Support for Farmers

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We chose to use our Opposition day to discuss support for farmers because farmers are the backbone of rural communities across the country, and today’s debate has shown just how deeply that is felt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened the debate by explaining that the Liberal Democrats would reform the SFI so that it allocated every farmer a sum that was consistent with the capacity of their farm. That sum would be theirs to claim within a long window. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us that we, and farmers, are in the middle of a perfect storm. We have heard from Members in all parts of the House about farmers who prepared SFI applications for months on end, only to be shut out in an afternoon. In Glastonbury and Somerton, this is not an abstract issue. It is about whether family farms can plan not just for next year, but for the years and generations ahead.

On 22 September, the second window opened, with £233 million in the fund. By 3.48 pm, it had shut. Farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble. At least festival-goers know when the fallow years are coming; farmers who missed out have been handed one with no warning at all. One farmer from Curry Rivel wrote to me describing the process simply as a “disaster”. The money has been shared out badly, not just too thinly. Window 1 left £3 million unallocated, but window 2 was oversubscribed within hours, and it was not an even scramble. A recent survey conducted by the Select Committee found that 60% of respondents could not submit before the window closed. Only 31% of those running farm businesses were successful, compared with 68% of land agents. That is a two-tier system. Those who can afford an adviser are waved through the farm gate, while those who cannot are left out in the field. Until it was privatised in 1997, ADAS gave farmers free independent advice, provided by the state. Today, those who cannot afford an agent are on their own.

That was not just bad luck. DEFRA’s own forecasts, made in April and May, modelled the window’s closing on its very first day; it predicted 12,200 applications. On the day, 12,204 were submitted, just four more than were forecast. DEFRA saw it coming, and nearly 2,900 farmers started applications that they were never able to submit. Others were let down by DEFRA’s IT systems. Tom Kimber, who farms at Higher Stavordale farm in Charlton Musgrove, had an SFI agreement that was coming to an end. He applied in window 2, and missed out because of technical problems. He was assured that farmers like him would be given a route back in, but he has heard nothing since. Tom wants to deliver for the environment, and demand for the SFI proves that thousands of other farmers want to, too, but their commitment is not matched by a Government who understand the scheme.

Last week, the Minister told the House that “first come, first served” will end. I welcome that, but one cannot feed a whole farm herd from a trough that is simply too small. The expiring agreements are worth over £520 million, but the budget across both windows is just £310 million; as the NFU has asked, where has the missing funding gone? Around 8,800 of this autumn’s applicants have agreements ending in February. Clare, who farms near Puckington, is one of them. For years, she has protected the river margins on her land, thereby slowing run-off, filtering pollution and giving wildlife space to thrive. SFI was meant to be her way forward, but now those margins have no funding.

Before I move on to the Conservatives’ utter failure to support British farmers, I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, which includes BPR and APR. The Conservatives cannot escape their share of the blame for the chaos that farmers face today. They designed SFI on a “first come, first served” basis, botched the transition from basic payment schemes, let farming budgets fall behind inflation, and signed trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand that undercut British farmers. However, this Government cannot keep hiding behind their predecessors. They chose to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments while stop-starting SFI, so farmers have no universal payment offer at all for the first time since 1945. The Government imposed the family farm tax, and cut the DEFRA and farming budgets.

The Liberal Democrats warned that this would happen. I wrote to the former Secretary of State in July, before the first window closed, to ask how the Department would stop window 2 meeting this exact fate. All of this is happening as our farmers face one of their worst years in memory. Mark Humphrey, who farms at Isle Brewers and chairs NFU Somerset, has described a torrid 18 months. Milk is down at 32p per litre, selling for 8p less than it costs to produce, and maize yields are down by 10% to 15%. Our farmers must be profitable.

However, Somerset shows what is possible with long-term certainty. Last week, I met Damon Bridge of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Greater Sedgemoor landscape recovery team on North Moor, near Langport, where farmers and conservation groups are working together across 4,000 hectares. This involves 20-year agreements, not a window that slams shut in an afternoon, but only a handful of landscape recovery projects have reached delivery. Farmers need to know that they will actually happen, because food security is national security.

All this comes back to one question: can this country feed itself? We produce only about 60% of the food we eat. Between 2019 and 2024, the farming budget was frozen at £2.4 million, while input costs rose by 44%. With war in Ukraine and conflict in the middle east, food security is national security, yet the Government still do not treat it as a priority.

[James Naish]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will not, given the time.

