Dr Roz Savage
MP for South Cotswolds · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“First past the post encourages parties to focus their policies on core marginal seats that they want to influence. That means the kind of policies they present and whether they suit a constituency will depend largely on the postcode and political history of that constituency.”
“I feel like I now personally have a representative in Westminster.” At the last general election, the current Government got 30% of the vote, 60% of the seats and they now have 100% of the power. How can that be fair? In effect, that means that 70% of votes have no power.”
“I wish the Government had gone further and introduced alternative vote for those single-position elections. The proof is in the result. In last year’s mayoral elections, the Mayor of the West of England won with just 25% of the vote. That is clearly not democracy.”
The complete record
Every one of 479 lines we hold for Dr Roz Savage, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate on GP funding in the south-west, and for his passionate speech. I want to shine a spotlight on a village in my constituency called Sherston, where the future of the local GP surgery hangs in the balance. I realise that Sherston may not be the centre of everybody’s universe, as it is of mine, but in many ways it is a microcosm of the wider issues facing NHS-funded GPs in the rural parts of the south-west. For years, residents of Sherston and the surrounding villages have lived with growing uncertainty as to whether they will continue to have access to primary care close to home. Here is the situation: the lease on the current building for Tolsey surgery expires in 2027 and, for a range of reasons, it cannot be renewed.”
“I will finish by quoting the American farmer, poet and activist Wendell Berry, who said that the “care of the earth is our most ancient and most worthy and, after all, our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it, and to foster its renewal, is our only legitimate hope.””
“I am not saying we are currently investing in such work; I am saying we should shift our focus away from technologies that may or may not deliver benefits and may or may not deliver catastrophic side effects. Let us instead focus on realistic, viable solutions that we already know work. Let us prioritise emissions cuts, the restoration of nature and behavioural shifts. Let us resist the easy temptation of silver bullets and choose instead the hard but honest work of transition. What is at stake is not just the climate, but our shared future. It is about not just statistics but the stories of people, places and ecosystems that deserve to survive and thrive.”
“The most dramatic climatic shifts took place before humans came on the scene. Our western civilisation has evolved during an unusually stable climatic period—the Holocene. Our infrastructure, food systems and settlements were all built around that stability. Shake the foundations and the whole structure becomes precarious. The rate of change we are now seeing is unprecedented in human history. Ironically, that puts us, in many ways the most adaptable of species, among the most vulnerable species on the planet. I want to end on a positive note. This is not a story of despair. Yes, the situation is urgent, but it is not hopeless. If we act boldly and act now, we can still turn it around. Let us redirect investment away from planetary-scale experiments of dubious feasibility.”
“I am talking not ideologically but economically. The energy return on fossil fuels is falling. In the early days of oil, when we could just stick a nodding donkey in the ground anywhere in Texas and hit oil, we got about 100 barrels out for every barrel-worth of energy invested; today, the figure is down to close to 20 and still falling. At some point, the economics will simply stop making sense. Fossil fuels are finite, and the cost of extraction is rising, so given that we know we will have to make the transition at some point, sooner or later, why not do it sooner? The question is not whether we will move on, but whether we will do it on our own terms or wait until crisis forces our hand. Some argue that we live on a planet on which the climate has always changed, but historically it has changed slowly, giving species time to adapt.”
“We know that the consequences of that level of warming include rising seas, more intense storms, loss of crop yields, the mass displacement of humans, accelerating biodiversity loss and heatwaves that will put many, many lives at risk. Although carbon capture is often talked about as a solution, the reality is sobering. It is, for sure, less perilous than SRM, but the vast majority of carbon capture projects are still very small in scale, and many use almost as much energy to capture carbon dioxide as was emitted in the first place. To scale carbon capture up to a level at which we could even begin to think about continuing business as usual would require enormous amounts of infrastructure, energy and funding. Meanwhile, it is increasingly clear that we have to transition away from fossil fuels.”
