiliation—changes during the course of a Parliament. Political parties clearly play a very real role in getting their candidates elected, investing time, money, wisdom and infrastructure. Parties pay the deposits and give their candidates training, campaign support and access to networks of volunteers. It could be argued that an exceptionally cynical candidate could simply align themselves with the party that had the most successful campaigning machine, and then promptly jump ship once they arrive here—I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody would do such a thing. During a general election campaign, the people knocking on doors, delivering leaflets early in the morning, getting out the vote late in the evening and standing outside polling stations in the rain are often long-standing party members, supporting the person they see as their party’s candidate. Many would argue that party affiliation forms an important part of the democratic bargain made with voters at a general election. However, at the same time, others emphasise that MPs are elected as representatives rather than as delegates, and that they must retain the freedom to exercise their judgment and follow their conscience once elected. This petition therefore invites us to consider where the balance should lie between those two contrasting principles. The question is whether the current constitutional arrangements strike the correct balance, or whether there should be some additional form of democratic mechanism when an MP decides to move to another party. Some argue that a by-election would allow voters to confirm whether they still support their MP after a change in party affiliation. They also argue that, if the defecting MP is sufficiently confident in their wit, charm and intelligence and that they hold a special place in the hearts of their constituents, they should not be afraid to return to the polls.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point. My main job today, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, is to present both sides of the argument, but the point about data on voting intentions, which we work so hard to glean on doorsteps, is a key factor in the debate. Others raise concerns that a requirement for a by-election could have unintended consequences, including potentially strengthening the power of party leaderships or discouraging MPs from following their conscience due to legitimate dissent. At this point, I want to clarify that when talking about defections, I am not talking about the case where an MP loses the Whip for reasons to do with the leadership, but about voluntary defections undertaken by an MP themselves. I do not think any of us would want a world where party Whips could threaten an MP with a mandatory by-election if we displease them in some way. Public opinion on this question appears to be mixed, although polling suggests it is an issue on which many people hold strong views. Some surveys indicate that around 40% of respondents believe that it is unacceptable for an MP to defect, while others suggest that a majority of voters think a defection should trigger some sort of electoral test. Those numbers do not resolve the constitutional question, but they suggest that people far outside Westminster really care about this matter. It is also worth putting the question into perspective. Party defections in this country are relatively rare, although they obviously sometimes occur in clusters during periods of political turbulence—possibly such as we are going through now. The last MPs to resign their seats and seek fresh mandate after defecting were Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless in 2014, when they left the Conservative party to join UKIP. They refought their seats in by-elections.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  Yes—but I believe that this Chamber will be available until at least 7.30 pm, so perhaps we could have an impromptu seminar. I trust that Mr McIlhinney and the other signatories to the petition will feel that we have done justice to their concerns and will appreciate the calibre of the debate, even if the constituencies that I mentioned at the outset are not going to be dusting off their ballot boxes any time soon. I thank everyone present for their most valuable contributions.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  At the start of the debate, I suggested that we might make up for lack of quantity with quality, and I think we have delivered on that promise. I thank colleagues from across the Chamber for their most thoughtful, fascinating and wide-ranging contributions to the debate. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her interesting diversion into the many other ways in which we could help to restore faith in our democracy, such as a fairer voting system and House of Lords reform. I echo the regret expressed by a number of colleagues that parliamentary procedure precludes the Chair from jumping into the conversation. I am sure that that would have been a most fascinating—

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. What we are talking about is the principle of the matter rather than specific defections from any one party to another. This constitutional question has also been considered by Parliament previously. In 2011, a private Member’s Bill proposed that MPs who changed their party affiliation would have to face a by-election, and in 2020, another Bill proposed extending the Recall of MPs Act 2015 so that a voluntary change of party could trigger a recall petition. Neither progressed through Parliament, but the fact that the issue has arisen more than once suggests that it raises enduring questions about representation and accountability. I would like to share some perspectives from other countries, because this is not a uniquely British debate, and other democracies have taken different approaches. Some, such as India, have adopted strict anti-defection laws under which MPs can lose their seat if they leave the party on whose ticket they were elected. Indian