Animal Rescue Centres

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this evening, Sir Alec. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the 201 petitioners from Glastonbury and Somerton.

For many years, the UK has enjoyed the reputation of being a nation of animal lovers, with over half of us owning a pet. Indeed, I am owned by three Patterdale terriers, George, Bert and Griff, who keep me on my toes, and a farm cat, Thomas, who spends less and less time up at the farm.

The UK was the first country in the world to start a welfare charity for animals. That concern to rescue and care for animals led to the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A 2025 survey by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that 17% of dog owners and 33% of cat owners got their pet from a rescue centre. The RSPCA collects an abandoned animal every hour during the summer, and an estimated 250,000 animals go to rescue centres every year, which equates to 700 per day.

The cost of living crisis has undoubtedly increased the number of animals being abandoned, with the RSPCA recording a 24% increase in pets being handed over in 2022. Many rescue centres reported increased pressure because of the covid pandemic, which changed the landscape and increased the number of abandoned pets. Many covid dogs were sent to rescues with major separation anxiety, having never been away from their owners. Owners clearly had to go back to work, which put untold pressure on them as well, as they had to give up their dogs.

I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that rescue centres do. Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, based near Wincanton, has been run by Liz and Colin Stewart for more than 30 years. In their time, they have saved the lives of more than 34,000 animals, including dogs, cats, ponies, chickens and rabbits. In 2007, in recognition of their work, Liz was invited to the House of Lords to receive the award for international animal rescuer of the year. They run a charitable non-profit organisation. They have no full-time paid staff and rely on support from volunteers, but the costs of running such an operation are significant, with veterinary and food costs rising every day.

Some centres do not have the experience and knowledge of Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, and many exist without the facilities and resources to ensure that animals receive the right care and support. However, the lack of regulation surrounding animal rescue centres means they can operate without a licence as long as they do not report making a profit.

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady touched on the costs generated by animal centres, and earlier I mentioned the £800,000 running costs of the Radcliffe animal centre in my constituency. I put on record my thanks to David Carter of Gamston in my constituency, who has lit up his house every Christmas for a decade to raise money for the local animal centre. However, does the hon. Lady agree that relying on people like David to generate funds for these centres puts their regulation and licensing, and the way they look after animals, at risk?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I thank Mr Carter for all his amazing work to support the financing of these important rescue centres. Many people across the country do exactly the same thing.

Despite having the best intentions, some establishments take on too many animals or animals they do not have the specialist knowledge, expertise or resources to help, which often results in devastating situations where animals are sadly left to suffer. Donna, a constituent from Street, wrote to me recently about the heartbreaking situation at Save A Paw in Essex, where 40 dogs were sadly discovered.

If regulation is not in place, not only are such awful situations allowed to occur, but major health risks can be posed due to poor biosecurity. Pets should be spayed, wormed, de-fleaed and vaccinated while at a rescue centre, but there is no regulation to ensure that they are. Indeed, some animals in rescue centres are becoming infected with diseases that will need lifetime treatment, which is obviously an additional cost to the owners who take them on. There is support in the industry for measures to be implemented, with an RSPCA survey finding that 82% of wildlife rehabilitators believe welfare standards are inconsistent across the sector, and that more than 68% feel statutory licensing is important.

Earlier today, I spoke to Zoe, who runs Rushton Dog Rescue in my constituency with her mum, Cindi. They have operated for nearly 20 years in Langport, and have rescued thousands of dogs, along with horses, ducks, cats, ferrets and other animals, keeping them at their 15-acre centre. Zoe told me they believe that licensing would be good for the centre, and that unregulated pop-up rescues, sometimes operating out of people’s homes, can leave animals without the care and proper expertise they need.

Concerns also exist over those who use animal rescue centres as a front to run unscrupulous puppy breeding businesses, which leave legitimate animal rescue centres to pick up the pieces. In fact, Zoe told me that that was her No. 1 concern, so I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on the extent to which her Department is aware of the issue, given its admission that it lacks a complete picture of rescue centres in the country.

The Tories pledged to pursue licensing requirements in 2021 and 2023, and confirmed that they would look to consult on the matter, but ultimately failed to act before the last general election. The Liberal Democrats have called for a comprehensive national strategy on animal welfare that secures Britain’s place as a world leader on standards. As such, we welcome this Government’s commitment to ensure rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for, but we are clear that any potential new licensing requirements must be properly enforced. There is also a need to ensure that regulations actually result in welfare improvements.

Zoe was also keen to stress that the Government must give existing rescue centres the financial support they need, to ensure they can follow new regulations to bring about improved welfare at animal rescue centres. The RSPCA has been clear that if that does not happen, many smaller rescues, set up with the best of intentions but lacking specialist resources, would be forced to closed, and the lack of capacity would place an unsustainable burden on those remaining in the sector. In turn, that would result in a lowering of animal welfare standards as remaining centres were overwhelmed and unable to care for their animals. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government would be willing to provide the support the industry requests.

I was also able to speak with Nigel, who runs the Somerton branch of Service Dogs UK, a charity dedicated to supporting armed forces and emergency services veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder by matching them with rescue dogs from across Somerset and the south-west. It uses rescue dogs from Dogs Trust, and applies strict rules, including background and household checks, before matching dogs. Nigel feels that regulation could ensure that rescue centres are properly inspected, while helping animals to receive the medical treatment they require. However, he noted that three out of 15 dogs in the Service Dogs UK system were found unchipped and abandoned on the street, which highlights the scale of the problem rescue centres are trying to deal with.