“SRM could take us out of the frying pan and into the fire. Instead of reaching for techno fixes, we need to do what we already know works: cut fossil fuel use, restore nature and—gosh—maybe even look at changing our behaviour, because at some point, sooner or later, behaviour change must be part of the picture. If we are honest, none of the technologies yet available to us—not even the most advanced forms of carbon removal—can keep pace with our current levels of consumption. Globally, we are still emitting about 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. If we continue on our current path—as an environmental campaigner for more than two decades, I very much hope we do not—we are headed for about 2.7° of warming by the end of the century.”
“We should consider carefully the possibility that deploying SRM could put us in direct violation of the protocol, which is one of the most successful international environmental agreements ever forged. We must consider the human cost of climate change and any measures that we might take to mitigate it. Who decides the thermostat setting? Who gets more rain, and who goes without? Can we even control these things? The risks of failing to invest in technology to tackle the root causes of climate change threaten serious regional disruption. As always, it will almost certainly be the poorest and least responsible for the crisis who bear the brunt of the fallout. Some will argue that we are still doing too little, too late to mitigate climate change, and I agree with them, but that does not mean that SRM is the right answer.”
“If the injections stopped for any reason, which in our turbulent geopolitical world is entirely possible, we would risk a phenomenon known as termination shock: a sudden extreme spike in global temperatures, which would be potentially catastrophic for life on Earth. As for the chemicals used in SRM, the aerosols under consideration include sulphates and even aluminium. The matter is still being researched, and there is no definitive link between aluminium and conditions such as Alzheimer’s, but many scientists remain cautious about prolonged exposure. Sulphates are precisely the chemicals that we worked so hard to eliminate under the Montreal protocol, because of their role in depleting the ozone layer.”
“It could disrupt rainfall patterns, and would do nothing to stop our oceans absorbing carbon dioxide and forming the carbonic acid that is affecting the viability of phytoplankton, which are essential for life on Earth, generating half the oxygen we breathe. There is also the problem of scientific control. We cannot conduct a controlled experiment with SRM. We do not have two planets, one on which we conduct SRM and one on which we do not. There is no planet B to test it on. Once SRM is deployed, we are in effect launching a planetary experiment, with no ability to reverse it if things go wrong. As the petitioners have highlighted, even if SRM “works” in the short term, there is a risk that our climate will become dependent on continual injections.”
“It does not stop ocean acidification. It does not reduce fossil fuel use. It masks the symptoms while the root cause, our fossil fuel carbon emissions, goes unchecked. Whatever options we consider as we confront the climate crisis, we must not be distracted from our overriding mission to tackle the key cause of climate change: our reliance on fossil fuels. Let us talk about the risks of SRM. First, there is the issue of unintended consequences. Humanity does not have a good track record on this. Our weather systems are immensely complex, interconnected and not well understood. Altering sunlight could potentially disrupt monsoons or shift jet streams, or trigger droughts in some regions while causing floods in others. According to a report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, SRM could delay ozone recovery by decades.”
“Geo-engineering falls into two main categories: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. The petition calls for a pre-emptive ban on both. CDR is about drawing carbon out of the atmosphere and can involve technology such as carbon capture, or nature-based solutions such as restoring forests, peatlands and grasslands. I have absolutely no problem with the latter. Trees do not need subsidies, peatlands do not break, and healthy soils not only store carbon but improve water quality, mitigate flooding and support biodiversity. They are our natural allies in the fight against climate change. SRM is a different matter. It aims to reflect sunlight back into space by various means, such as using aerosols sprayed into the stratosphere, whitening clouds or even placing mirrors in orbit. SRM does not remove carbon.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 701963 relating to geo-engineering and the environment. The petition was started by Antoinette Taylor and opened on 23 December 2024. As of 12 June 2025, it had gathered more than 159,000 signatures. Just two of those signatures were from my South Cotswolds constituency, so I clearly did not step up to lead this debate in an effort to win votes. [ Official Report, 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 2WC.] (Correction) I am here because I believe this issue matters deeply for our future and for the future of the planet on which we rely for life. Geo-engineering is a broad term used to describe a range of large-scale interventions in Earth’s climate system, so I will start by clarifying a couple of definitions.”