MPs are also, for the most part, compelled to vote with the Whip, which must make votes very, very boring. Others, such as New Zealand, have legislation designed to discourage what is sometimes referred to as “waka jumping”—I am reliably informed that that is effectively jumping from one canoe to another, which I can say from personal experience sounds like a very bad idea—although that approach has also prompted debate about the balance of power between MPs and party leadership. South Africa experimented with allowing MPs to cross the Floor, but later decided that that was a poor idea and prohibited it. That shows that views can change about how best to preserve electoral legitimacy. The UK system has its own traditions and constitutional principles. Party affiliation plays an important role in how Governments are formed and how legislation passes, but MPs are also expected to exercise independent judgment. All of that means that there is no simple or obvious answer to the question raised by the petition of whether the current arrangements already strike the right balance between representation, independence and accountability, or whether there might be merit in exploring alternative mechanisms. What is clear from the petition is that many members of the public care deeply about the relationship between voters and their representatives, how it works in practice and whether they feel that they are being represented in this place. I very much look forward to hearing the views of Members from across the House.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for introducing the debate and doing such a great job of painting a picture of the bigger systemic issues—as I do not have very long, I will not repeat those, but will focus instead on two specific issues that I face in my constituency. It is only fair to let the Minister know that I will ask him for a meeting at the end of the debate, because I feel I have just about exhausted all other possible avenues. Those two examples of the system failing rural constituencies affect Cirencester community hospital and the Tolsey GP surgery in Sherston. Cirencester hospital offers vital community services to a wide rural catchment, but over recent years the hospital has seen a gradual reduction in services. It lost its minor injuries unit in 2016; blood services were removed in 2020, and the day surgical unit is now undergoing a trial closure—I am very concerned that these trial closures have a nasty habit of becoming permanent. Residents are very concerned because they have seen that pattern before. I do not quite understand how that fits with the NHS 10-year plan, which emphasises care closer to home, when patients will potentially now have to travel considerable distances. By definition, people who need hospitals tend to be elderly, sick or parents of small children, and I do not need to repeat yet again how poor our rural public transport is. There is a great deal of public passion about this. Our petition has gathered getting on for 2,000 signatures in just a matter of days. As new housing developments arrive, the increased population of Cirencester will only increase the demand for services at that hospital. The second example is Sherston surgery. A developer has offered to build a lovely new custom-built facility to replace the existing one, the lease for which expires at the end of the year. I have lost count of how many meetings I have had with the ICB, which has acknowledged that its toolkit is not well suited to rural areas, yet it still has not agreed to that offer. I am out of time, but I look forward to meeting the Minister in due course.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading this important debate. The small charity sector plays a crucial role in supporting communities in my constituency and across the whole country. Some 86% of the small charities working in the south-west have an income of under £100,000. One of the greatest privileges of my role as an MP is meeting the amazing people behind these organisations: the volunteers, organisers and community leaders who give so generously of their time and energy to help others. That commitment to local action speaks directly to Liberal Democrat values: localism, community power, and the belief that solutions are strongest when they are shaped by the people closest to the challenge. Our small charities live out that principle every single day. Their impact might not be fully measurable, but I know it is massive. They demonstrate that when people look out for one another and create opportunities for others to flourish, society becomes more resilient, more compassionate and more connected. I would like to recognise just a few of the exceptional organisations in my constituency, many of which are now included in my Stronger South Cotswolds initiative. I am proud to be patron of the Churn community hub in Cirencester, which works to reduce isolation and improve wellbeing; HEALS of Malmesbury supports individuals and families who are vulnerable or experiencing hardship, offering help ranging from debt advice to emergency food provision; and the Tetbury Goods Shed brings people together for creative opportunities that span the generations. I would love to namecheck a few other incredible organisations—I hope they will forgive me for not being able to do full justice to their value: Fruitful Malmesbury, Greening Tetbury, Cirencester Pantry, Sustainable Sherston, Food for Thought Cotswolds, Working 4 Wellbeing, the Cotswold friends, People For You, Pips Community café, Tetbury Area Youth and Community Trust, and the many groups that support people suffering from cancer, dementia, Parkinson’s and other ailments. Those charities, as valuable as they are, are in crisis. Rising employer national insurance contributions place a direct financial strain on them, and the ongoing cost of living crisis compounds the challenge. As households struggle, donations fall and fundraising becomes harder, while at the same time more and more people turn to charities for support. We have rising demand, falling income and increasing costs. If we truly value the small charity sector—and we should—let us look at how we can make more funding available to it.