Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate.

Peatlands such as the Avalon marshes and the Somerset levels and moors are globally rare ecosystems. They make up less than 3% of Earth’s surface, yet they hold 30% of the world’s soil carbon. They have been described as the UK’s Amazon rainforest. They constitute 12% of our land area and play a critical role in mitigating climate change, supporting biodiversity and regulating water flow. They also support important habitats of rare fauna and flora, such as sphagnum mosses, roundleaf sundew, cottongrass and invertebrates such as the large marsh grasshopper, micro-plume moths and various damselflies and dragonflies. The peatlands of the Somerset levels and moors host breeding waders such as snipes and curlews, plus bitterns, adders and the recently reintroduced beavers. Somerset’s county emblem is a dragon rampant on a yellow background, so my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) can keep his Welsh dragon, which I understand inhabits the Radnor forest.

Given that the UK faces a nature crisis, with one in six species threatened with extinction from Britain, it is vital that adequate steps are taken to protect and restore such rare habitats. Yet successive Governments have kicked the can down the road and failed to take the necessary action, with the Office for Environmental Protection rebuking the previous Conservative Government for falling far short of the action needed to improve the environment. Part of creating the healthy natural environment that lies at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach requires continued renewable and clean energy investment, such as wind farms. While we strongly believe that renewables are key to the energy production of a low-carbon future, priority habitats such as peatlands must be preserved and protected.

Worryingly, in the UK and around the world, peatlands are a net source of greenhouse emissions due to how they have been managed over the years. Over 80% of the UK’s peatlands have been damaged by past or present management. The Somerset levels consist of marine clay levels along the coast and inland peat-based moors. The peat dries out when peatlands are damaged, and when exposed to the elements, instead of storing and locking in carbon, it is emitted back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Restoring peatlands to health is absolutely vital so that they can continue to sequester carbon effectively. Once restored to a healthy and stable state where they can function naturally, peatlands will start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat, as well as providing an important natural flood defence.

I have long stated my concerns about the management of peatlands, and the development of wind farms on peatland risks further degrading these valuable habitats—negating any reduction in carbon emissions that would be produced by those wind farms. While previous research suggested that emissions could be reduced if strictly managed, more recent findings have found that wind farms on peatlands will not reduce carbon emissions, even with careful management.

Researchers have recommended that future policy should avoid constructing wind farms on undegraded peat. Environmental scientists from Nottingham Trent University have also warned of the need to better understand the impact of wind farms on peatlands, with evidence showing increased negative impacts on peatland hydrology, biodiversity, carbon storage and ground-level climatic conditions, and further cautioning that the carbon savings generated through wind energy may be negated by the emissions from the peatlands on which they are constructed.

I thank the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for its recent inquiry on this exact issue. It highlighted the inconsistencies and weaknesses in a Government policy that, on the one hand, recognises the importance of peatlands, yet on the other refuses to take action to manage the increasing infrastructure demands on them. Current Government guidance states that onshore wind farm sites in England may be proposed on peatland. However, any application should rule out other locations before siting developments on peatland.

I want to be clear that investment in renewable energy is a must. It will make homes healthy and cheap to heat, and it will support green jobs and economic growth. Another consideration is whether the development of wind turbines on peatland undermines the green energy transition, and whether the carbon lost from degraded peat outweighs estimated savings from renewables. There is planning guidance and a carbon calculator to address the issue in Scotland, but why not in England? The Government have also stated that they will publish an equivalent to NatureScot’s guidance on peatland habitat management for England, but we need to know when that will be.

That leads me to a broader concern regarding the Government’s approach to protecting our peatlands. In December, DEFRA published an updated environmental improvement plan, which included a commitment to restore approximately 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050. However, recent analysis indicates that we may be significantly off track to meet those targets, and the Climate Change Committee has called for the UK Government to prioritise ramping up peatland restoration. Currently, the Government plan to spend £85 million by 2030 on peatland restoration. Although that funding is welcome, we must question why we still allow peat extraction to continue.