Nigel also highlighted concerns over individuals who set up centres and bring in dogs from overseas, putting them into British homes without proper controls. Vets and other public health experts have expressed concerns about the health and wellbeing of dogs and animals illegally imported into the UK, as well as the potential infection of animals already resident here.

The Liberal Democrats believe it is important to improve the welfare and quality of life of household pets, while ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. That is why I am really proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), whose Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 will transform animal welfare in the UK and eradicate cruel practices that should have been wiped out years ago.

It is right that we now look to take action on this important matter, and I hope the Government come forward urgently to launch their consultation. There is strong support from the public and industry, and as the number of abandoned pets sadly increases, the problem will only grow.

Animal cruelty must be considered unacceptable, because animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel pain and suffering. They have a right to live in decent and humane conditions, and it is crucial that we change the law to better protect them from harm. I hope today’s debate serves as an important step on the road to higher welfare for animals who find themselves in the care of rescue centres.

Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for the debate to proceed.

The UK agricultural sector experienced an enormous shift on leaving the European Union. There was simply no plan in place for farming and international trade, and the post-Brexit era has seen seven DEFRA Secretaries of State and five Prime Ministers. As Baroness Batters said in her recent farming profitability review, this has led to a complete lack of constant political direction at a time when farming needed it the most. Nothing has done more to increase the cost of farming and to reduce farm incomes than the Conservative’s botched Brexit, and it has harmed and undermined protections for animal welfare and the environment.

The Conservative Government did not stop there. In addition, they set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements in how they went about their negotiations. Stripping away parliamentary scrutiny and forcing terrible deals through has given unfair advantage to imports from countries with much poorer standards, which would fail to meet the high-quality British production standards. The Liberal Democrats demand that every new trade deal should be subject to proper scrutiny, but this Government’s refusal to do so in their latest trade agreement with President Trump—despite calling for proper oversight while in opposition—is a reminder that Parliament has not yet taken back control.

I am proud to come from a farming background. My family has farmed in and around Somerset for more than 250 years, and my brother continues the family business. Like all farmers, he takes great pride in what he does. Despite much turbulence in the industry, farmers work hard to provide the nation with food for our tables. In large part, they remain resilient to most market shocks, but bad trade deals have allowed butter and cheese imports from Australia, New Zealand and the United States to start to land on our shores in increasing volumes. These products are flooding our domestic markets at the expense of British farmers, yet they are under no obligation to have point of origin labelling. That has inevitably led to UK milk buyers slashing farm gate milk prices to a level that is simply unacceptable, and which is unsustainable.

I recently met Rich Clothier MBE, the managing director of family-run Wyke Farms near Bruton. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will join me in congratulating Rich on recently being appointed an MBE for services to sustainable agriculture and food production in the King’s new year’s honours list. Wyke Farms is one of the UK’s largest independent cheese producers. It has been crafting award-winning cheddar and butter from Somerset for over 160 years, and under Rich’s guidance it now exports products to more than 160 countries.

Rich recently told me:

“People want to eat food produced to British standards of welfare…environmental and food safety…But currently they have no way of knowing…and being able to make that choice.”

That is what is important: to ensure that our consumers know what they are buying and are able to make that choice. However, because of Brexit, the Government are forced into agreeing poor trade deals that continue to undermine British farmers and the food that they produce. Over the past few months, milk prices have been in freefall, leaving many dairy farmers on a financial cliff edge. Milk prices are currently well below the cost of production; we have seen thousands of litres of milk being thrown down the drain, and I fear that there will be much more to come over the next few months if we do not do something about it.

Given the absence of point of origin labelling in our trade policy, products are offered to customers without appropriate labelling, allowing them to masquerade as UK-produced. That is why I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill, which would force the Government to ensure that any trade deals do not negatively impact on British dairy farmers.

Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure that farmers and growers receive fair treatment in the supply chain, as existing protections are no longer sufficient to tackle unfair practices by large buyers. We want to reform and strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator, merging it with the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and giving it greater powers and resources. What is required is a sensible trade policy that ensures British consumers are protected from imported food produced at lower standards—standards at which it would be illegal for British farmers to operate.

Liberal Democrats are champions of free trade; we know the benefits that it brings to British farmers and businesses. But we also know that regulatory alignment is key. We cannot allow British farmers to be undercut by cheaper imports. However, Canada will soon ratify UK membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—which, worryingly, could open the doors to products from farming systems that are banned here and further undermine British farming.

Battery cages have rightly been banned in the UK since 2012, but the CPTPP could allow Mexican farmers who use battery cages to export a large number of eggs to the UK. Those eggs will be produced in a manner that would simply be illegal here. This would force farms such as Silverthorne Farm near Milborne Port, which has 15,000 hens that are all free to roam over its 32 acres, to compete with lower standard importers that operate at a fraction of the cost.

