Small Abattoirs

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for small abattoirs.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate.

The abattoir industry is at crisis point. In 2023, just 60 small abattoirs—those with a throughput of less than 5,000 livestock units per year—were left in the UK. According to a 2022 Food Standards Agency report, small abattoirs are closing at the alarming rate of 10% per year, and within a decade they may well disappear altogether. To give an idea of the scale of the issue, in 2007 there were nearly 100 small abattoirs in the UK. The remaining small abattoirs face immense and multifaceted challenges to keep their facilities open for business. A 2021 National Craft Butchers study found that 59% of small abattoirs expected to shut down within five years unless they received Government support.

The loss of these essential rural businesses poses major problems for local food infrastructure, animal welfare, biodiversity and food security. A resilient, shorter and farmer-focused supply chain requires small abattoirs and butchers who have connections with local restaurants, pubs and retailers. More than ever, local livestock producers need a well-distributed network of small abattoirs that offer private kill services to farmers who wish to add value by marketing and selling their meat directly to consumers, or to farmers who breed rare or native breeds but are often unable to use larger processors. However, two thirds of those farmers have reported issues in accessing appropriate abattoir services. Meanwhile, a third of respondents to a user survey by the Abattoir Sector Group reported that their local abattoir had already closed. That is devastating for so many farmers.

Small abattoirs continue to deal with increased costs, such as rising energy costs and the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions, which threaten the viability of their businesses. However, they are also hampered by an expensive and punitive regulatory system that is not suited to addressing the nuances under which smaller processors have to operate.

Earlier this week, Hugh Broom, a local farmer and an old Harper Adams University friend of mine, invited me to visit Down Land Traditional Meats, a small abattoir in Sussex that processes under 5,000 livestock units per year. It is vital for the local food infrastructure in the area. Luke Smith, who runs the business, served over 2,000 customers in February, with people coming from as far as Essex to access his services. After the closure of Newman’s Abattoir in Farnborough earlier this year, farmers on the Isle of Wight are being forced to travel further afield to access abattoir facilities on the mainland, further increasing their costs, as transporting livestock off the island by ferry is very expensive. Many of them are now going to Down Land. Demand has grown so much that many farmers now face long waiting times to get their animals booked in for slaughter. The scenario is replicated across the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. As the MP for the Scottish Borders, which is a vast area, I share her concerns. Many of my farmers and food producers face the challenges to which she has referred. I agree with her points about animal welfare and supporting the rural economy. Does she agree that local abattoirs help the environment by reducing the carbon footprint of food production?

[Sarah Dyke]

I absolutely agree. Reducing food miles is essential, along with carbon sequestration. Small farmers who supply local markets are doing sterling work by reducing food miles.

At Down Land abattoir, Luke is struggling to keep up with demand, for so many reasons. Recruitment is an issue and so is retention of staff, because there has been such a dramatic decline in people opting to work in skilled-labour roles in the food sector, including slaughtering and butchery. The restriction in the size of his facilities is also restricting his output. That is coupled with the fact that much of the facility’s ageing equipment was not built to withstand the throughput that he is now driving in his business. It is in desperate need of investment. While I was visiting earlier this week, one of the cold stores had a major fault and had to be closed down. That carcase hanging space could not be used, which had a massive knock-on effect on what was already a really busy day.

Most shockingly, Luke spoke passionately about the challenges that he faces every day because of the framework within which businesses like his must operate. Currently, the Food Standards Agency’s charging system is based on hours of onsite vet attendance. Abattoirs are charged a set hourly fee, irrespective of the animals slaughtered; discounts are currently available, depending on how many hours are used. Smaller sites, with a throughput of under 1,000 livestock units, are not required to have full-time OV attendance, so the majority of their hours will be covered by a 90% discount, but those that serve more than 1,000 livestock units will see their fees increased considerably.

In June 2025, the FSA will have to decide whether to launch a public consultation on the discount or accept the Treasury’s desire to remove it. The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers has warned that the estimated full costs will lead to the closure of 40% of the small abattoirs left in England and Wales. This comes on top of the FSA’s increase in inspection fees of approximately 20% from April this year. I ask the Minister to ensure the continuation of the small abattoir discount on inspection charges so that small abattoirs can remain financially viable.

Many small abattoirs feel penalised by the FSA, with constant inspections bringing up issues that were not found in their most recent audit. Some have received enforcement notices, which cost yet more money, to alter bits of equipment, add a bit of plastic roofing or add a bit of horsehair to the bottom of a door. All the while, the FSA provides no statutory right for abattoirs to appeal. Those in the industry have told me that it acts as judge, jury and executioner. The frustration is palpable.