“We urgently need to act, not with hubris, but with humility, courage and care for the wellbeing of future generations. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 701963 relating to geo-engineering and the environment.”
“I trust that there will always be the utmost transparency, and I am very reassured to hear about the Government’s work with the British Standards Institution to ensure full transparency and accountability in the work done in that domain. I will wrap up with a personal reflection. During my years of rowing solo across oceans to raise awareness of our climate and nature issues, I learned the hard way that we cannot fight mother nature. We cannot flout her laws and expect to win. Ultimately, she always has the final word, and the wiser path is to work with her. I hope that we will continue to emphasise nature-based solutions, as we can never go wrong with those. I fully appreciate that this is a climate emergency and that urgent action is needed, but let us not forget that mother nature can also be our greatest ally.”
“I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for highlighting possible solutions, particularly the ocean-based solutions that are very dear to my heart. This debate seems to be one of those rare occasions where we find multi-party consensus. I am tremendously reassured to hear that the Government have no plans to deploy SRM in this country. It was interesting to hear a bit more about the work of ARIA, and I trust that its work will not open a door. Humanity has form, and once we know that something is possible, we are not always very good at holding ourselves back from deploying it.”
“The Leader of the House will be well aware that the global ocean treaty has still not had its passage through the House. With the first ever ocean conference of the parties coming up quickly, next year, will she confirm when the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement will be brought forward for ratification?”
“Instead of handing vast developments to multinationals with sketchy records, we should be investing in community-owned energy projects—initiatives that are more resilient, more trusted and far better suited to rural areas such as South Cotswolds. Projects such as Westmill Solar and the Low Carbon Hub have shown how communities can lead the way on clean energy, cutting emissions while boosting local economies. Let us not confuse scale with ambition. Our net zero future should be safe, smart and fair, not shaped by the profit margins of distant shareholders. We can and must do better if we are going to get to net zero without alienating the public and driving them into the arms of campaigners who would do away with the net zero enterprise altogether.”
“During its time leading the consortium that ran Thames Water, Macquarie extracted billions in dividends while letting infrastructure crumble and rivers fill with sewage. It is an asset management company. Its job is to make money, and it does it well. It is not a public utilities company. It is not interested in home-grown, community-led energy; it is interested in profit. It is not here to protect the beauty of the British countryside or to invest in long-term sustainability. Its business model is simple: build big, move fast and maximise returns, whatever the cost to people, nature or public trust. We need a better alternative.”
“Under the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, BESS projects would be removed from national oversight altogether, piling even more responsibility on to under-resourced local authorities. That does not look like thoughtful climate planning; it is a top-down proposal on a massive scale, with too many unanswered questions and too little engagement with the people who live nearby. Despite the obligatory consultations, residents close to Lime Down feel understandably overlooked in a process that should prioritise both safety and consent. We should look closely at the companies behind Lime Down. The developer, Island Green Power, is now fully owned by Macquarie bank, a global investment firm with a track record that should give us all pause for thought.”
“That is not just a visual or environmental concern, but a serious safety issue. We have already heard a lot about the low risk, but very high consequence, of a fire at such a facility. If such a fire were to break out, the consequences would be devastating for both infrastructure and public safety. Members have already referred to many examples of fires that have taken place, so I will not repeat them, but I want to emphasise that the location of battery storage facilities is absolutely crucial. Right now, there are no national safety regulations tailored to best technology. There is no requirement for thermal containment, no mandatory fire suppression and no clear guidance for local planners.”
“As the MP for South Cotswolds and an environmental campaigner who has spent decades campaigning for climate action, I would like to raise serious concerns about the unchecked expansion of BESS facilities. Earlier this year, I brought the Climate and Nature Bill to the House because I believe in having a fast, fair and science-led transition away from fossil fuels, but I also believe in doing so properly—safely, transparently and with communities at the heart of the process. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the case of the proposed Lime Down solar farm in my constituency. The Lime Down proposal would industrialise over 2,000 acres of rural farmland and introduce a 500 MW battery installation right next to the railway line from London Paddington to south Wales.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural constituencies like mine, bus routes are an absolute lifeline and a route out of poverty? When the 84 and 85 bus route was cut last year, it meant not only that people could not get to medical appointments or to work, but that students had to drop out of the college courses that would have enabled them to escape from poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that this Bill enables an affordable, joined-up and genuinely useful rural transport network?”