The Government have recently released their animal welfare strategy after promising the largest increase in standards in a generation. While the Liberal Democrats have long called for, and support, many of the measures that the Government have announced, the strategy lacks a commitment to protecting UK food security and farmers through trade policy. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that it will consider whether overseas producers have an “unfair advantage”; unfortunately, it is clear that the answer is yes, they do. It is worth recalling that one former Environment Minister slammed the UK-Australia deal, saying that the UK

“gave away far too much for far too little”,

and described it as “not very good” for British farmers. I am glad that the Government are prepared to use the “full range of powers” at their disposal to protect the most sensitive sectors, as there is little doubt that this is needed. The Government must urgently renegotiate the Australia and New Zealand trade deals, so that we can uphold high standards on food safety, animal welfare, health and the environment. If these standards cannot be met, we should withdraw from such deals.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is an absolute priority, so that we can cut red tape, reduce checks, and lower costs for exporters. We have called for an agreement to be delivered as soon as possible. It should be modelled on the EU-Swiss veterinary deal, and should guarantee enhanced access to the single market, with minimal checks. We also want a bespoke UK-EU customs union, so that we can rebuild our economy and support British producers, and the tariff-free movement of goods between EU member states, in order to strengthen domestic economic growth. A far more ambitious, free and fair trade deal with Europe is an absolute necessity. It would give the Government some of the financial scope that they need to keep a few more of their promises to improve our vital public services. However, any upcoming agreement poses some risk to British farmers, as any agreement could limit the UK’s ability to apply our own standards for imports. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for us to replicate the Swiss model, which is based on mutual recognition of animal health measures.

The Conservatives sold British farmers down the river in their desperation to agree trade deals by arbitrary deadlines, but there is now an opportunity to properly protect British welfare standards in all future deals. That must be at the forefront of this Government’s mind in all future negotiations, as it is critical for UK farming, food security and national security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Fishing Industry

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and on his powerful speech. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for today’s debate.

The UK’s fishing industry is central to our national economy. It contributes more than £1.4 billion annually and supports more than 11,000 fishers. However, despite the sector’s economic value, the industry post Brexit continues to face numerous challenges. It has insufficient Government support and has been left to fight an uphill battle against environmental neglect and regulatory stagnation. The previous Government’s ill-conceived Brexit deal has had a negative impact on the UK fishing industry and has created deep uncertainty about its future. Our fishing communities feel unrepresented and anxious about the industry’s future economic viability.

Within the terms of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement post-Brexit, UK fishing became subject to a number of regulations. It is unbelievable that the current Government’s Ministers have, in effect, agreed to continue with the Conservative plan for fishing, subjecting the industry to another 12 years of neglect through the agreement reached at last May’s UK-EU reset summit, as EU boats will now have access to our waters until 2038. The Liberal Democrats hoped that the summit would provide the opportunity for a reset that would benefit our fishing industry, but it just got more of the same. We believe that if the Government had been more ambitious and sought to secure a new customs union, better benefits would have been secured for our fishing industry.

Although it is positive that a comprehensive agreement has been secured across trade and defence, the Government must work with our fishing industry to understand the impact that the extension will have. Greater co-operation is necessary, given that the raft of regulatory changes to the EU applies to all vessels, but fishers do not feel supported by the Government or by the Marine Management Organisation, which gave the industry just five days’ notice of changes. Poor communication regarding new gear marking and catch reporting has only furthered confusion and uncertainty in the industry.

The sewage scandal that has blighted our waters for far too long urgently needs addressing. Although Glastonbury and Somerton is landlocked, it is home to diverse watercourses, including the Rivers Brue and Parrett, which offer excellent fishing for local anglers. Upstream towards Bruton, the River Brue supports local trout fishing, while further downstream around Glastonbury and towards Highbridge, the River Parrett is dominated by coarse fishing such as for roach, chub, perch and pike. Both rivers are valued ecological areas for our local communities and our region’s biodiversity, but our watercourses have not been left untouched by pollution, with the River Parrett in Langport experiencing 54 separate sewage spills in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Devastatingly, in 2025 alone, all the water- courses in my constituency were subjected to more than 45,000 hours of pollution. Across the wider—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will know that the debate is on the fishing industry, not on sewage pollution of rivers per se. Perhaps she would like to return to the subject of fishing.

[Sarah Dyke]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The impact on coastal communities is even more severe and economically damaging. The House will know that fishing waters in Cornwall, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), have been greatly affected by pollution, with many forced to close after high levels of E. coli were found in locally sourced oysters and mussels. For local shellfish growers, the actions of unresponsive and irresponsible water companies have destroyed consumer confidence in locally sourced fish, decimating demand and threatening the viability of local producers across many coastal regions.

Despite the desperate pleas of our coastal communities, the inaction of both the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour Government has resulted in a shocking increase in pollution incidents, which were up 27% last year. The Liberal Democrats have been very clear that tougher regulations must be delivered to prevent raw sewage spillages into our waterways. The Government’s White Paper, which was published on Tuesday, contains some welcome measures, but it does not go far enough—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will not make this point again. This is a debate on the fishing industry. The hon. Lady has made her point about pollution.

[Sarah Dyke]

Let me return briefly to Somerset—this is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. The European eel was once a key part of the county’s identity. It was so abundant that it even served as the local currency, and it was the most economically significant part of Somerset’s fishing sector. The presence of this keystone species is said to be the leading indicator for the health of our wetland, river and natural habitats.

Unsurprisingly, the European eel is currently deemed a critically endangered species, with a 90% drop in its population since the 1980s owing to habitat loss and migration barriers. The Somerset Eel Recovery Project, founded by Vanessa Becker- Hughes, is leading community efforts to restore the county’s local eel population through conservation and cultural efforts, but despite its best efforts, its work is not bringing the significant changes that it would like. Removing barriers and installing passes is essential for the species’ survival, which is dependent on migration. By balancing conservation efforts with sustainable fishing, we can secure the stability of the sector and more of us can enjoy the culinary delicacy that is eel.

Across the wider south-west, we are seeing a stark decline in fish species along our coastal areas. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), the octopus bloom of last year has led to an 80% decline in crab catch—a decline so significant that it is forcing local fishers to consider early retirement or career changes because they are unable to make ends meet. Fishers in South Devon and across the south-west need greater support from the Government to stay in business while they learn to adapt to these concerning ecological changes, and they require flexibility on catch licences in order to remain in business.