I brought forward my Food Bill, which is now Liberal Democrat policy, to tackle this issue. It has binding targets for domestic food production, would ensure that an annual food security audit was reported to the House, and would take action to drive down food waste. We have long called for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes, so that every eligible farmer who applies in good faith gets an agreement, there is a proper bridge for the 8,800 farmers whose agreements are ending, and we invest in the training and technology that cut farmers’ costs in the long term—not fairer rationing, but a bigger pot. The Chancellor has the perfect opportunity to deliver that money in next week’s Budget.

I have four simple questions for the Minister. First, what will be different next year to ensure that a family farm without an agent has the same chance as an estate with one, and will he look at restoring free independent advice services for smaller farms? Secondly, will he guarantee that farmers like Tom, who missed out because of DEFRA’s IT failures, will not lose out again? Has any money from window 2 been left unallocated, and if so, how much? Thirdly, will the Minister open SFI27 early in the new year, or even before that, and publish its budget now, so that no farmer with an expiring agreement faces a gap from April next year? Fourthly, will he press the Chancellor to use next week’s Budget to properly fund the schemes on which our farmers depend, and can he confirm that the DEFRA budget will not be cut? 

Our farmers have kept their side of the deal. They have adapted to the end of the basic payment scheme, prepared for scheme after scheme, and kept growing our food despite soaring costs, extreme weather, disease outbreaks and attacks that threaten their livelihoods. What they have not had is a Government, Conservative or Labour, who keep their side of the deal. This motion offers a way forward, with long-term funding for every eligible SFI applicant, a reversal of the farm family farm tax, a comprehensive national food strategy and an extra £1 billion a year for the schemes our farmers depend on, because a nation that cannot feed itself cannot protect itself.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

SFI is the foundation of a resilient food system, and it delivers for nature. When it closed without warning last year, the Liberal Democrats warned of the damage to farm finances and our environmental goals. Farmers now face a two-tier system once again.

Clare farms near Puckington. Her countryside stewardship scheme agreement is ending, and SFI was meant to be her way forward. Farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble, so I welcome the end of “first come, first served”, but having a fairer queue for the same small pot just changes who gets turned away. The Liberal Democrats would back farmers with an extra £1 billion a year to produce food and protect nature, not choose between them. With the Budget just two weeks away, will the Minister back our call and press the Chancellor to fund SFI properly?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her contribution, and for the constructive way that she has engaged with me and my Department on these issues. I absolutely recognise that it has been an incredibly challenging time for farmers, and I mentioned some of the funding that we have put into sustainable funding—£11.8 billion over this Parliament. I also mentioned the significant figure that has been provided via various schemes: £2.3 billion has been made available for the farming budget this year. I will certainly take on board the points that the hon. Lady has made, and reflect on them as we design the scheme for next year. I look forward to working closely with her on the next steps.

Water Sector: Public Ownership

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. As a former councillor, I have sat on many planning committees and in many instances I was extremely frustrated by the lack of engagement or, where there was engagement, by it not being up to the standard needed. I believe the move into public ownership would help us resolve that.

Regulation alone cannot fix the crisis of confidence and, as we all know, the Government’s ban on bonuses for water companies that fail to meet high standards has been widely bypassed, with reports indicating that bosses’ total pay actually increased in the past year. Even when under an intense spotlight from academics and campaigners such as Ash, the industry is willing to blatantly outwit regulation. To rebuild trust, the public must know for certain that their bills are being used to fund services, not profits.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Cocklemoor in Langport is a popular spot for water sports on the River Parrett and it sits right at the heart of the community. I am campaigning for it to be designated as a bathing water site, but in 2025 alone, it was polluted more than 200 times as a direct result of Wessex Water prioritising profits over investment in stopping discharges. Does the hon. Member agree that tackling sewage dumping at official bathing water sites should be prioritised over paying big bonuses to water company bosses?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. I am old enough to remember when raw sewage was pumped into the coastal waters where I was born in south Wales. We started to change that and it changed quite dramatically. We seem to have regressed badly and we have seen a complete failure by the private sector to control that problem.

People must be able to see that their concerns are being listened to and that they have a meaningful say in how the industry operates. That brings me to the purpose of Ash’s petition.

Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate.