The FSA’s charges are based on a time recording system that provides its inspectors with little incentive to deliver an efficient system. Many invoices are incorrect or fail to match up to the timesheets. The abattoir then has to re-read them and approach the FSA to get them changed. Then the invoices are reprocessed, and off they go again. It is hugely frustrating for small abattoirs, which simply do not have the number of staff necessary to make such changes or indeed to keep up with the FSA. They are being forced to comply with a system that is not suited to their business model.

Like many farmers and smallholders in Glastonbury and Somerton, I use my local small abattoir to process my lamb. Mine is Strap Orchard, in Wincanton, which is allowed to kill only between 6 am and 12 noon, and only when the onsite vet is present. Monday is its busiest day of the week. I am told that on one Monday, the OV turned up late, as they invariably do, and by 12 noon all but one lamb had been slaughtered. At exactly 12 noon, the OV instructed them to stop immediately, despite knowing that the only reason why the work was not finished was their own late arrival. The lamb was returned to the lairage area and had to be collected by the farmer, who then had to return it on the next slaughter day. The welfare impact was clearly significant, as was the inconvenience to everybody involved.

That is just one small example of the difficult environment in which small abattoirs must survive. I implore the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members across the House to visit a small abattoir and find out more about the difficulties that they face. Fractious working relationships and financial frustrations with the FSA are a significant reason why some small abattoirs have shut down or are considering closing, leaving the local food supply without a critical piece of infrastructure. The resulting impact is felt most heavily by local farmers. The Environment Agency is working with farmers to find solutions to the issues, so it is high time that the FSA started to do the same. There is no question but that food safety must come first. However, that must be achieved by working with small abattoirs, not by punishing them at every turn.

We need the FSA to build positive and mutually beneficial working relationships with small abattoirs to ensure food safety and food security, while enabling them to be as efficient and profitable as possible. The FSA does not seem concerned about the important role that small abattoirs play as a vital piece of local food infrastructure. It appears that it views them as a difficult stakeholder in comparison with larger, centralised processes, so there is a clear conflict of aims and interests.

I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can set a framework that values the contributions that small abattoirs make to local food systems. It has previously noted that it

“recognises the vital contribution a thriving abattoir network plays”

in achieving a resilient food supply chain, and it has said that it will work with abattoirs of all sizes to tackle the challenges that they face. Can the Minister explain where small abattoirs sit in DEFRA’s future farming road map? I urge him to set out how he will support small abattoirs as they deal with the difficult challenges that they face. Small abattoirs should be recognised as critical pieces of livestock infrastructure that provide a diverse range of services.

I recently spoke to Gavin Keen of the multi-award-winning Blackmore Vale butchery, which is based in Henstridge in Glastonbury and Somerton. Gavin has carried out a study of abattoirs in the local area. He tells me that there are just six abattoirs that provide private kill services for farmers who are semi-local to the constituency, and that the closure of any of them would present a major logistical challenge to the local food infrastructure. Concerningly, nearly all these abattoirs, like Down Land in Sussex, are operating at or close to capacity, leaving farmers with long waiting lists to get their livestock booked in.

It is critical that the UK has a network of abattoirs in areas of production offering services and processing, allowing value to return to the farm and allowing farmers to retail their own meat, because that can add a significant mark-up to their produce. The closure of abattoirs that offer private kill can and will hit farm revenues hard and limit farmers’ ability to diversify their income. The Liberal Democrats are clear that this network of small abattoirs is an important asset for our rural communities. We have called for a £1 billion package to be added to the farming budget to support the agricultural sector. The Liberal Democrats also passed a motion at our spring conference this year that affirms our commitment to upholding the high animal welfare standards in British farming, including through support for small abattoirs.

Private kill services offered by small abattoirs allow farmers to add value to their produce by enabling them to retail the meat themselves. A survey by the Royal Countryside Fund found that farmers using private kill services in England were able to add significant value— £56 for an individual sheep and up to £3,775 for cattle.

According to the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, the continued existence of small abattoirs is vital for rare and native breed farmers. Breeding rare and native breeds provides significant public good—from increased biodiversity to high-welfare, low-input meat production. However, if smaller abattoirs offering private kill services close, many of those farmers will need to change their business practices, given that 90% of native breed producers rely on those services. Native breeds mature more slowly than commercial ones, and many large abattoirs will not take cattle over 30 months old, while horned cattle and large pigs are regularly banned from large abattoirs. If we want to support agro-ecological farming, we must ensure there is diversity within our livestock.