“We support removing the requirement for medical reports, recognising non-binary identities in law and ending the spousal veto—the very proposals that the Conservatives brought forward in 2018. We also believe in a wider approach, expanding access to timely, high-quality healthcare and putting an end to all forms of conversion practices.”
“That already works effectively in countries such as Ireland, Argentina and Denmark, and it does not remove safeguards; false declarations remain a criminal offence. What self-identification does is remove unnecessary medicalised hurdles that dehumanise trans people and delay access to legal rights. Many trans people already live full time in their affirmed gender, without ever applying for a gender recognition certificate, precisely because the process is so inaccessible. The current system does not stop people from transitioning; it simply makes their lives harder—so much harder. The Liberal Democrats have long supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to make it less bureaucratic and intrusive. Our party policy is clear.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 701159 relating to transgender people self-identifying their legal gender. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to bring forward this very important debate. I am grateful to the petitioner, John Baic, and the more than 127,000 people who signed the petition, including 132 from my South Cotswolds constituency. The petition calls for a simple principle: that trans people should be able to self-identify their legal gender without needing an intrusive medical diagnosis; and for trans people to live with dignity, not bureaucracy, and with compassion, not suspicion. This means allowing someone to change their legal gender through a statutory declaration.”
“In 2023, of the nearly 5,000 transphobic hate crimes reported, only 126 led to prosecution—less than 3%. That is not acceptable. Nearly half of all trans and gender-diverse individuals have experienced sexual assault. Trans women without access to gender-affirming care are significantly more likely to attempt suicide—one in five will try. While this is often painted as a culture war, the human cost is painfully real.”
“Dignity and respect are exactly what we are talking about, and I absolutely agree. For us, this is not about abstract debates, but about real lives, human beings and the fundamental human right for someone to live safely, freely and in their own truth. Yet today we find ourselves in a situation where one of society’s smallest minorities is being targeted with hostility and violence. According to the 2021 census, only 0.5% of adults in England and Wales identified as trans or gender diverse, yet entire newspaper front pages and hours of political debate are dedicated to their existence. This toxic and hostile debate has real-world consequences. According to the Office for National Statistics, hate crimes against trans people have risen by close to 200% since 2018.”
“I wholeheartedly agree, and I associate myself with the hon. Member’s remarks. Let us take the example of Joelle, a trans woman who died of an eminently treatable cancer after waiting for eight days on a general ward, because clinicians could not agree whether she should be placed on a men’s ward or a women’s ward. The delay in treatment cost her her life. That is not to mention the recent Supreme Court ruling and the devastating impact that its implications are having on trans people, who are just trying to get on with living their lives.”
“I am keenly aware of the distress that the Supreme Court ruling has caused. It seems to fly in the face of common sense when somebody who is clearly living life as a female would, under this ruling, have to go into male spaces. It beggars belief. The ruling hurts not only trans people, but any woman who does not conform to feminine norms, who may be challenged on entering a women’s space. This is not just a legal roll-back for trans rights, but a roll-back for women’s rights. A recent survey response from a parent said: “I’m primarily worried about my trans daughter’s safety as a result of the ruling. I’m also worried about my cis daughter’s future and the increasing pressure to conform to restrictive gender stereotypes.” A trans person responding to the same survey said that they felt: “Stress, anxiety and uncertainty for the future.”
“We are being told the current system is robust, but how can a system be robust when over 31,000 people are still waiting just for their first appointment at a gender identity clinic? Some will wait for more than seven years. Many will never make it through the process—not because they lack the seriousness, but because the bureaucracy is unbearable, as is the toll on their mental health. Public Health England said that over a third of trans people have attempted suicide at least once. A human tragedy is unfolding as a result of the lack of suitable support and enough resources to see trans people through the process.”