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for bringing forward this important debate on a subject that is dear to my heart. Community cohesion is not just a nice to have; it is the foundation of our democratic infrastructure. When people feel connected, valued and heard, democracy is strong, but when they feel ignored, divided or left behind, that creates an opening for something far darker to take root. Over the last few decades across the country, we have seen rising mistrust, loneliness and anger. When community cohesion weakens, it creates fertile ground for extremism, scapegoating and racism. That is not just abstract; history shows us, time and again, that it leads to the downfall of countries and civilisations. Cohesion is prevention, resilience and the national security that starts at street level. We are now seeing the limitations of an individualistic and fragmented society, and I think that, over the coming years, we will see a swing back towards community as the real unit of organisation. I am already seeing that in my constituency, as I will come back to later. Cohesion grows when people know their neighbours. We got a brief glimpse of what is possible during the covid lockdowns: people who were working from home or on furlough noticed that they had neighbours, and that maybe those neighbours needed something from them. Then the pandemic ended and that sense of cohesion dissipated again, but it was a promising glimpse of what is still there, waiting to be fanned back into flame. We saw people working together on shared challenges. People need to feel that local decisions are made with them, not to them. They need shared spaces where they can gather together, such as pubs, village halls and churches. That is one reason why I am concerned about the current challenges facing the hospitality trade. In many small villages in my constituency, once the pub goes, there really is nowhere else for people to meet in an informal setting. Cohesion is eroded when infrastructure fails and development accelerates. I have seen a number of housing developments bolted on to existing towns and villages, which creates real division and sometimes, in the worst-case scenario, even resentment—especially when existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the population. Cohesion is also eroded when public services such as rural bus routes disappear and when environmental injustice goes unaddressed. It is eroded when people feel powerless, as came up last night in the debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Our current first-past-the-post voting system makes too many people feel powerless, and proportional representation would go a long way towards giving people their voice back in our democracy. In rural constituencies such as the South Cotswolds, the closure of bus routes, pressure on GP surgeries, pollution in our rivers and unmanaged growth all chip away at trust in Government and the systems that underpin the life of our country. When trust is eroded, narratives of blame rush in to fill the vacuum. Too often, people are tempted to blame a demographic that they can clearly identify rather than the invisible systems that they cannot. In my constituency, we are attempting an experiment. I am not aware of anything exactly like it that is going on anywhere else. We are calling it Stronger South Cotswolds, and it is based on my belief that over the coming years we are going to see more disruption, whether it is political, economic, technological or climate-related. When things go awry, we fall back on our neighbours and our sense of place. Stronger South Cotswolds is built around four pillars: food and farming, health and wellbeing, flood resilience and water issues, and community energy and nature conservation. At its heart, it is really about connection. We keep being told by the Government that there is so little money, and so increasingly local government has no money, but I have seen at first hand how a little money can go a very long way when put in the hands of people at the pointy end who know how it can be used. It delivers a fantastic return on investment. I am going to get into real trouble if I start listing some of the local legends, as we call them, who we are incorporating into Stronger South Cotswolds—perhaps I will save that for this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on small charities—but I will share the general concept that there is already so much good stuff going on in my constituency. On our website, we are recognising those people and groups already doing incredible work and highlighting them in the hope that other people can adopt and adapt those brilliant ideas elsewhere. My constituency straddles two counties, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, so that presents real opportunities for cross-county border transference of inspiration. These fantastic local initiatives do more than deliver services to people who are struggling with physical, mental or economic poor health, with dementia or with Parkinson’s. I have seen many people really flourishing through these organisations as they create relationships across age, class and socioeconomic background. That really is cohesion in practice. What I am seeing is that when communities feel strong, difference can be not alienating but enriching, but when communities feel fragile, difference is weaponised. If people believe that the system works only for the powerful, they are more susceptible to voices offering simplistic answers and easy targets. We need to be honest about that and recognise that cohesion is the antidote to division, but it does not happen automatically; it must be cultivated. That is where we as MPs, as the hon. Member for Rugby mentioned, have a real role to play. We may not have a budget, and we may only have small teams, but we do have that magical power to convene. When we bring