Hon. and right hon. Members may be aware of my Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, which would finally implement the horticultural peat ban that was first promised by Government in 2022. This Government recently committed to end the sale of peat in England, but they have yet to take concrete steps to achieve that ambition. I urge Ministers to do their bit to ensure that such a ban is included in the forthcoming King’s Speech.

Somerset is one of only two counties in England where peat extraction still takes place, with a few extraction licences still in place until 2042. Despite the immense potential of peatlands as carbon sinks, shockingly, extraction and degraded peatlands contribute to 10% of all carbon emissions in Somerset. Beyond the climate benefits, healthy peatlands store and slow water flows, reducing flood risk and creating a rich mosaic of habitat that helps prevent wildfires. There have been yet more devastating floods this winter in areas such as Mudford, Langport, Thorney and Drayton in my constituency, so it is important that we utilise the unique ability of peatlands as natural flood defences. We know that the construction of wind farms on peatlands disrupts their hydrology, which can lead to peatland drying out and vicious cycles of erosion, potentially aggravating flooding in the settlements below.

Peatland extraction for horticulture poses exactly the same risks. For several years, horticultural businesses have been working towards a peat-free future, with Somerset-based businesses such as Durston Garden Products, based just outside Street, and RocketGro supporting a ban and producing peat-free compost. They took the previous Government at their word when they committed to ban the sale of peat, believing that it was the right thing to do for their businesses and for the environment.

We need a joined-up approach to peatland protection and restoration, which recognises that both extraction and the placement of unsuitable infrastructure on peatland undermine our net zero objectives. We must instead focus on win-win solutions through strategic and spatial planning that can deliver for society and nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. We believe that with carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. Rather than stripping local authorities of local decision making, we would give them a key role to cut emissions in their own area, including more powers and funding.

It is time for the Government to end the uncertainty, to act now and to demonstrate real leadership by implementing a well thought-out policy for peatland protection and restoration.

Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. It completely changes the nature of the relationship. We know that our farmers are already having a challenging time because of Government policies that are coming in; the inheritance tax changes have been devastating for our farming community. This is a point at which we should be supporting them. Part of that support is about saying that actually we need to be building reservoirs. On-farm reservoirs are going to be very important; again, that is a part of the planning system that we need to change and push through.

I do not want farmers to feel that they should or must go for solar applications in this instance, where actually the entirety of their farmland is taken out of use. The devastating thing about this policy is that a farmer whose family has been farming for generations—generations of them are buried at the Easton Maudit church—has had his tenancy ended and is already out, in anticipation of the policy coming in. Hundreds of years of a farming dynasty have been taken away.

This is not what the Government want to be doing, and it is not where we should be going. We should be encouraging farming, keeping our beautiful countryside, and using the alternatives. As I say, there are plenty, whether that is on top of warehousing spaces or on the sides of roofs.

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

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, many of which have appropriate buildings for housing rooftop solar panels, for example. That would meet some of our net zero targets and allow some of the fertile land, which she has already spoken about, to be prioritised, properly and rightly, for food production. Does she agree that we must expand the incentives for our farmers to install rooftop solar panels, including guaranteeing a fair price for electricity that is sold back into the grid?

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my fellow member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for making those points. Yes, all the different incentives matter. In the farming environment, our farmers have struggled with a lack of certainty. With the removal of the sustainable farming incentive and with the capping and closure of all the different funds, there has been no certainty. In an industry that requires certainty, they cannot just suddenly change a crop halfway through. They have to rely on security, and it has not been delivered so far. We need to do whatever we can to put in place long-term guarantees of funding and make sure that they realise that they are secure for the future.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his excellent speech. He described many circumstances similar to those in my constituency, so I will try to keep my comments brief.

Rural services—whether that is transport links, mobile phone coverage or access to banking—are not good enough across the piece, and postal services are now going in the same direction. Last year’s Post Office Green Paper consultation caused particular concern for rural areas. There was a suggestion that the statutory minimum network size of 11,500 branches, which protects communities, could be removed. That would compound an already acute access problem. Villagers in Trefonen in my constituency were devastated when their post office shut, while across North Shropshire outreach services have been withdrawn in Cockshutt, Clive, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton-XI-Towns.