Disappointingly, this heavily abridged report did not reach the Chamber in Government time, and when it was finally released, the timing coincided with Davos, which dominated the headlines. That raises questions about how seriously this Government take the warning from their own report that nature is a foundation of national security and can no longer be treated in isolation from it.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the seriousness of this issue. Does she agree that a great way for the Government to show they understand that seriousness would be to publish the report in full and agree to a national broadcast and a national emergency briefing?

[Sarah Dyke]

I wholeheartedly agree. The report describes a collapse of interconnected natural systems reaching a point of no return—the loss of climate regulation destroying harvests in the world’s breadbasket regions, triggering famine, disease and mass migration, driving up food prices and poverty here in the UK. With 77% of land in England and Wales farmed or managed by farmers, and more than 800 farms in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton alone, we already know who would be best placed to lead our investment in long-term biodiversity resilience.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes a really good point. When I speak to farmers in Edinburgh South West, they often feel that they are the problem when it comes to protecting biodiversity; in fact, they are the solution. We should be doing all we can to support the Government to support farmers to help protect our environment.

[Sarah Dyke]

I absolutely agree, which brings me to my next point. As Martin Lines of the Nature Friendly Farming Network puts it, healthy soils and water functioning as good systems should be treated as critical national infrastructure. He argues for more spongy landscapes, healthier soils, wetlands, ponds and trees that hold water, buffering both drought and flooding, while still supporting food production.

With DEFRA budget cuts slashing the farming budget by more than £100 million and uncertainty over future support systems, many are disincentivised from the environmental role that their own survival depends on. We know that nature-friendly farming can bring real ecological improvement.

The Lang Partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative and nature-friendly farming methods for more than 30 years, showing what is possible when farmers are committed to working with nature rather than against it, but this needs widespread adaption and adoption to work.

The environmental land management scheme should be a vital road map to a resilient farming sector, but there has been a lack of investment in higher-tier schemes that will deliver the best outcomes for nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion—a cash injection—into the farming budget, properly phased to target where it helps nature the most and to help farmers to boost food security, rather than allowing them to fall through the gaps.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

There are a number of rare and unique landscapes across the country, such as the Brecks in my own constituency. Does the hon. Lady support calls for increased funding for specific landscapes impacted by climate change and biodiversity loss?

[Sarah Dyke]

I agree with my hon. Friend—I call him that as he sits on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee with me.

This summer’s drought has put farmers under severe financial pressure. A potato farmer in my constituency, James Pullen of Perrins Hill Farm in Tintinhull, told me that he expects to be £200,000 down on his potato sales this year. In a good year, his crop averages around 25 tonnes to the acre, but this year it will be closer to 20 tonnes, with potatoes badly bruised or simply failing to grow.

I am grateful for the recently announced drought support for farmers, but we need real action that prevents ecosystem collapse and the heightened risk that that poses for our food security. We also need investment to hold water on farm reservoirs and fire ponds—nature-based solutions to water scarcity that will irrigate the land during prolonged drought and help communities to battle wildfires. However, farm reservoirs are not being built quickly enough to meet demand, as they are being held back by abstraction licences, planning permission, cost implications, uncertain grants and limited contractor availability.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because I have quite a lot to get through.

I recently visited Wessex Water’s constructed wetland at Shapwick Heath in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). At 21 hectares, it is the largest water treatment wetland of its kind in the UK, filtering forever chemicals, phosphates and microplastics from our water, while boosting flood resilience and supporting Somerset’s biodiversity. Wessex Water is currently upgrading its sewage treatment plant, which will remove 170 tonnes of phosphates over the next 10 years. To put that into context, the 18,000 homes across Somerset that are currently stuck in a planning moratorium due to the nutrient neutrality regulations would produce only 3 tonnes of phosphate. That clearly demonstrates what nature-based solutions can bring to the future of water management and nutrient neutrality.

Somerset is increasingly exposed to devastating flooding that impacts farmers and homeowners alike. I was really happy to secure £50 million of flood defence funding for Somerset earlier this year, and I welcome Somerset council agreeing to ringfence some of those funds to target nature-based solutions that work in conjunction with hard engineering river maintenance across high-risk catchments, restoring natural hydrology upstream while protecting communities and infrastructure downstream. I am also pleased that a major element of the programme will be the council’s “My Community” programme, empowering local communities with bespoke, bureaucracy-cutting support and creating shared action on the ground.