Last May, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of a £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund after the industry had been let down consistently by nearly a decade of successive Conservative Governments. The current Government must not follow the example of the Conservatives. For a lasting impact to be realised through greater investment, our coastal towns must be given a voice in how the money is spent.

This vital funding should not be spent on generic community assets such as benches and public facilities in coastal towns. It must be appropriately targeted to empower our fishing communities, providing them with greater powers and resources to invest in coastal infra- structure and services. Through delivering a comprehensive plan for spreading economic opportunity, the Liberal Democrats would ensure that the fund supports initiatives to enhance awareness of the career opportunities in the sector and strengthen skills to retain workers and, crucially, attract younger workers to support future growth.

It is clear that our fishing and coastal communities cannot afford another decade of neglect. The previous Conservative Government left our fishers in the lurch and hung out to dry, while the current Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to secure a genuine reset that would provide both stability and opportunity. Instead, they have chosen to continue with a botched Brexit deal for the industry until 2038. Our fishing industry deserves better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

UK Wine Industry

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tristan Osborne]

Indeed, different ways of distributing wine have been established in this country by Tetra Pak and others. There are innovations that we need to consider and there are lessons to be learned from other European nations.

Demand is rising in whatever form. Sales of domestic wine increased by 10% in 2023, with sparkling wine sales up 187% since 2018. This is a real success story of our rural landscape.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Somerset is more often known for its cider production, but I have a brilliant, multi-award winning winemaker, Smith & Evans, based in Aller on the Somerset levels. As he rightly points out, sales of UK wine are increasing, but there are difficulties, such as the tax thresholds that are hampering growers’ innovation. Does he agree that the Government must justify the cumulative cost burden of extended producer responsibility for glass packaging alongside those rising costs?

[Tristan Osborne]

Absolutely, there are challenges in the industry and I will raise a number of them in a moment, but first I want to offer an overview of the success of the sector. There are a lot of hard-working wine growers and merchants. Despite some of the challenges, the industry is already showing real success and we need to support it.

British wine is gaining recognition not just in this country but across the world. Japan is now a key market and the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea and Denmark are all beginning to respect our wines and see them as a go-to product choice. The export market is expanding at pace and, with support, this could be a real positive multiplier in our rural communities, much maligned and struggling in many cases. This is a growth industry that could sustain our rural economy and grow it in a more promising way. Many practices that wine producers engage with are inherently sustainable and support the local community, both directly in terms of wine producing, but also in spin-offs such as restaurants and wine tourism.

Water White Paper

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Although some proposals in this White Paper are welcome, it does not go far enough to guarantee the promised fundamental reforms. Record sewage spills of over 45,000 hours were recorded in Glastonbury and Somerton last year. The public are left in the dark as the Government refuse to record the true scale of the volume of sewage dumped, rather than just the duration. Fat cat-retention payments continue as water companies evade the 2025 ban on bonuses, with the former Wessex Water chief executive officer landing a £170,000 bonus through the parent company YTL, with Ofwat apparently powerless to oppose it. Why do the Government refuse to address the failed ownership model that has allowed pollution, under-investment and profiteering to persist for decades? Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Lady for, I think, some support for the White Paper and what she has said. We both share real concerns about the status quo. On mutual ownership, I do not really hear a plan from the Liberal Democrats as to how to get to that point—[Interruption.] Hear me out. If it involves wholesale nationalisation, given that these are private companies, that would cost around £100 billion, would be legally complex and take years of wrangling through the courts. My focus is on improving the status quo and ensuring that we are tackling pollution, which she rightly says is still happening. Since January of last year, 100% of storm overflows are being monitored, so we are shining a light of some of the pollution. We still have a way to go, but we are bearing down on the pollution that she rightly talks about.

My solution to this crisis and this issue is to make sure that we have a complete overhaul of regulation, the regulators and the way that consumers are not, at the moment, put at the centre of things. That way, we protect the consumer in a much more meaningful way by introducing a water ombudsman with statutory powers. We are making some progress and we will make more. I know that she and I agree on some things, although we may disagree on some of the details. We are determined to deliver a system that provides better outcomes for consumers and the environment.

Water Supplies: East Grinstead

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

About 16,500 residents have been impacted as a result of the latest water outage. GPs and schools have shut; vulnerable people, including those in care homes, are unable to access water; and people have been forced to queue for hours at water distribution sites. Unfortunately for customers of South East Water, this has become a trend: over the last five years, the company has ranked within the bottom three for water supply interruptions.

Experts have stated that the potential for water shortages in the area has long been known, but terrible strategic planning, a failure to cut leakage and decisions to divert money towards dividends have distracted from infrastructure improvements that should have been prioritised. Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the continued tenure of South East Water’s chief executive officer is untenable, given the scale, duration and repetition of these serious failures? Will the Government commit to a full, independent investigation into South East Water’s operational resilience, governance and crisis management?

On behalf of myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I offer my condolences to the Minister on the terrible and sad loss of her father.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words.

I completely share the frustration; it would be nice not to be talking about South East Water in the House. I feel I have come to know the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) very well for the sad reason that we seem to be meeting all too frequently about problems in that area. As I have said, the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be investigating the situation in Tunbridge Wells. One thing it will look at is bottled water and its supply to vulnerable people—has that been communicated well; has there been a sufficiency; is it in the right place?—because during a crisis it looks at whether people are getting the water they need, so that investigation will take place.