“I absolutely agree. This already vulnerable group, many of whom struggle with mental health issues, are struggling even more as a result of the confusion arising from the ruling. I was quoting a trans person who responded to the survey. They continued: “When discussions of safety have been in Parliament, there is a complete lack of empathy for the invalidation and fear trans individuals are experiencing.” I say to that person and other people in the trans community that I hope they are witnessing the empathy that is being expressed in this Hall today. The Government must modernise, simplify, clarify and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law and bring in a new process, as they promised at the last general election.”
“Its message to us as parliamentarians is clear: legal recognition reduces suicide risk. Gender recognition reform would directly improve mental health outcomes. We need to get past this toxic debate and focus on the urgent reality of trans people who face violence, homelessness and systemic neglect. I will end this speech with a simple reflection. There are, as far as I am aware, no trans MPs in this Chamber, but we all have trans constituents, and we all have the capacity to imagine. Imagine waking up tomorrow exactly as you are—same body, same mind—but the world is treating you as somebody that you are not. They call you by the wrong name. They dismiss what you say because they do not see beyond the gender issue. That is the daily experience of many trans people in the UK.”
“I wholeheartedly agree that equality means equality, no matter who the individual concerned may be. Even the Government’s much-lauded £5 GRC fee is meaningless when the necessary private medical reports, blood tests and hormone prescriptions cost thousands. This is simply inaccessible to many people. It is not a system of integrity, but one of delay, expense and quiet exclusion leading to quiet desperation. Meanwhile, there are some rays of hope. Organisations such as the Trans Legal Clinic are stepping in to fill the gap. Founded just three years ago, the clinic now supports trans people across the UK with legal issues relating to discrimination, housing, gender-based violence and access to care. Its staff are unpaid, its clients often arrive in crisis, and its work is saving lives.”
“Let us choose dignity and compassion. Let us choose to recognise people for who they are as individuals, and give them the legal recognition and protection they deserve.”
“I have worked closely with a member of my team who is a trans person in preparing this speech. It has been eye-opening for me, as a cis woman, to find out so much about the toll on members of the trans community as they try to navigate these impossible systems. I could have put so much more in this speech that would only arouse even more compassion. In my own small way, I am doing what I can today to try to be that voice for the trans community, which, as the hon. Member said, is not heard enough in this debate. To any trans person listening to today’s debate: please know that even in a Parliament where your voice is still too often missing, there are people who see and hear you, and who will fight for your right to be yourself. As parliamentarians, we have a choice: we can stoke fear and division or we can show leadership.”
“Resolved , That this House has considered e-petition 701159, relating to transgender people self-identifying their legal gender.”
“What will they do to ensure that tragic cases like Joelle’s, who was left waiting a crucial eight days for cancer treatment, never happen again? What will they do to ensure that there is fairness and clarity for the trans community going forwards? Trans people in the UK are not asking for special treatment; they are simply asking to be seen, recognised, safe and treated with respect and dignity. And finally, I say this to any trans person listening to the debate: even in a political climate where your identity is too often debated rather than respected, there are people in this Parliament who will stand up for your right to live freely and authentically, and to live to your full potential. We owe it to you to keep the focus where it belongs—on your humanity. Question put and agreed to.”
“Trans people are a tiny percentage of the population, and the vast majority of them just want to be able to live their lives peacefully. As has been mentioned, being trans is not a lifestyle choice. It is a path that is difficult, onerous and too often fraught with danger. It is not a mission that people undertake in order to gain access to single-sex spaces of the opposite sex. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to get this right. It is literally vital, given the terrible and tragic rates of suicide and mental health issues among trans people. I would like to leave the Government with the following questions. What measures will they implement to reduce the current seven-year NHS waiting lists? What will they do to address the shockingly low prosecution rate for hate crimes against trans people?”