Peatlands like those in the Somerset levels and moors provide vital species habitats, flood alleviation and water filtration, yet across the UK over 80% of peatlands are damaged. Somerset is one of only two counties still extracting peat, with licences to 2042 despite the levels and moors storing an estimated 11 million tonnes of carbon, which is equivalent to 10 years of the county’s emission. My Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill sought to end the sale of peat, building on local efforts that are already under way, with companies such as Durstons near Street and RocketGro growing peat-free compost ranges. I congratulate the Minister on her new role, but I would be grateful for clarity on peat issues. Will there be a dedicated funding scheme for peatland restoration once the nature for climate peatland grant scheme ends next year? Will she go further and provide a timeline on when the Government will seek to end the sale of horticultural peat?

Habitat destruction also impacts insect life. For example, the shrill carder bee, which is one of the UK’s rarest bumblebees, has retreated from its historic stronghold on the Somerset levels and moors to a depleting population around Somerton, Castle Cary and Ham Hill. Its numbers have collapsed from around 140 in 2015 to just seven in 2022. Only five of 22 biodiversity indicators show long-term improvement, and 13 are still deteriorating. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s current approach is failing to meet their own Environment Act targets? What new action will change that trajectory?

Central to this failure to protect habitats is planning policy. The Government must adopt a strategic spatial approach to planning that protects the UK’s most important places for nature, which would support, not undermine, environmental regulation and champion nature-friendly design in house building and infrastructure from the outset. That is why the Liberal Democrats opposed and voted against Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.

If the Government are expecting 75,000 of their 1.5 million homes target to be delivered in Somerset, they must be fit for the future. I visited Bradfords Building Supplies in Glastonbury recently to discuss exactly this: how we make homes resilient to a changing climate, and how we prepare for extreme heat in summer and flooding in winter, including by making sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments. We cannot keep building homes for yesterday’s climate; Government planning policy needs to catch up.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

I will not, just because of time.

We are also calling for the loopholes in the biodiversity net gain system to be closed, for the extension of how long a net gain habitat must be maintained from 30 years to 120 years, and for raising the requirement for major developments on larger greenfield sites from 10% to 100%. The case could not be starker. The Green Finance Institute puts the potential economic hit from nature degradation at the equivalent of 12% of GDP. That is more than twice the impact of the 2008 financial crash.

To conclude, this report was published in January. Half a year on, we have already seen the devastation that this year’s climate crisis has brought to the UK. Will the Minister confirm whether DEFRA and the Joint Intelligence Committee will reclassify the food security risk as high, publish the full assessment as originally intended, and act with the urgency it deserves, including through an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament?

Bluetongue Virus in Livestock

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

As climate change extends the range of disease-carrying midges, confirmed bluetongue cases have surged to nearly 800 nationally, with thousands more suspected. Somerset and Devon are among the worst affected areas, and vets in Glastonbury and Somerton tell me that their vaccine waiting lists are now as long as their arm. Farmers face mounting costs when transporting fallen stock and paying for vaccines, and all the while they deal with the devastation of their livestock being put at risk. Farmers cannot be expected to shoulder an ever-growing share of the cost of controlling a disease that threatens our national food security, and the Government must recognise the serious financial pressure that the outbreak is placing on farmers, who are already struggling after years of neglect. What steps is the Minister taking to accelerate the vaccination roll-out, support affected farmers with financial assistance, and remove barriers to surveillance?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for her questions. It was a pleasure to be in the south-west in August to hear directly from farmers about some of the challenges they are facing, including farmers in the south-west affected by the bluetongue virus. I absolutely recognise the challenges it has brought them this summer, on top of a whole set of other challenges.

I must stress the importance of vaccination. That is why we have worked really closely with industry to increase the vaccine supply coming into the country. We are also working closely with the Pirbright Institute to ensure that there is extra testing capacity. We recognise the significant impact bluetongue is having on farmers. We are reviewing our processes to help expedite the confirmation of disease and we are considering what further support may be made available to farmers in the future.

Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), on securing this important debate, her excellent speech and her continued advocacy on the issue.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to delivering a circular economy where value is kept in the system, not thrown away—one that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products and that cuts costs for consumers and businesses, reducing exposure to volatile commodity prices, protecting the environment and creating new economic opportunities. Aluminium is one of the success stories of the circular economy and has an important role to play in this cycle. Aluminium can be recycled indefinitely without quality loss. Cans can be recycled and back on supermarket shelves within 60 days. Some 75% of all the aluminium ever produced is still in use today. Reprocessing aluminium uses 95% less energy and 90% less carbon than primary manufacturing.