As I have mentioned, I have already met Ofwat to share some of my concerns about performance issues at the company. I will be asking it to look at whether it thinks this company has met its obligations in serving its customers, and I will be reflecting deeply and seriously on what it tells me.

Rural Communities

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak for the Liberal Democrats on this motion. Around 10 million people live in rural areas, and the rural population has been growing faster than the population in urban areas since mid-2020. However, under successive Governments rural communities have largely been viewed as an afterthought in policy, yet rural areas present a wealth of opportunities that need to be optimised. If the Government really want growth, rural areas should and can play their part.

After more than a year of uncertainty and anguish since the 2024 Budget, which threatened to wreck family farms across the country, the Government have partially climbed down on the family farm tax. That concession is down to the sustained campaigning of the thousands of farmers who did not give up and made their voices heard. I know those voices because they are my family members, friends and neighbours. I have stood in solidarity with them as they took precious time away from their farms to attend Westminster rallies in protest at this ill-thought-through policy. For them, this is not a triumph; it has been a hard-fought fight to save their livelihoods, their homes and their futures.

This fight is about justice and security. If we undermine British farmers, we undermine our ability to provide food to feed the nation and to keep us secure in a volatile and uncertain world. Britain is not secure unless food supply is secure.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady said about the family farm tax and the campaign that was waged against it, which crossed a number of political parties. Will she go further and join the campaign that is raging among the Opposition against the imposition of huge solar plants, pylons and substations on prime agricultural land? Thirty-five per cent of the land in this country is not of that kind; surely those things should go there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

Renewable energy is vital for the future of this country. However, we must ensure that it is put in the right place and is fit for the future. Putting renewable energy on our best and most versatile land certainly is certainly not the way the Liberal Democrats would go about it. However, there are places for renewable energy. I endorse a lot more solar on rooftops. That is certainly something that we can do for the future. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The impact of the family farm tax has already been felt. Chris, who farms at Wheatlawn farm near Babcary, wrote to me recently. He is a fifth generation farmer with terminal prostate cancer, and he described the family farm tax as a dark “shadow” that has been hanging over him for the past year. He was terrified of leaving his son with a huge, unpayable tax bill. Although the financial burden might be avoided for now, Chris was still keen to point out that what little trust he may have had in the Labour Government has been lost because, in his words, the Labour party simply does not “understand the countryside”. Ministers are fond of saying that British farming is the best in the world, and they are right, but too many of them do not know why. The reason is farmers like Chris and the tradition of family farming in the UK.

Although common sense has finally prevailed, does the Chancellor recognise the damage that this whole dreadful episode has done to the rural economy? When will the Treasury publish an assessment of the impact of this policy on the agricultural sector? While the partial climbdown has limited the damage to the industry, it does not eradicate it entirely. Many farmers will still find themselves facing huge tax bills while operating on narrow profit margins. We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call out and oppose the unfair family farm tax after the disastrous 2024 Budget, and we will continue to stand alongside the farming community and demand that the Government scrap this unfair tax in full. If they refuse, we will submit amendments to the Finance Bill to bring it down.

Alongside producing food, farmers are the guardians of the countryside, but they cannot be green if they are in the red. They are critical to meeting DEFRA’s legally binding targets to reverse nature’s decline, so they need time to adapt and clarity on what to aim for to achieve profitable and nature-friendly farming.

As the Government prepare their new farming road map, we Liberal Democrats encourage them to make it practical, not theoretical. The UK should align with our partners in the EU, who are maintaining direct common agricultural policy payments to farmers until at least 2035. We must ensure that English agriculture is not an outlier, especially given that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also maintaining an element of direct support. Farmers in England are left with agri-environmental schemes that, under the Labour Government, are no longer comprehensively open to farmers.

This is the first time in 80 years that a Government have not provided support to produce food. That is a Tory policy being continued by Labour. It is absolute madness to disincentivise food production. I hope that today is an opportunity for the Conservatives to apologise for failing to treat food as a public good. We must ensure that British farmers have a fair deal. We can do so by adding an extra £1 billion to the farming budget, guaranteeing high standards in all future trade deals, renegotiating the Australia and New Zealand trade deals, enforcing point-of-origin and point-of-production labelling on animal-derived products, giving the Groceries Code Adjudicator the teeth it needs to protect both customers and producers, and securing frictionless trade with Europe through new veterinary and plant health agreements.

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

I think it is great that, rather than just criticising the Government, the hon. Lady is outlining a set of policies that the Lib Dems would take forward to support farming communities. What is not clear, however, is how it would all be funded. How much would that list of policies cost, how would it be funded, and what would be the impact on the economy?

[Sarah Dyke]

The Liberal Democrats have set out a number of different policies to help shape that £1 billion investment. Being part of the customs union would certainly be part of that, and it would bring in billions extra, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. There is much more we can do.

Nothing has done more to increase the cost of living and of farming and to reduce farm incomes than the Conservatives’ botched Brexit, which made it more expensive and burdensome for British farmers and fishers to export to their main markets in the EU, beleaguering their workforces and undermining their protections for animal welfare and the environment. The Conservative Government set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements, given what they negotiated and how they went about it. They stripped away parliamentary scrutiny and forced terrible deals through, which gave unfair advantage to imports from countries with poorer standards over the higher-quality standards of British farmers.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

We have heard an awful lot of criticism of the Government’s policies on farming from the Conservatives, but very little mention of the trade deals that they secured with Australia and New Zealand, which have made things so much harder for farmers—we will undoubtedly hear a lot about those from Labour Members. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government to commit to rejecting chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef from the United States?