people together, the magic can happen. That is what we are trying to do with Stronger South Cotswolds—bring people together with the aspiration that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. That cannot be manufactured by Government in Westminster. Belonging, by definition, happens at that nexus of place, nature and neighbourhood. I call on the Government to properly fund local groups and make those pots of money available, knowing that they will deliver a fantastic ROI. I ask the Government to please support community ownership of energy, land and community assets; invest in youth services and intergenerational spaces; ensure that planning decisions genuinely involve community voices; and restore trust in environmental regulation. Above all, I ask them to please choose to devolve power rather than concentrate it here in London. If things are going to get rocky over the next few years, we need to be building community cohesion now. Something I learned from expedition planning is that you have to do your preparation when it is calm, because when the storms hit, you just do not have time. Community cohesion is the same: if we invest now in connection, fairness and shared purpose, we can weather those storms together. If we neglect it, we should not be surprised when division grows. The question for the House is whether national policy will strengthen the work of initiatives like Stronger South Cotswolds or make it harder. I ask the Government to please put the power and resources into the hands of local communities, where they really can make a difference.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill makes important improvements to how our elections are run, but updating the machinery of elections is not the same as renewing our democracy, and we desperately need democratic renewal if we are to restore faith in the system. The greatest weakness in our system is not administrative; it is structural. It is the first-past-the-post problem. We are running a modern, multi-party Britain on a 19th-century electoral system. First past the post routinely produces majority Governments on minority votes, millions of wasted votes, and safe seats—if they are even a thing any more—in which outcomes are effectively decided before polling day. For the average voter, it means that, because of where they live, their vote may not matter. The result may not reflect how the country voted, and people may feel pushed into voting tactically, rather than honestly. About 70% of votes make no difference to the result. If someone’s chosen candidate has already won, their vote does not count. If they vote for a losing candidate, their vote just disappears into a void. In Gorton and Denton, tactical voting sites were openly directing voters on how to stop one particular party. Understandable though that desire may be, when people feel that they have to consult a website to figure out how to block someone, rather than simply voting for who they believe in, that is not democracy. The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) pointed out some of these ideas. If we stick with first past the post in an increasingly fractured multi-party political landscape, we run the very real risk of the next general election results looking much like a random number generator. We know that manufactured majorities weaken legitimacy, disproportionate outcomes fuel cynicism, and large groups of permanently unrepresented voters create fertile ground for anger and extremism. At a time when democratic norms are under pressure globally, that is not a technical flaw; it is a structural vulnerability. We know that there is a better way. After moving to proportional representation, countries like New Zealand, and indeed Scotland, saw more representative Parliaments, higher engagement among previously marginalised voters, and stronger public confidence that votes actually translate into seats. Comparative research consistently shows higher turnout and stronger feelings of political efficacy under proportional systems. PR is the missing piece of this democratic puzzle. It would reduce tactical voting, strengthen legitimacy, and align Parliament with the country as it actually is. It is not about party advantage; it is about democratic integrity. So, yes, let us modernise registration, protect candidates and tighten transparency, but we must not pretend that updating the management of elections is the same as strengthening democracy. When millions feel that their vote does not count, when Governments are handed sweeping power on minority support, and when voters feel forced into tactical calculations instead of honest choices, that cannot be said to be a free and fair democracy. If we really believe in representation of the people, then every vote must carry equal weight. Anything less leaves us with a democracy that functions procedurally but fails morally. Let the Representation of the People Bill ensure that the will of the people is truly represented.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  Just a couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by a constituent who graduated in 2021 and has already accrued more than £6,000 of interest on her initial debt of £41,000. I was one of the lucky ones: as the first in my low-income family to go to university, I had tuition and maintenance paid. That was a great opportunity and leveller and, without it, I do not think I would be here now. Does the hon. Member agree that students and graduates have been at the mercy of arbitrary decision making for far too long, and that everyone deserves the right to pursue higher education, regardless of their class or generation?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  In my rural constituency, mobile banking hubs, including mobile vans and post offices, are absolutely vital, especially for older constituents who still prefer to use cash, and for rural businesses that need to pay in cash. Recently, services in Hullavington and Minety were suspended, which was a real problem. Does the hon. Lady agree that in rural communities, mobile banking vans are not a luxury, but an essential service, not just for the people using cash but for the businesses and pubs where cash payments are made?