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

In November last year, Henstridge post office closed, leaving a rural village without a vital service. Luckily, local resident Barry is working with the Post Office to reopen the facility as soon as possible. Does my hon. Friend agree that, following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must now commit to rural-proofing the Post Office?

[Helen Morgan]

I could not agree more. If someone living in Cockshutt takes the bus to the post office in Ellesmere, they would have to wait three hours to get the next bus home. We can imagine how difficult it is for people in nearby villages who have no bus service at all. Jean, who lives in Weston Rhyn, said:

“I now live in a village where there is nowhere to buy stamps and no access to an ATM. I am 88 and can no longer drive. I am completely isolated.”

These cuts have a grave impact on people’s lives and wellbeing. How can we justify leaving vulnerable people isolated in that way in 2026? Post offices and outreach services act as more than a postal service. Communities rely on them for access to cash and banking, Government services and parcel collection. That is crucial, given that 73% of North Shropshire bank branches have closed since 2015, with Oswestry the only remaining market town in the constituency with a functioning bank branch.

Many constituents, particularly older people and small businesses, depend on post offices to access cash and banking. It is no good pointing to online banking as a solution for those living in Welshampton where there is no mobile signal and no full fibre. We need to save our local post offices to prevent financial exclusion and to support the small businesses that will deliver the growth our economy needs.

Not only is access to the vital services provided by the Post Office limited, but the delivery of post, as we have heard, has become extremely unreliable. First and second-class post are meaningless categories in my area. My post comes in two bulk deliveries each week. Constituents have reported going three weeks with no delivery. Meanwhile, post box collection times have been changed without notice. It is very frustrating at the best of times. As we have heard, for those relying on Royal Mail for their NHS correspondence or time-sensitive post, such as legal documents or parking fines, it can be extremely costly to their health, time and finances.

Several constituents have told me that they missed NHS appointments because letters took a week to reach them. Last month, a constituent who is diabetic missed correspondence about an appointment for 22 January and now needs to wait until March. I have received reports of people being charged with contempt of court for not returning papers in time, even though the papers did not arrive until after the due date.

In my latest meeting with Royal Mail, representatives explained the challenges they are facing with recruitment and retention. Addressing those issues requires investment in rural services across the board.

Given the reliance of so many people on the post for vital services, I am sure everyone here appreciates the need to protect and support our rural services. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what the Government are doing to hold the Post Office to account for meeting its universal service obligation, and what steps the Government are taking to protect not only postal services but banking and public transport in rural areas, as people are desperately badly isolated.

Sale of Fireworks

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate forward and the combined 671 petitioners from Glastonbury and Somerton.

Firework displays have long lit up the skies in celebrations throughout the year, with illuminations capturing the imaginations of young and old alike. Many enjoy the spectacle, but we must also recognise the negative impact that such displays can have on people, animals and nature. Mel, from Street, recently told me that one loud bang will send their beloved dog into a state of severe anxiety—shaking, panting and fainting, with the seizures sometimes lasting up to 24 hours.

In rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton, it is not just pets that are impacted; fireworks can have a horribly damaging impact on livestock, too. Research into the impact of fireworks on farm animals found that sudden and unexpected loud or novel noises can be highly stressful, because animals are more sensitive to high-frequency noises than humans.

The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 state:

“Pigs must not be exposed to constant or sudden noise”,

and

“Noise levels above 85 dBA must be avoided…where pigs are kept.”

It is also illegal to light fireworks near fields and barns where animals are housed, yet every single year we hear about livestock being impacted by fireworks. Cows and sheep often panic and try to flee when they hear fireworks, often injuring themselves. Pigs, hens and chickens often instinctively huddle, which can lead to some being smothered or suffocated in the chaos.