Aluminium is a critical mineral and recognised as such by both the UK Government and NATO. Reprocessing it domestically protects the broader UK supply chain, supporting defence, construction and green energy infrastructure. However, the supply chain is increasingly vulnerable, with scrap aluminium being exported to Asia and the US, while our domestic reprocessing capacity has fallen. UK and EU reprocessing of UK scrap packaging fell from 83% in 2021 to 68% in 2024. Alupro’s projections show a further decline without policy intervention amid the impact of UK tariffs and instability in the middle east. That is despite UK capacity for reprocessing this material having increased in recent years following multimillion-pound investments.

Somerset’s focus on improving recycling rates has been a success. Nearly 150,000 tonnes of waste was collected, with 87,500 tonnes reprocessed here in the UK—over half of it within the county itself. Somerset Waste sends its scrap steel and aluminium to reprocessing facilities within the UK. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills stated in opening this debate, the disparity in local authorities’ recycling arrangements varies widely.

Aluminium can be hugely profitable for local authorities. Somerset gains considerable income from its recycled aluminium, while others receive nothing at all. In addition, despite some councils specifically requiring their aluminium to be reprocessed in the UK, it is subsequently discovered that it has been exported to China. With the deposit return scheme due to launch in October 2027, councils stand to lose used aluminium cans, the most valuable material in recycling bins, from kerbside collection altogether. We are going to lose that most important and valuable recycling material, which generates an income for councils when sold as recycling—it is really important.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outlined, transparency is really important here and it is much required. A recent poll found that the single factor most damaging public confidence in recycling is the lack of information on what happens to materials after collection. That indicates that greater traceability is not just supported by the public; it could drive higher recycling rates through greater public participation. Local authorities play a vital role in managing waste and reducing pollution, yet too many are being asked to deliver world-class recycling services on a shoestring budget. They must be properly funded and supported to deliver high-quality, consistent recycling services that maximise the value recovered from these materials, not left to patch together a postcode lottery of provision.

The Liberal Democrats have been keen to see changes to the waste management system that encourage more recycling. However, with extended producer responsibility live since October 2025 and simpler recycling live since April 2026, local authorities are already having to adapt to a changed landscape. The next major shift will be the deposit return scheme from October 2027. Once most aluminium is no longer collected at the kerbside, local authorities could lose a valuable revenue stream. Furthermore, despite these changes, some residents will inevitably continue to place their aluminium in kerbside bins, so can the Minister confirm whether local authorities will be able to claim that deposit for the aluminium items they continue to collect?

Aluminium recycling sits at the intersection of our climate ambitions, our industrial strategy and our local government funding crisis. To conclude, I want to ask the Minister to address three things. Can she confirm how the deposit will be treated for aluminium cans left in kerbside recycling after DRS launches, and will it contribute to the local authority collection costs? Will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ensure that local authorities are properly funded to sustain high-quality recycling services through the transition, given the revenue that it stands to lose? What steps are the Government taking to close the loophole that allows UK-collected aluminium, including aluminium collected from councils with UK-only reprocessing requirements, to end up being processed overseas? I hope the Minister will give me some answers on that today.

Environmental Protection

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument, which the Liberal Democrats support.

For too long, the system regulating who can transport and manage our waste has relied on a simple registration scheme, scarcely able to distinguish between reputable operators and rogue ones. That simply cannot continue. Replacing carrier, broker and dealer registration with an appropriate and robust permitting regime is the right call. Distinguishing waste controlling, waste transporting and waste controlling-transporting means that regulation can finally be risk-based, rather than having a one-size-fits-all free-for-all. Giving the Environment Agency the power to check before granting a permit, rather than after damage is done, is exactly what the Liberal Democrats have long called for. We therefore back this statutory instrument, but supporting it does not mean we accept that it is job done.

Permitting who is allowed to move waste does nothing for what happens when criminals move it anyway. Earlier this year, a space outside the Red Brick Building alongside a key gateway into Glastonbury was blighted by a mountain of fly-tipped waste. No single body was able to or wanted to take responsibility for its clean up, so local residents stepped in and raised £1,500 towards clearing this eyesore. After a full day of volunteers shifting rubble by hand, and a local firm sending a biohazard specialist to safely handle and remove what had been dumped there, it was finally cleared. Although it is a great example of people power and coming together to solve a problem that could not be solved otherwise, it should never have been necessary for local people to be forced into intervening. That is what enforcement failure looks like on the ground. It is not an abstract statistic, but ordinary people left to clean up after the criminals, simply because nobody else would. The scale of the problem stretches far beyond Glastonbury.