It is not just about retaining important historical and cultural breeds, but recognising the important role that biodiversity plays in the future of farming. Given the precarious financial position of farmers across the country, the loss of private kill options could be devastating. In fact, a British Farming Union members’ survey from March last year found that direct sales are such a critical component of some farming businesses that without them, their business would cease to exist.

Let us be under no illusions. Farmers are still reeling from the hammer blows that were the family farm tax and increased employers’ national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget. Then, most recently, came the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme, leaving some farmers’ business plans utterly devastated. Farmers have been at the receiving end of some terrible decisions, many of them made by the previous Conservative Government. Following the botched transition from basic payments, farmers have just about managed to struggle on.

The last Conservative Government proved themselves inept at supporting British agriculture, while the current Labour Government are proving that they just do not understand the industry. The Liberal Democrats were disappointed to see the Government fail to replace the smaller abattoir fund, which closed in September 2024. I believe if this Government are serious about supporting British agriculture, a great opportunity presents itself today to step up and recognise the crucial role that small abattoirs play in the food supply chain.

I would like to touch on the workforce planning issues that the small abattoir sector faces, the impact of which will only increase over the coming years. Working in a small abattoir is very different from working in a larger processor; in a small facility, employees are expected to carry out a multitude of different jobs, as opposed to a larger abattoir, where employees work in a line system, generally specialising in performing just one task. The lack of skilled labour in the meat sector has dire implications for food security, and makes it harder to reach our environmental and sustainability goals. One in four food and drink workers are due to retire within the next year, while the average age of a small abattoir operator is between 60 and 70 years old. In line with Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, we must invest in training and education for the food industry.

The Liberal Democrats are clear: we need to invest in workforce planning to ensure that we have enough vets, abattoir workers, slaughtermen and farm workers to meet the UK’s needs. That is a crucial element of UK food security. The Government’s own review recommends implementing a comprehensive strategy to improve awareness of opportunities in the food supply chain. Currently, the system does not make it easy for abattoirs to take on apprentices, nor is it appealing for those that seek to undertake training. Abattoir apprenticeships only go up to level 2, and apprentices receive a meagre £6,000 a year, which is nowhere near sufficient to cover training, travel and accommodation. That is hardly an incentive to enter the trade.

I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the steps his Department is taking to improve workforce planning in this sector. We must focus on the long-term viability of these crucial elements of the livestock infrastructure.

Does the Minister agree that the UK-wide local network of abattoirs is vital for food security, animal welfare and the profitability of our farmers? Could he also confirm that in order to sustain and grow the network of abattoirs, he will ensure that the Government’s existing small abattoir working group will have a proactive focus on delivery, working with both local and national Governments? If so, will he commit to meet regularly with the co-chairs of the industry and Government working group to give this crucial issue the attention it so clearly deserves?

To conclude, it is clear that small abattoirs are central to our local food supply chain, and there will be a dire impact if we lose them. We need DEFRA to step up and frame its importance in local food infrastructure. We need long-term workforce planning, and a system that meets the needs of livestock producers and proactively works with stakeholders throughout the supply chain. If not, farming businesses and the supply chain will suffer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank Members for their contributions, which are much appreciated. I heard very clearly their passion for supporting farmers in their areas. They made it abundantly clear that small and local abattoirs form a crucial part of local food infrastructure, but they need support from the Government. Those abattoirs are severely at risk, so it falls on DEFRA to define where they sit in plans for the future of farming and to set out how the Government will ensure that we have a local network of abattoirs across the country.

I thank the Minister for his words and for the nuggets of good news. I hope that we will soon have further clarity on that funding and on what the landscape will look like, because we know that agriculture will face only more shocks. We have to tackle them now to ensure that farming in the future is resilient, with the infrastructure to support farmers so that they can secure their businesses.

I hope that the Minister sees the opportunity to work with the small abattoir sector to safeguard its future and to ensure that local food infrastructure is as resilient as possible. Rural communities across the country—including farmers, retailers, butchers, pubs, restaurants and hotels—rely on small abattoirs, so we must make sure that they are there to serve customers and to feed the nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for small abattoirs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I of course agree with the right hon. Member. We are supporting farmers, many of whom were affected by very severe flooding recently, with the farming recovery fund. I am engaging constantly, and will be again today, with the National Farmers’ Union about those issues and many others.

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

By 2050 we will need more than 4,000 additional megalitres of water a day, with rising temperatures resulting in a fivefold increase in drought risk. That is concerning news for farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, given the necessity of water for livestock and crops. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to consult farmers about reforms to the water sector, and does he know how important water is to food production?