Vicky, a dairy farmer, contacted me last autumn after fireworks were set off by her neighbour, scaring her cattle. Twenty of her cattle escaped; one heavily pregnant cow died; and another needed emergency veterinary treatment shortly after, and sadly had to be slaughtered a few days later because it had stopped eating, moving and ruminating. Vicky told me that her cows wear health collars, and all indicated high stress levels at the time that the fireworks were set off.

Like many rural communities, Glastonbury and Somerton is home to many horses. As with livestock, a horse’s reaction to fireworks is often to bolt, which can result in injury or, worse, death. I was alerted to a heartbreaking story that took place near Curry Rivel, where a horse bolted in panic from fireworks, broke its neck and had to be put down, leaving the owner distraught by the painful and quite unnecessary death of their treasured steed.

Sensible precautions can be taken with domestic animals, but of course it is not possible to do so with livestock and horses. Concerningly, many livestock and horse owners report to me that they are not warned of local displays. Much more must be done to adequately alert people to organised public displays, and I thank all the responsible organisers who do so. However, the real difficulty often lies with the increasing number of small private displays. The Liberal Democrats share concerns that the current noise limit on private displays does not go far enough in protecting pets, livestock and wildlife.

It is not just animals that are impacted by fireworks; it is also people living with PTSD, who often struggle when exposed to fireworks. Some 11% of households in Glastonbury and Somerton are home to at least one veteran. Linda, from Martock, wrote to me regarding her son, who served in the Army for 25 years, detailing how much untold damage fireworks do to him. I am very proud that Service Dogs UK is based in the constituency and does a huge amount of work with veterans who are suffering with PTSD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. You were not here at the beginning, so you will not have seen that this was the most crowded Westminster Hall debate I have ever attended. It is a bit of a blast from the past to see Labour Members sitting on this side of the Chamber; we have not seen that for a while. I have to say that it is the first time I have been pleased to have a reserved seat; otherwise, I would not have been able to participate in the debate at all.

In that spirit, I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who made a really good opening speech. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; there can be no doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue out there in the country given the number of people who signed these particular petitions. In my constituency of Richmond Park, there were 217 signatories, but that is a relatively small number compared with some of the other numbers that we have heard about today. The very fact that there were so many MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate shows the extent to which Parliament wants to see movement on this issue.

I am really grateful to all the Members who contributed to the debate for sharing the stories of their constituents. However, I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who talked about her own experiences as a veteran. That really brought home to me the impact that fireworks can have on those suffering from PTSD.

Many other hon. Members talked about the impact of fireworks on people suffering from conditions such as autism and ADHD and on shift workers. I can say from my own experience back when I was a parent of young children how terrifying it was for them and how difficult it was for them to sleep when the fireworks displays went on late into the night.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who gave a really detailed description of the impact on livestock and farm animals, from which I learned a great deal. That is not a common experience in my personal inbox, but we do speak a lot in Richmond Park about the impact on pets. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about his experience as a vet and that no vets want to be on duty on 5 November because they know that it will be a very traumatic night. In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the impact on Paignton zoo in his constituency. I can only imagine how incredibly difficult it must be to manage the animals in the zoo on nights when there are lots of fireworks around.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the actual physical dangers of fireworks and gave a very graphic description of how dumped fireworks are an enormous fire hazard. It was—“enlightening” is maybe not a great word to use—interesting to hear everybody’s reflections on the different aspects of this debate.

Fireworks are a sign of celebration. In this country, we typically associate them with Guy Fawkes night, but in my constituency and, I am sure, many other London constituencies, they are increasingly let off during Diwali. I tend to hear more on new year’s eve now than I do on 5 November. The occasions when people let off fireworks are increasing in frequency. Like many Members who have contributed to this debate, the Liberal Democrats certainly do not want to limit people’s enjoyment of fireworks—they remain a spectacular sight and perhaps one of the best expressions of celebration that we have—but there is no doubt that fireworks can have an incredibly harmful impact.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend talked about the amazing firework displays that we have across the country, but there are some fantastic alternatives to fireworks, such as demonstrations using drones and light shows. Does she agree that we should implement a noise limit on fireworks of below 90 dB for those that want to use noise fireworks, because that would make a significant difference to ensuring that people and animals in communities feel safe?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend mentioned drones, which I know can provide really spectacular sound and light shows, but I would be slightly nervous about endorsing the use of drones instead of fireworks. Richmond Park has some of the most contested airspace of anywhere in the country. We are very used to the impact of noise from aircraft in my constituency. I certainly do not want to add drones to the congestion in the skies over our heads. I will come to this shortly, but my hon. Friend is exactly right about needing to strike a balance between the enjoyment that fireworks can give and their impact on not just people, but animals.