Council figures show that 3,000 fly-tipping incidents were reported just last year in Somerset alone. Across England, there were 1.26 million reported incidents but just 1,377 initiated prosecutions. The average fine was a meagre £539, while fewer than 0.2% of incidents ever saw the inside of a courtroom. That is just the start of the problem. A BBC investigation at the end of last year identified 517 active illegal waste dumps across England. Eleven of them are what investigators call “super sites”. The largest is in Northwich and holds an estimated 280,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste. That is not fly-tipping; that is industrial-scale organised crime happening in plain view. Just 13 custodial sentences were handed down for fly-tipping offences in England last year, while a massive 35% of waste crime is attributed to organised criminal gangs. The former chief executive of the Environment Agency called waste crime “the new narcotics”.

While this SI fixes the front door, it is silent on who it brings to justice. That must be the criminals committing serious waste crime. A permit regime has the ability to stop a rogue operator registering, but it will never stop a criminal gang that were never going to register in the first place. Why would they, when they are making their millions in the knowledge that there is no fear of being caught? What assessment has been made of how this new permitting framework will improve detection and enforcement against the organised gangs already operating illegally, outside any system that the Government could permit them into?

The Liberal Democrats have consistently set out what genuine reform looks like. It is not more law stuck on the statute book, when the powers to fine, seize vehicles and imprison for up to five years already exist and are barely used. What we require is proper resourcing and co-ordination to actually use those powers. That is why we call on the Government to go further. First, they should raise each fixed penalty notice for fly-tipping to £2,500, so that the penalty better reflects the profit being made.

Secondly, the National Crime Agency or the forthcoming national police service must be given clear and unambiguous responsibility for investigating serious organised waste crime. There must be no more gaps in co-ordination among local police, the Environment Agency and our hard-stretched local authorities.

Thirdly, we must introduce rewards of more than £5,000 for information leading to the successful prosecution of the criminal gangs behind sites such as Northwich.

Fourthly, we must establish a single national reporting route for rural and waste crime, with one number and one point of contact, with automatic triage to the correct enforcement body. As it stands, the system gives a farmer in Somerset who finds waste dumped on their land no clear direction as to whether to call the unitary council, the Environment Agency or the police. That confusion is actively suppressing reporting, and with that comes the lack of enforcement.

This SI is a genuine and welcome step. Risk-based permitting is well overdue. The Liberal Democrats will back the SI today, but my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton and rural communities the length and breadth of the country need to know that criminals are not able to act with impunity, illegally dumping waste across the country. I hope that the Minister will confirm that today’s reform marks the start of that reckoning, not its conclusion.

Farming: Financial Sustainability

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing this important debate.

Farmers are the foundation of communities across the country, but British farming is in crisis—not a crisis of effort or ambition, but a crisis of confidence that successive Governments have chosen to ignore. Chris, a farmer in Babcary, has spent his whole life in agriculture, building a business worth passing on to his son, but Chris has terminal prostate cancer. For 18 long months, what caused him the greatest anxiety was not his health, but the tax bill his son would soon face following the Government’s cut to agricultural property relief, should he not survive seven years. I know how he feels, as I had very similar painful conversations with my mother. Like many farmers across the country, I was relieved when the Chancellor has moved the threshold to £2.5 million, but the family farm tax should be axed altogether.

Somerset farmers are struggling because successive Governments have let them down. The Conservatives gave farmers a kick in the teeth with their £358 million underspend on the farming budget, and Labour has delivered more of the same: a family farm tax with no consultation, a real-terms DEFRA budget cut of 2.3% a year, a farming budget slashed by more than £100 million and the closure of the SFI last year without notice. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, and we will keep opposing every policy that treats our farmers with disdain rather than lifting them up, because they are critical to our national security.

Jonathan, who farms in Little Weston, looked to the Rural England Prosperity Fund, only to find that DEFRA excludes farmers who want to diversify into food and drink. It is a fund for rural businesses to apply to, but it excludes adding value to the very products that farms produce. DEFRA also promised uplifted stewardship payment rates in April, but that promise has not been fulfilled, and there is no clear route from old schemes to new ones. The Government are asking farmers to transition and then shutting the door in their face.

British farmers are the best in the world, and the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion a year into the farming budget so that they can continue to produce high-quality food for our tables while protecting and enhancing our natural environment. We would set payments over 10-year periods and ensure that every farmer has a route from old schemes into new ones.