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I believe we need to challenge the automatic right for developers to connect to the sewerage network. In fact, they must be encouraged to work with public utilities to ensure that capacity is there before they put spades in the ground. I realise I am slightly digressing from the key issue of transport, which I will come to now. Siddington’s road network consists of narrow rural lanes that were never designed for high traffic volumes. High congestion already exists at peak times, especially around Ashton Road and the routes feeding the A419 and A429 corridors. Some 1,000 homes could mean another 1,500 or even 2,000 vehicles, with a significant increase in daily car movements. If the potholes are bad now, they are only going to get worse—not to mention the impact on carbon emissions and air quality. Instead, we should be encouraging public transport and active travel, and designing new developments accordingly. I have heard recently from town councils in Cricklade and Fairford of their concerns about these large, bolt-on estates that are a little too far from town centre facilities. People will have to drive, adding to existing congestion and pressure on parking spaces. Rural bus services are already limited in frequency and coverage. On the 51 route, the loss of the 8 am service and the 4 pm return means that it is just not a viable way to get to work and back. The result is being locked into increased car use. A young constituent of mine, Heather Kent, attends Stagedoor Learning in Cheltenham, but she now faces an 11-hour day with long waits between services or is dependent on her parents to collect her. She first came to my attention as someone who regularly does litter picks in the area; she will now be spending more time trying to get to and from places and less time picking up litter. Meanwhile, on the 77 bus route from Fairford to Cirencester, there have been service changes and serious reliability concerns. Once somebody gives up on reliable public transport and buys a car, we have lost them; they will then use their car to get everywhere, with all the consequences of that. What we need is not just a short-term promise of viable public transport; we need it to be locked in for the long term—not dependent on developer payments—so people can plan their lives accordingly. Going forward, as has already been mentioned, the impacts will be not just linear but exponential. We need careful, sensible modelling of what the impact of these new developments will be, and the resulting total vehicle movement. I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to housing. Clearly, we need more affordable housing, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), about having not only developer-led housing for profit but the right kinds of housing in the right places with an in-built sense of community. Without careful planning, we will face permanent congestion, reduced safety, worsened flooding, a loss of village identity and potentially serious adverse impacts on nature and wellbeing. Planning should shape the future; it should not erode the present. If we allow large-scale developments to proceed without guaranteed transport infrastructure, we will be building not thriving communities but daily frustration, longer commutes, gridlocked lanes and an increased flood risk. Growth done well creates opportunity; growth done badly creates regret and resentment.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for her very insightful opening speech. If the number of homes in an area is doubled but the roads, buses, rail capacity, flood protection and sewerage are not doubled, something has to give. In Siddington, in my constituency, we are being asked to absorb up to 1,100 additional homes on top of the 2,500 already under way nearby, with no credible, guaranteed transport plan to support them. That is not infrastructure-led growth; it is infrastructure playing catch-up, and rural communities are the ones that will pay the price. In a previous career as a management consultant, I learned through critical path planning that certain things must happen in a specific order to work smoothly; that just does not seem to be happening at the moment. In a perfect world—I know we do not live in one—the land use framework would have come out first so we could see how to allocate our land. I understand that if we add together all the land area commitments in this country, we will need a couple more Waleses to accommodate them all. Clearly, something has gone a little awry. To pick up on a point already made by a couple of colleagues: will housing targets actually deliver the affordable houses we need, where we need them? I am not at all convinced. As an environmentalist, I am very concerned by measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Are we at risk of trashing our countryside and building houses that are not fit for their designated purpose? Of course, we do not yet have the sewerage infrastructure; as a constituency that lies largely in the Thames Water catchment, this is very much top of my mind.

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  With the President of the United States threatening a 15% blanket tariff on all trade with the US, does my hon. Friend agree that a closer relationship with the EU should be at the top of our priority list?

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Sherston in South Cotswolds is in imminent danger of losing its surgery. There is an enormous local strength of feeling, with 2,850 out of 3,000 patients signing a petition. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, people who need doctors’ surgeries by definition tend to be elderly, ill or parents with small children, so does she agree that the NHS should prioritise the provision of GP surgeries for small rural communities such as Sherston?