Fireworks are explosives and can be dangerous, so there are strict rules in place regulating their sale, possession and use. They include essential safety provisions, conformity to the relevant tests and correct application of kitemarks. The 2015 regulations categorise fireworks according to their net explosive content, discharge, safety distances and noise level. Category F1 fireworks present a low hazard and are intended for use in confined areas, although they must not be sold to anyone under the age of 16. Categories F2 and F3 are low to medium hazard and intended for outdoor use. Category F4 is high hazard and can be supplied only to persons with specialist knowledge. There already exists a range of regulations, although the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made the important point that it is hard to enforce those regulations until after the firework has exploded, by which time it will obviously be too late.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I am envious of my hon. Friend’s meeting Lee Child. If I had known, I might have asked him to put in a word for me to be the next Jack Reacher —I think I have the build for the role.

The Government continue to reach businesses through the West Yorkshire mayoral authority’s £1.4 billion investment over 30 years, including £30 million annually for local priorities. The West Yorkshire growth hub, along with help to grow and the apprenticeship reforms we have announced, will further boost local skills and productivity. SMEs in West Yorkshire will also be able to access the Made Smarter adoption pilot programme for professional and business services—a particular strength of my hon. Friend’s part of the world—with the aim of driving productivity through digital adoption and skills investment. We will continue to work with him to make those programmes a success.

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

12. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality sector in Glastonbury and Somerton constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

Hospitality businesses, including those in Glastonbury and Somerton, are vital to our communities and city centres. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000, worth nearly £900 million annually and benefiting over 750,000 properties. The new relief rates are permanent, giving businesses that certainty and stability, and there will be no caps—all qualifying properties will benefit. We have also introduced a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme to co-fund projects aligned with Department for Business and Trade and Hospitality Sector Council priorities.

[Sarah Dyke]

Earlier this week I met children from Ilchester community primary school. Maeve, who is in year 6, told me her No. 1 concern is the pressure on local businesses. Glastonbury and Somerton has many wonderful hotels and restaurants, like the Hollies in Bower Hinton, but many will face an average rates increase of 76% from April without transitional support. What action is the Minister taking to prevent a crisis in the hospitality sector and ensure that businesses like the Hollies can thrive?

[Kate Dearden]

We absolutely recognise the significant contribution made by hospitality businesses to economic growth and social life in the UK, including the hon. Member’s constituency. With the temporary pandemic business rates relief coming to an end and the first independent revaluation since the pandemic taking effect next April, we are putting in place a £4 billion support package, so that most properties seeing increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest. We inherited support schemes that the previous Government had put in place with no funding for them to continue. I thank her for raising this matter today and am happy to discuss it further.

Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

We have to be really bold. We need to look at our future-focused industries and at what we specialise in. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tidal energy, but we will not be able to produce that without a load of specialist valves. I want to ensure that they are built in Calder Valley and go throughout the country. That is what this debate is about: we need to plan and think, but we also need to look at what we do well.