In February I visited Andrew Moon, a third-generation pig farmer based in Baltonsborough who has more than 400 sows. His business is fighting for survival. Without warning, processors demanded a 30% cut in production, but Andrew asked a question that I could not answer: if farmers are forced to cut herds by 30%, where will the pork come from? Perhaps the Minister can help me answer that question.

Producers are being squeezed out of their own supply chains, with no commitment from retailers and no consultation—just an immediate demand to produce less. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a strengthened Groceries Code Adjudicator, with real teeth, to protect producers like Andrew, as well as public procurement that supports high-standard food and a guarantee that future trade deals will never undercut British farmers.

Yesterday marked 10 years since the Brexit vote, and it would be remiss of me not to address the impact that it has had on British farming. The botched deal has strangled trade across our food, farming and fishing industries. Every border check, every lorry held at port and every delayed consignment is a cost absorbed somewhere in the supply chain, and it is rarely the supermarkets that suffer. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to sign a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, so that Somerset’s pork, cider and cheese reach European shelves without the paper eating into their profit.

We are sleepwalking into dependency on fragile global supply chains and into a crisis of empty fields and empty plates at home. The Government must treat farming as critical infrastructure, because Britain is not secure unless food supply is secure. That means providing long-term financial security for our farmers.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The extreme weather conditions we are facing at the moment bring into sharp relief the need for the sector to have access to better sources of water. I thank my hon. Friend for working closely with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on these issues and look forward to hearing more about the initiatives in my hon. Friend’s area.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Instability in the middle east is a stark reminder that food security cannot be taken for granted. British farmers are the best in the world and they get up every single day to put food on our tables. While I welcome the farming road map, it lacks real ambition for farmers and food security. Will the Secretary of State commit to a good food Bill that backs British farmers and puts long-term food security at the heart of Government policy?

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with the intent of the hon. Lady’s question, which is that we need a focus on food production and to ensure that our farming sector is more resilient to global shocks, such as the kind she spoke about. That is why we are doing serious work on how we can help farmers to use fertiliser more efficiently and move away from chemical fertilisers towards more organic fertilisers. We have introduced a nutrient management tool, and many farms have now taken that on, which is helping them make more efficient use of fertiliser. I agree with some of the things that she said, but perhaps not the recommendation.

Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate.

The Government estimate that there were 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents across England last year and that waste crime costs the economy more than £1 billion a year. Such incidents represent an upward trend, with 3,000 incidents reported to Somerset council alone. However, those figures exclude incidents on private land and cases involving large-scale illegal dumping. Moreover, as is always the case, a substantial number of waste crimes are never recorded.

I want to recognise the work being done in Somerset to tackle the problem head-on. Somerset council’s Recycle More initiative handles more than 170,000 tonnes of household waste every year. Major infrastructure investment in 2020 upgraded facilities and introduced more frequent collections. Somerset’s flexible plastics trial—now concluded—demonstrated clearly how targeted local innovation can reduce fly-tipping in residential areas. That trial is proof of what is possible, yet without sustained national funding to back such local initiatives, progress stalls. The will is there, but the resources are not.

Waste crime has been dubbed the “new narcotics” by the former chair of the Environment Agency. That simply cannot go on. We must recognise it for what it is: a national emergency. We need to hold the perpetrators of these crimes to account. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to clean up illegal waste sites, catch those responsible and finally get a handle on the true extent of this environmental disaster. Organised crime gangs are making millions of pounds through illegal waste activity, without any regard for local communities, public health or the environment.

Earlier this year, a spotlight was thrown on to the issue when an estimated 21,000 tonnes of illegal waste was found at a site near Kidlington in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). I thank him for his tireless campaigning on the issue, which led to more than 400 lorry-loads of waste being removed from that site alone. There are at least 11 other similar sites identified across England, demonstrating the scale of these organised crime networks.

We are not just talking about a nuisance; this is waste crime on an industrial level. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Environment Agency is not currently equipped to tackle it. Enforcement responsibilities are dispersed across multiple agencies, with no single body explicitly accountable for both prosecution and clearing up waste crime. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have powers, but no duties to enforce, which weakens their overall enforcement effectiveness.