[Sarah Dyke]

As my hon. Friend would expect, I totally agree with him.

The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that British farmers operate on a level playing field and can succeed. That is why last year I introduced the Dairy Products and Dairy Farming Bill. Farm-gate milk prices have plummeted over the past few months; now, cereal prices are also under serious pressure. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we need fairness in the supply chain. When farming businesses fail, there is a knock-on impact on local hospitality—pubs, cafés, restaurants and hotels.

Somerset is a tourism region. It supports nearly 10% of all jobs and contributes more than £1 billion to the regional economy. Many of the fantastic hospitality businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton are under immense pressure as they face huge rates increases from April. Miranda contacted me today. She manages the White Hart pub in Castle Cary, and faces her rateable value going from around £19,000 a year to over £30,000 a year. Meanwhile, the British Institute of Innkeeping states that only one in three pubs are profitable, and warns that that could drop to one in 10 by April.

The hospitality sector already faces £4.5 billion in additional taxes due to increased national insurance contributions in the 2024 Budget. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an emergency 5% VAT cut for hospitality, accommodation and attraction businesses until April 2027, funded by a new windfall tax on big banks. Combined with our policy to reduce people’s energy bills by removing the main renewables levy, we could put £270 back into people’s pockets, making it more affordable for them to heat their home, and allowing them to spend more on occasional extras. That would help to drive economic growth in rural areas, restore our high streets, and give the country a much-needed morale boost. It would also help rural areas to grow the economy.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will give way to my honourable neighbour.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. I share her support for a reduction in VAT for our rural hospitality sector, but does she get the irony that such a reduction would be illegal if we were still a member of the European Union?

[Sarah Dyke]

There are many ironies, but the benefit of being in the European Union far outweighs that cost.

Moving on to homes, to help grow the economy we must ensure that rural areas have places for people to live in. In Somerset, newly built homes make up just 3% of all properties recently sold, with an average price 20% more expensive than the UK average. Rural house prices have increased by 57% since 2013, while wages simply stagnate, creating an affordability gap and contributing to a higher need for affordable housing in rural areas than in urban settings. As a result, many first-time buyers and key workers simply cannot afford to live in rural areas, making it increasingly difficult for rural local businesses to retain staff, reducing local spending power, and threatening the viability of our rural communities.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that both the private and social housing markets are too expensive and insecure, with current provision simply not sufficient to meet demand. People in holiday destinations should not have to face higher rents and housing shortages, especially when they are among the hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. The Tories would offer tax cuts on second homes, making it harder for people who want to live in an area where they work, or where their family is from, to own their own home. That evidences their failure to understand what life is really like in rural areas. As part of a fairer housing system, the Liberal Democrats would allow councils to increase council tax on second homes by up to 500% if there are housing shortages in their area.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must recognise the pressure that they have put on rural communities over the past 18 months, whether it is through the family farm tax, the broken agri-environmental schemes, the lack of support for hospitality or the failure to provide affordable rural homes. We must remember, however, that these are not new problems. The Conservatives failed to make improvements for rural communities, and that is why they were kicked out of huge swathes of the rural south-west.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s desire to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable, to minimise waste and to create the foundations for a truly circular economy. As a party, we recognise that the previous system was not fit for purpose following the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, and we supported the Committee’s recommendations to incentivise better recyclability and transparency of products to help the transition to a circular economy.

I am fortunate to represent a constituency with a thriving food and drink sector, but as producers are facing substantial added costs, they need to be properly supported, not punished, during the transition to a more circular economy. Although we wholly support the Government’s intention to tackle waste by improving recycling processes, we remain unconvinced that the introduction of EPR in its current form will achieve the desired goals.

By creating a system that will impose unaffordable added costs on producers, the Government run the risk of forcing them to use cheaper and less recyclable materials, or else jeopardising the viability of key local businesses that are driving growth, which is something the Government should be committed to protecting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are trying to take the scheme forward in a positive, iterative way. The consultation is not kicking the can down the road; it is recycling the can to see what we can do to ensure that the system is changed and iterated to fit more effectively, to drive up recycling rates in our economy and to move towards a circular economy. I hope the hon. Member feels reassured by that response.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to consider exempting pubs from the EPR, and to review the scheme’s scope and timeline to stop further damage to the hospitality sector, which we all know is already struggling. Will she commit to monitoring that progress as the scheme is rolled out so that pubs and the hospitality sector are not hit further?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I know that the responsible Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East, has met the industry, and that workshops have been held over recent weeks to urgently and carefully identify options that address the issues that the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton raises. We all need to find positive ways forward to address those issues. I hope she is reassured that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East is on to that one and already taking action. I hope that, with those explanations, this measure has the support of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important and timely debate, and on her excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s desire to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable, minimise waste and create the foundations for a truly circular economy. Limiting the environmental damage caused by waste requires us to improve our recycling of packaging. However, progress on recycling has been much slower than it needs to be, making it even more vital that we prioritise rethinking how packaging is made and processed.

The extended producer responsibility has the potential to be a key driver in securing a better circular solution for packaging waste. However, its implementation must support, rather than add additional burdens to, the producers expected to deliver it. Liberal Democrats have long been calling for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers as it would obviously improve recycling levels and environmental standards, yet the current approach to EPR raises significant unease about the unpredictability of escalating costs for producers. That will particularly impact the financial viability of many independent businesses across the country, putting their future viability at risk.