The imbalance between small and large manufacturing companies is accentuated by the fact that larger companies often secure Government contracts, particularly in defence. Not only does that provide them with guaranteed revenue, but it often allows them to poach skilled staff from smaller firms that cannot compete with the salaries and the security that those contracts bring. Yorkshire and the Humber received the least defence spending per person, despite the fact that across our region we have a manufacturing sector that is eager to grow and develop.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. As he knows, the south-west has a brilliant, large defence-related manufacturing sector. Needles and Pins Aerospace is a small, women-led business based in Somerton that provides precision textile engineering for aviation and defence. It should be entitled to the same opportunities to compete on a level playing field for the larger contracts. Does he agree that if the Government are prioritising value and security, they should offer equal commercial opportunities to UK businesses and supply chains in respect of defence and security-related manufacturing contracts?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I absolutely agree. The Defence Office for Small Business Growth—I believe it will open in January, but the Minister will know better than me—will be a great opportunity to grow businesses such as Needles and Pins Aerospace in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the many businesses in my constituency that want to get into the defence industry. She is right that the south-east does very well out of defence. In fact, the defence industry supports 85,000 direct jobs in the south of England, but just 3,750 in Yorkshire and the Humber.

As part of the Government’s mission to make defence an engine for growth, there should be a concerted effort to spread its benefits across the regions and our small towns, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We will grow this economy only if the Government interact with industry, including in Calder Valley and West Yorkshire, in a way that encourages competition rather than dominance. Smaller manufacturers are equally vital and are a sign of a balanced and resilient economy. They must be supported if we are serious about building the balanced and resilient industrial base that we really need.

Valve manufacturing is a reminder that regional economies thrive when we back specialist sectors. It is not about chasing the latest fad; it is about recognising and building on our strengths. In Calder Valley, that means supporting our manufacturers with a skills pipeline, and with the apprenticeships and investment that they need to grow. We can use the power of the public purse to do that, but—I will be honest—we have failed to do that over multiple years and multiple Governments. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has more than 100,000 valves, but they are all made in China. The only company in Calder Valley that has benefited is the company that fixes faulty valves, because the quality is not as good as that of British-made valves. If we expect other countries to use our high-quality valves in manufacturing, our Government must lead by example.

This is about the pride that people feel when they know that something they made in their town is used in projects around the world. It is about the contribution that specialist manufacturing makes to identity as well as GDP. It is about ensuring that places such as Calder Valley are not left behind, but are recognised as central to Britain’s industrial future.

I will finish by making a few points directly to the Minister. In Calder Valley, we know how vital apprenticeships are, yet only 14% of apprenticeships last year were in engineering and manufacturing; what will the Government do to ensure that new training opportunities match the skills shortages that we face, such as those in welding and advanced engineering? Our small and medium-sized manufacturers are the lifeblood of towns such as Brighouse; how will Government support for apprenticeships and investment reach those firms rather than being skewed towards the largest players? Defence strategic procurement could be a real engine for growth in places such as Calder Valley; will the Minister set out how contracts will be used to back British industry, particularly in specialist sectors such as valve manufacturing and precision engineering?

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I congratulate the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It will start to receive money off its bills immediately, which of course can then be reinvested into delivering exactly what we want schools to be delivering: better teaching facilities and resources for schoolchildren. When I visited a school that had GBE solar panels on its roof, I learned that the children had had a number of lessons on clean energy; they had learned about how sustainability was improving their school and about the wider impacts on the planet. That is an important curriculum benefit.

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

T8. Gareth from Pitney lives in an off-grid home. He has no affordable heating options available to him other than oil. Despite being really keen to transition to renewable energy, it will cost him about £20,000 to do so. What steps is the Minister taking to support off-grid homeowners to transition to sustainable heating alternatives, and what assessment has he made of using renewable liquid heating fuels?

[Martin McCluskey]

The warm homes plan, which will be launched before the end of the year, will address issues in rural homes. The hon. Member may also be interested to know that a consultation on alternative heating fuels was launched today, and she and some of her constituents may want to submit a response to it.

Future of the Post Office

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make the task of running a post office more attractive. That is why improving both the culture, so that postmasters feel listened to, and the remuneration are hugely important immediate tasks. The best commercial opportunities for post offices lie in the provision of banking services, rather than Government services. I hope that the banks and the financial services industry will have heard the message from Members from all parts of the House: we want them to do more to work with Government to take advantage of the potential opportunities. As I have committed to meeting other hon. Members to discuss local issues, I had better do the same for the hon. Gentleman.