The Minister for Nature made that point well in a debate on the Kidlington site earlier this year, highlighting the lack of a coherent body to which to report waste crime. If citizens are not clear about where to report, they are likely to do nothing. The Environment Agency is responsible for large-scale incidents or where waste contains hazardous materials. Smaller incidents are handled by local authorities, unless it is on private land, of course, where councils handle prosecution but are not responsible for clearing up the mess. The responsibility is on members of the public to be aware of complicated regulations and then report to the correct body. Given the clear under-reporting of crime, that is simply not happening effectively.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a single national hotline for waste crime, to improve reporting, mapping and detection, because those responsible must be caught. Only 31% of incidents are currently investigated and more than half of those result in no further action, with only 13 custodial sentences handed down in England in 2024-25. As the National Rural Crime Network’s report into waste crime makes clear, the legal framework is not the problem. Unlimited fines can be levied, vehicles can be seized and prison sentences of up to five years can be handed out, but those powers are rarely used. In addition, there is an enforcement postcode lottery depending on where the offence occurs.

A recent House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee inquiry concluded that serious organised waste crime is significantly under-prioritised, despite its environmental, economic and social impacts. It was therefore disappointing that the Government rejected the Committee’s recommendation for an independent review into the entire system of waste crime. The Liberal Democrats call once again on the Minister to reverse that decision, come forward with a review and set out a Government strategy to tackle illegal dumping, including measurable metrics and targets. The Environment Agency and the Joint Unit for Waste Crime must also be adequately resourced to tackle this crime.

It is impossible to talk about enforcement without also addressing the conditions that allow this criminal market to thrive in the first place. We must review the current household waste recycling system that in part creates a market for criminal gangs to exploit. Further, decades of local authority budget cuts have eaten away at local services, with many now placing charges on the use of household waste recycling centres—an issue some residents in my constituency now face. Dorset council’s recent decision to charge Somerset residents an £8.50 fee to use the Dorset council household recycling centre in Sherborne has forced residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and surrounding areas to make a round trip of up to 28-miles to access a free household waste recycling facility in Somerset.

In addition to increasing the environmental impact of residents’ waste disposal, the new charge risks pushing people to consider illegal methods of waste disposal. Criminal gangs know that, and they are ready to exploit that temptation. I brought a petition to Parliament on this matter earlier this year that had garnered significant local support. The solution is clear: fix the recycling system, or accept that we are handing criminal gangs a business opportunity. The choice is really that simple.

The waste industry estimates that 35% of waste crime is committed by organised criminal groups, and there is reason to believe that that figure is increasing. The national rural crime unit took a report on waste crime and its links to wider rural crime to DEFRA, but it has not been published, despite repeated requests. I ask once again: will the Minister publish the report and show that the Government are committed to tackling organised crime gangs operating in the countryside?

As with a lot of rural crime, local police forces can struggle to deal with waste crime effectively due to its organised nature and the cross-border tactics deployed by criminals; yet it falls short of the National Crime Agency’s responsibility, giving criminal gangs free rein to exploit this gap. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the National Crime Agency to take over investigations into illegal dumps in the most serious cases and to improve co-ordination with local police forces. The new national police service, which was announced in the King’s Speech, will assume responsibility for serious organised crime operations, but we wait to see how organised waste crime fits within that.

I have raised my concerns about the Government’s lack of understanding about the specific needs of rural communities on many occasions, yet the policing White Paper from January made hardly any reference to rural crime. In fact, only 619 police officers and staff were assigned to dedicated rural crime teams across 37 police forces in England and Wales in 2024, representing a paltry 0.4% of the workforce.

In Somerset, there are only two—sometimes a couple more—dedicated rural crime officers covering more than 1,300 square miles; rural communities know all too well what that means in practice when crime strikes. A farmer in Long Sutton told me they were recently hit by their second break-in within 12 months; thousands of pounds of equipment was stolen but, unsurprisingly, they received little meaningful police action. That is not an isolated failure; it is what under-resourcing looks like on the ground. Proper reforms are urgently required to increase both capability and capacity. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a “countryside copper” guarantee for properly resourced dedicated rural crime teams or specialists to be embedded in every police force. I hope the Government will consider taking those proposals forward.

Criminal gangs are running sophisticated multi-cross-border operations, and the only response available is from fragmented agencies with under-resourced enforcement and powers that are almost never used. The problem is not the law, as there is already the option to levy unlimited fines and five-year sentences; they simply are not being applied. More penalties on the statute book will change nothing, if no one is resourced to enforce them. What we need is co-ordination, accountability and the political will to treat waste crime as what it is—organised crime. I urge the Minister to show that this Government are finally ready to do that.