As a party, we recognised that the previous system was not fit for purpose following the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, and supported its recommendations to incentivise better recyclability and transparency of products to help the transition to a circular economy. The reform brought forward by DEFRA will alter the way that local authorities are required to manage household recycling. It is therefore important that local authorities’ role in the scheme is supported, as they are once again being asked to do more while receiving ever-decreasing levels of funding from central Government. With the EPR packaging payment scheme having started last month, the Government have estimated that the shift in cost from local authorities to producers will total over £1.2 billion in its first year.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to reinvest that revenue to improve local recycling infrastructure during EPR’s first year. However, EPR currently lacks a mechanism to ringfence funds and ensure that they are all invested in that infrastructure. Despite PackUK having informed local authorities that they will receive lower payments for a failure to do so, there is great concern within industry that, in future, funds will be redirected to replace central Government spending, threatening the Government’s ultimate ambitions for EPR. Without a firm guarantee to ringfence a certain percentage of funds to be invested in local recycling services, Somerset council, where the Liberal Democrats are now clearing up the mess after 14 years of Conservative maladministration and which, like many local councils, is facing financial difficulty, will be unable to achieve its goal of increasing the county’s recycling rate to 60%.

I am fortunate to represent a constituency with a thriving food and drink sector. Businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton contribute over £29 million annually to our rural economy, supporting 101 pubs and providing employment for over 1,200 constituents. However, the introduction of the EPR in its current form has the potential to erode the profit margins of those vital businesses, forcing them to raise their prices beyond the point their customers can afford, risking the viability of their businesses.

Those concerns have been repeatedly echoed by local brewers and distillers such as Glastonbury Brewing Company and Somerset Spirit in Castle Cary, which, like many others, are having to grapple with serious financial pressures as a consequence of the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions and rising business rates, in addition to EPR.

I remain concerned about the negative impact that the current approach to EPR will have on our hospitality sector, in particular our pubs. Glastonbury and Somerton, as I have just said, is home to a wide and thriving publican community. Those pubs are more than just businesses; they are important pillars of our towns and villages. They bring residents together, create jobs and drive rural growth. A leading example that springs to mind is Curry Mallet’s community pub, the Bell Inn, whose existence has always relied on the generosity of its local community. I pause here to congratulate the community group involved in reopening the Bayford Inn, formerly known as the Unicorn, as a community-run pub in Wincanton, and to wish it every success.

The introduction of EPR may become, as UKHospitality has identified, “a margin killer” for the sector. DEFRA’s approach to EPR has been designed to make businesses responsible for the waste packaging that enters the household recycling stream, but in the case of pubs, their packaging and bottles never leave their premises and they are disposed of through private waste contracts. Consequently, pubs now face a double charge for packaging waste—once through their commercial waste disposal contracts and again through EPR charges having increased the cost of supplies from producers—because the current framework does not exempt non-household waste streams. That means that rural pubs, such as the Catash Inn in North Cadbury, now face being burdened with further charges of up to £2,000 a year because of EPR, adding to the crippling costs being levied against them. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to consider exempting pubs from EPR and allowing time to review the scheme’s scope and timeline. That would, I hope, avoid further damage to our already struggling hospitality sector.

As I have mentioned many times in this place, the UK cider industry is one of our nation’s most distinctive and successful manufacturing sectors, rooted in our rural economy. In the south-west, the cider industry contributes more than £270 million a year to the regional economy, supports more than 5,700 jobs and sustains numerous family farms, with Somerset—of course—the historical and spiritual home of British cider making. My constituency is home to a number of excellent cider makers, including King Brain cider in Little Weston, Tricky Cider in Low Ham and Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, in addition to wonderful orchardists such as Julian, Diana and Matilda Temperley of Burrow Hill cider farm, who have cultivated their orchards for many decades.

Cider makers are generally pretty supportive of a greater circular economy. However, the charges that DEFRA confirmed in June of this year are a real threat to our cider producers, because glass packaging is charged at £192 per tonne, which is one of the most expensive rates in Europe. Given that context, small and independent cider makers are having to decide whether they can continue to use glass to package their produce in the future and keep their businesses viable at the same time. For cider makers in my constituency, that fee equates to about 5p for a 500 ml bottle of cider, and up to 12p for a 750 ml bottle.

Although EPR is intended to promote sustainability, the way it has been implemented will have detrimental financial impacts on independent cider producers who use entirely recyclable packaging and, ironically, could result in them pivoting to use a less environmentally friendly material such as plastic, which has a lower fee, to avoid those exorbitant costs. The introduction of EPR in its current form, when combined with rising employment, energy and raw material costs, already eroding margins, and the forthcoming deposit return scheme, poses a significant threat to our cider industry’s future. Given its economic importance to Somerset, that will be a devastating financial blow for the many fantastic drink businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on this point: EPR’s fees and implementation must be both fair and sustainable. With producers facing substantial added costs, they need to be properly supported during the transition to a more circular economy, not punished.

Yesterday’s Budget was a missed opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their support for our hospitality sector by cutting VAT, energy costs and employer national insurance contributions. The Chancellor decided to forgo further support and to levy additional taxation on our pubs, breweries and cider makers by bringing alcohol duty in line with inflation, putting more pubs and breweries at risk of closing their doors for the last time.

We are wholly supportive of the Government’s intention to tackle waste by improving recycling processes, but we remain unconvinced that the introduction of the EPR in its current form will achieve the desired goals. By creating a system that will impose unaffordable added costs on producers, the Government run the risk of forcing them to use cheaper and less recyclable materials or else jeopardising the viability of key local businesses that are driving growth—something that the Government should be committed to protecting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I know that one of the issues in Northern Ireland is doing the behaviour change and driving up recycling rates. Communication is one of the most important things, and I take on board the official Opposition’s comments about the communications on this issue. It is incredibly complicated; civil servants are dealing with a massive change programme and everyone is trying to say what matters and how it changes.