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

I thank sub-postmasters across Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the country, in particular Jim Gordon from Martock. Many post offices in my constituency have closed in recent years, including those in Somerton, Butleigh, Charlton Adam, Charlton Mackrell, Keinton Mandeville and Sparkford, depriving their communities of a vital service. I recently met Mr and Mrs Thievendran from Somerton Stores, who are interested in opening a post office on their premises but are unable to do so because of the prohibitive costs involved. The owner of the Baltonsborough Village Store was considering doing the same but told me that the costs are extraordinary. What steps will the Minister take not only to put existing post offices on a sustainable footing, but to help rural towns and villages without a post office to regain one?

[Gareth Thomas]

As I have said, in our view we should retain the current size of the network and the current access criteria, which are key to ensuring that every community, whether rural or urban, has good access to post office services. I encourage the hon. Lady to reach out to the Post Office to discuss the particular issues facing the businesses to which she has referred, which are interested in running post office branches but feel unable to do so, to see whether anything can be done to ease those local challenges.

More generally, the issue the hon. Lady raises partly speaks to the challenge of increasing postmaster remuneration. Post Office senior management clearly recognise that: there was a £20 million uplift in postmaster remuneration in the last financial year, there will be a £66 million increase this year, and Post Office management are committed to looking to go even further. I hope that will make the opportunity to run a post office much more attractive, and may address some of the financial challenges she raised.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech.

Small rural businesses are the heartbeat of the economy in Glastonbury and Somerton, but many are in crisis. The Government’s increase in employer’s national insurance contributions is an aggressive measure that disproportionately burdens the rural economy. Jacqueline, the owner of two businesses in my constituency, has gone from being in profit to laying off four members of staff. The Liberal Democrats have opposed the rise at every turn, knowing the devastating impact that it will have on rural businesses.

The Chancellor’s choice to introduce permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026 will punish significant rural employers at a time when the Government should be supporting them. The Kings Arms in Charlton Horethorne is a thriving rural pub, but the owners contacted me recently to say that the changes to business rates could cause its closure. Overt Locke, a Somerton hardware store, is also experiencing economic collapse. Indeed, it did close—the previous owners had to sell up—but luckily the new owners, Rob and Louise, have resurrected the business; however, it will be profitable only if business rates relief is sustained at 75%.

The Liberal Democrats would scrap the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy that taxes land value, not productive investment. When rural businesses fail, we lose not just livelihoods but the social and economic fabric of our countryside.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate.

The number of English farms has fallen by nearly a quarter in 20 years, with dairy farms, which are highly prominent in Somerset, hit particularly badly. We all know that British farmers have faced a long list of challenges, such as the impact of Brexit, sky-high energy prices, terrible Tory trade deals, botched transitions from the basic payment scheme to the environmental land management scheme, the shattering blow of the family farm tax and the no-notice cancellation of sustainable farming incentive grants. Now the Government seem set to make significant cuts to the nature-friendly farming budget in their upcoming spending review.

On top of all that, farmers earn tiny profits and are regularly exposed to industrial-scale exploitation by supermarkets that are focused on delivering cheap food and meeting their just-in-time supply model. Many households are living in food insecurity as a result of our unbalanced food system, and food poverty is on the rise. Food security is vital for national security, but farmers are increasingly being forced out of business as they cannot afford to make a living growing food for our tables.

I cannot stress enough how important our farmers are to national security. As Professor Tim Lang’s recent report on the UK civil food resilience gap highlights, we must act now to ensure the UK’s food resilience and preparedness. We are living in a volatile and unpredictable world, and we must be ready for international shocks to food supply chains, so I urge the Minister to talk to his DEFRA colleagues, to look carefully at the damage being caused to the UK agricultural sector, and to support a system that empowers and rewards British farmers to produce high-quality food while protecting nature.