“I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken in support of this petition with understanding and empathy. As a Liberal Democrat, one of my foremost values is to create a society in which people are able to lean into their full potential. In the past in this country, we have tried to force left-handed people to be right-handed and gay people to be straight, or otherwise have punished people who deviate from the norm for being who they are. Let us not repeat that mistake by putting insuperable obstacles in the way of trans people. Today, we have heard some argue about the right of trans people versus the right of women to have a safe space. This is very complex, and in some contexts it is especially sensitive, but let us keep it in proportion.”
“Q5. Under the Conservatives, inequality has surged. More than 14 million people—including 2,000 children in my constituency—now live in poverty, while the richest 1% see their incomes soar. Of the developed countries, ours is now the ninth most unequal. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats, the public and many of his own Back Benchers and commit himself to reversing changes involving, for instance, the personal independence payment, the winter fuel allowance and the two-child benefit cap, and will he introduce clear poverty reduction targets to ensure that any economic growth benefits those who need it most?”
“Perhaps surprisingly, I would like to use a word rarely heard in the context of the water industry: hope. I would like to highlight some ways in which good things are happening, largely at the grassroots level. First, there is citizen science. Eighty pollution incidents were reported by citizens just in my constituency in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire last year. Citizen science can often highlight pollution incidents up to three days before official sources of information.”
“My constituency contains the source of the Thames, so I could, in theory, row from my constituency to the House. I would like to celebrate the opening of the Thames tideway tunnel, as mentioned by the Secretary of State. Back in 2013, I was campaigning for the tunnel, which included frowning at a sewage outflow under Putney bridge, so it could be said that I have been in the excrement for quite some time. Sadly, the situation has not improved in the 12 years in between. Just this morning, I had Ben Thornbury, an impressive young man, in my office to commend him on his work cleaning up the River Avon in Malmesbury. Sadly—let no good deed go unpunished—he had picked up sepsis from the pollution in the river. I am grateful to say that he made a full recovery, but, still, that is a sign of the times.”
“In the South Cotswolds, we recently held two fruitful summits—one on the Gloucestershire side and one on the Wiltshire side—bringing people together on the issue of flooding. They yielded a lot of enthusiasm, expertise and actionable solutions. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) mentioned, we cannot leave it all to the grassroots. We have a deeply dysfunctional water industry in this country, and we need to get upstream of these problems to the source.”
“I completely agree. Although I commend those grassroots efforts, that is not their job. I was delighted to hear from the Secretary of State that we will soon have real-time reporting on water pollution, and I look forward to seeing the visible—and smellable—results of that. It is also the Earthwatch WaterBlitz this weekend, so hon. Members may still have time to get their water testing kits do their own bit of citizen science. Secondly, again, I applaud local efforts, and especially the Malmesbury River Valleys Trust and the Cotswold Lakes Trust, for doing such exemplary work in taking care of our waterways and our wetlands in the South Cotswolds. I recommend to hon. Members across the House that we use our power to convene to bring together people around these issues.”
“I would be more than happy to back my hon. Friend’s calls for an equivalent system in Scotland. Finally, I thank the Government for everything they are already doing to reform the water industry and look forward to seeing real results in our waterways. I will add that, while I welcome the Cunliffe review, I was disappointed to find out that the ownership of water companies is outside its scope.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That was not what I had been led to believe from a roundtable with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but maybe I misunderstood. The truth is that the profit motive has no place in a vital public utility such as the water industry. We are one of only two countries in the entire world that has a privatised water industry, and clearly it is not working and needs to be reviewed.”
“In my constituency of South Cotswolds, there are tragic stories, including about disabled residents being trapped in their flats due to a lift being out of order. Another constituent was informed that their charges had risen from £1,500 to £2,100 per six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need urgent action from the Government to end this daylight robbery?”
“One of the reasons that was given for leaving the EU was that it would allow the UK to develop stronger relations with countries further afield, including the US. However, with the American President being somewhat gung-ho with tariffs, and given his willingness to be best friends with the President of Russia, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should look to strengthen our relations with our nearest cousins in Europe?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Given President Trump’s increasing unpredictability and shifting policies, can the Secretary of State share how the Government are strengthening defence procurement agreements with European partners to enhance our capabilities and reduce our reliance on the United States?”