Through the simpler recycling reforms, we are asking for everyone to be able to recycle the same things in every local authority and every workplace across the country. That is a massive system change, so there will be some confusion. There will need to be management and communication of that change, and for that we are essentially reliant on our local authority partners to get those messages across. I think I am meeting with Minister Muir shortly—we meet quite a lot to discuss these issues.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told a story about his grandchildren. In 2002, when we brought in the landfill tax, we had one bin—it was a black bin, and everything went in it—and the question was, “Is this ever going to work? Will recycling ever happen?”. I take great encouragement from the fact that when we tell people, “This is your bit. This is what you can do locally in your home and your kitchen to help to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions,” the vast majority of people want to do the right thing—even, like the hon. Gentleman, by going and picking out the things out of the bin that should be recycled; and if he has not done it, then his grandchildren will do it for him. There are a lot of encouraging stories of hope that we can tell here.

We are looking at the German model and the Austrian model as part of how we might develop on these issues in the future. This package of measures will be the foundation for unlocking the transition to a circular economy in the UK. We hope to publish our circular economy plan in short order. Everything that is in our bins affects us, but we need to look at textiles, construction and waste electricals—there are huge volumes of materials flowing through the economy that we are not capturing.

[Sarah Dyke]

I want to push the Minister on the plight of our struggling hospitality sector. I asked if she could consider exempting pubs from the EPR scheme at this stage to give a chance to review the scheme and help support our struggling hospitality sector.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Very briefly, Minister.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate.

British farmers are the best in the world. They are the bastions of the countryside and our rural way of life, and the backbone of our food system. If we lose our farms, we lose our food security, and if we lose our food security, we lose our national security and become vulnerable to volatile global markets and reliant on more foreign inputs.

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, mainly productive small family farms, and I want to keep it that way, but many farmers I have spoken to feel under assault, as they face increasing and competing demands for their land. Some are likely to give up farming altogether. It is therefore not surprising, but nevertheless worrying, that DEFRA’s land use framework consultation stated that 14% of England’s agricultural land could be reduced or totally lost to food production by 2050. As UK food security falls and global instability increases, the land use framework must ensure future food resilience.

Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy called for a focus on food production and nature recovery. Those demands can work side by side. Many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton already champion ecology and nature-friendly methods. To give a few examples, the Lang Partnership in Curry Rivel has done that for more than 30 years, Upton Bridge farm near Long Sutton farms regeneratively, and Higher farm near Castle Cary has planted more than 3,000 trees, sequestering 400 tonnes of carbon and increasing biodiversity by 25% since 2023. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must financially support farmers to use sustainable, environmentally friendly methods and encourage others to do so. That is why we will properly fund the farming budget, with an additional £1 billion a year.

Meanwhile, half of UK farmers do not understand DEFRA’s vision for farming, and it is easy to see why. With the new sustainable farming incentive not yet available and higher-tier schemes open to only a handful, many farmers have been left in limbo. Over 5,800 countryside stewardship agreements were due to end in December, and although they have been given a short 12-month reprieve, that is far too late for many farmers who were forced to make the decision to destroy years of environmental investment because they did not know what was going to happen.

Those projects have delivered biodiversity, flood resilience and nature restoration for decades. If they are not available, farmers will be denied the opportunity to fulfil their crucial role of achieving a more sustainable and resilient food system. The spring spending review cut DEFRA’s budget by 2.3% annually in real terms, including a £100 million cut to the farming budget. The Liberal Democrats believe that such cuts risk doing serious harm to the environment, rural economies, farming communities and food security.

We have already seen a long-term contraction in the UK dairy industry. The number of UK dairy farms has fallen by more than 30% since 2015, while the national herd has dropped by nearly 90,000 dairy cows. The recent drop in farm-gate milk prices is yet another example of the mounting pressure threatening dairy farmers’ ability to make a living at all.

In response, I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill to urge the Government to back and protect our dairy farmers. Dairy farmers deserve fairness in the supply chain, so the Government must regulate it properly. In the Bill, I have called for the Secretary of State to ensure that detrimental trade deals do not cause harm to our farmers, and to enforce point-of-origin labelling on dairy products. The public must know the provenance of their food so that they can make the right choice and are not duped into buying products purporting to be British. I have also called for the Secretary of State to give the Groceries Code Adjudicator teeth and to combine it with a dairy supply chain adjudicator so there are proper enforcement powers.

Our agricultural sector needs fairness, not financial whiplash, and a Government who back it. Instead, it is now facing the impact of the family farm tax and the risks that poses to national food security. The Government have claimed that the policy will impact “only” 27% of farms, but NFU research has shown that 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million threshold. Analysis shows that an inheritance tax bill based on a £1 million threshold, even spread over 10 years, would far exceed the average return of a medium-sized farm and absorb most earnings from larger farms.

An example of that is Paul and Ruth Kimber, who farm near Charlton Musgrove. They told me that their family have farmed there for 350 years, but they could be the ones who close their farm gates for the very last time. If the policy does not change, many farms will be forced to sell land and other assets to pay the tax. A recent Liberal Democrat freedom of information request uncovered the fact that the Government looked at changing course on this earlier this year. On behalf of farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country, I strongly urge the Government to look at it once more. Otherwise, they will put our food security at risk.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, so hon. Members need to be aware of time. I am sure that Chris Hinchliff will be an exemplar.