Of course, we must also address the power imbalance that farmers face on their route to market. The UK groceries sector is dominated by a handful of supermarkets, with around 95% of food sales controlled by just 10 retailers. That concentration means that supermarkets wield significant power over farmers, leaving them with very little negotiating leverage. Unethical practices from large supermarkets can lead to contracts being altered at the last minute, and supermarkets often use loss leader strategies, selling some products at a loss to attract more customers. That practice squeezes suppliers, which are often forced to accept lower prices, and if they do not meet their quotas, they will be punished.

In large part, that reflects the limited scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which covers too few retailers. Many farmers and suppliers fear retaliation if they report unfair practices, while two thirds of farmers report feeling fearful of being delisted if they speak out of turn about supermarket behaviour. That leaves them underpaid and vulnerable. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a change in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It needs teeth, and it needs to be strengthened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I acknowledge the wider points that have been made. Members have raised today a number of issues that are beyond the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and clearly are within the bailiwick of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which clearly I need to work with on developing a more holistic approach. That is one of the challenges we face, because the code regulates only designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers and currently applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, each with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more.

A number of Members referred to the threshold and questioned whether that is currently appropriate. It is worth pointing out that, according to the marketing data company Kantar, the 10 largest retailers covered by the groceries code amount to 97% of the grocery retail market, although the adjudicator has said that he is happy to hear views on whether the threshold should change and about suppliers’ experiences of dealing with retailers not currently covered by the code. The adjudicator has also said that he will pass on any relevant information to the CMA to inform future decisions on retailer designations under the code. There is therefore an opportunity for Members to feed in if they feel there are particular retailers under the current threshold that should be included.

A number of Members talked about the issue of price. The code does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers. It does, however, require these negotiations to be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA is keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing to prices.

[Sarah Dyke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

I have quite a bit to get through, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will carry on.

The statutory review is focused on the powers and duties of the GCA as set out in the 2013 Act and the 2015 order. These powers include providing arbitration between suppliers and retailers, conducting investigations into retailers suspected of breaching the code, and enforcement powers where the adjudicator is satisfied that a retailer has broken the code. Enforcement can take the form of the adjudicator making recommendations against the retailer, requiring retailers to publish details of the breach, or imposing financial penalties of up to 1% of the retailer’s turnover. The adjudicator also publishes advice, guidance and best practice statements, and can make recommendations to the CMA about suggested changes to the groceries code.

Contrary to a common misconception, which I am afraid has been repeated by a number of Members today, the adjudicator does not need to wait for a complaint to be made before launching an investigation. What the Act requires is that the adjudicator has reasonable grounds to suspect that a retailer designated under the code has broken it or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation. It is for the adjudicator to determine how to use those powers, but it is absolutely possible for it to pursue investigations without a formal complaint being made.

I heard a number of Members making reference to concerns about reprisals—that was also raised in the previous debate. As part of the review, I am keen to hear how we ensure that the system is robust enough, so that people in the chain covered by the code feel confident that they can raise complaints. Clearly, there will always be an element of concern when someone raises their head above the parapet, but it is possible to raise concerns confidentially. Indeed, the survey undertaken by the adjudicator is done on a confidential basis. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), referenced his scepticism about the high level of satisfaction in that. I note his comments, but it is the case that the survey is taken confidentially. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also raised the question of anonymity. I am genuinely interested to hear from Members how we can find a way ahead so as to ensure that people can raise complaints confidentially and with confidence.

In general, the adjudicator has ensured a collaborative approach with suppliers, which has helped to prevent problems from escalating and reduced the need for time-consuming and expensive formal dispute resolution. A number of Members raised the question of resourcing, but it is for the adjudicator to set the level of the levy that is applied. That is always a matter of discussion, but I am sure that if the adjudicator wished to increase the levy, it would be able to do so within the powers it already has.

I am conscious that I need to give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings an opportunity to respond. I have not addressed all the points that Members raised in the debate, but where I am able to provide a further response, I will write to those Members. I would encourage all Members to engage with the review. It is important that a number of the issues that we have heard about today are fed into it.