[Steve Reed]

We recognise the importance of that point. The hon. Lady will be aware that, at the close of the price review process, we secured £104 billion of investment now and over the next five years to improve water infrastructure and ensure that we get water to where it needs to be. We have also increased flooding funding so that we can take the water away from where it should not be. All of that will support food production as well as many other sectors of the economy.

Recycling of Tyres

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of recycling end-of-life tyres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Government have placed the circular economy at the heart of their agenda. The circular economy taskforce has been established and is expected to report back later this year. Adopting a focus on the circular economy means changing the way we think about so-called waste. We need to see things currently perceived as waste as a resource—a resource with an economic value that can be recovered and contribute to the economic growth that this Government so seriously seek. We also need to implement policies designed to maximise the economic value from these resources.

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

My hon. Friend is introducing a really important debate. A company called Tyre Renewals Ltd operates in Castle Cary in my constituency. Founded back in 1967, it specialises in tyre repairs and the shredding and granulation of used tyres to produce recycled rubber products. That prevents tyres from going into landfill and leaking harmful chemicals and microplastics into the environment, including waterways. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent Government investment in tyre recycling infrastructure is needed to tackle the environmental hazards posed by worn tyres?

[Tessa Munt]

Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly.

The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I do indeed. The amount of money and resources allocated to tackling environmental crime was steadily reduced over the term of the previous Government. There has been a sense that these are somehow victimless crimes. I listened to the “File on 4” documentary, and it was deeply upsetting to hear about the fire and the death of local people at that plant. There is always a victim. There is no such place as “away”. We have only one world, and we have to stop treating our rivers, lakes and seas as sewers, and stop outsourcing our material problems to other countries.

[Sarah Dyke]

In 2021, Natural England downgraded the Somerset levels and moors Ramsar area and the water quality there to “unfavourable declining”. Somerset Wildlife Trust has attributed the microplastics to worn tyres in the environment. It is obviously a really concerning pollutant. What steps is the Minister taking to make manufacturers take greater responsibility for the contribution that their products make to microplastic pollution on the Somerset levels and moors?

[Mary Creagh]

That is a really interesting fact, and not one that I have come across. I will take that away and look at it. As with many of these things, I am responsible for waste and materials and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice is the Water Minister, so things often fall between the gaps of segmented policy brief allocations, but we will look into that and get back to her.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. This Government want to be good stewards of our country and planet’s resources, our prosperity, and our economic and environmental resilience, so the loss of any of those resources concerns me greatly.

We have seen the damaging impacts that makeshift furnaces abroad have on people’s health and the environment, and the illegal batch pyrolysis of tyres is linked with other criminal activities that cause harm to the environment, people and communities. It is unacceptable that illegal exportation in this country is part of that supply chain.

We take the reports from “File on 4” and others very seriously. The Environment Agency is working with Indian counterparts to ensure that waste, including waste tyres, is recovered and recycled lawfully. That is a joint UK effort, and DEFRA works closely with all four UK regulators to ensure that there is a consistent approach regarding controls on the export of waste across the United Kingdom. Scotland banned the export of whole tyres back in 2018, so there is inconsistency. What has that meant? It means, possibly, that whole tyres in Scotland have come down to England and Wales for export, but who knows? It is hard to say what the flows are doing.

The Environment Agency is conducting an internal review of how it regulates the export of waste tyres. I and my DEFRA colleagues look forward to that review’s findings, and we will carefully consider its outcomes when it has been completed.

[Mary Creagh]

Can I just finish this point? The EA is independent. It is important that we do not prejudice the ongoing review. My understanding from officials is that it will report at the end of June, and I look forward to discussing the outcomes of that review with them. I will ask them to write to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills with detailed answers to her questions on the scope of the review. And on digital waste tracking, we will launch that from April 2026 and will provide further details on the scope of that in due course.

With tyres, as with other waste, our priority must shift from throwing things away to reusing and recycling more. We will do that by breaking the linear “take, make, throw” model and by seizing the opportunity to become leaders in circular design, technology and industry. We will increase the resilience and productivity of the UK’s economy, create highly skilled new green jobs up and down the country, and help our economy to keep more of the critical resources on which it depends. In doing so, we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to reduce waste and to accelerate to net zero.

We have a Circular Economy Taskforce that includes experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help us to develop a circular economy strategy for England. That is supported by sectoral road maps detailing the interventions that the Government and others will make to drive circular growth and enhance our economic resilience. The Transport Secretary will be responsible for one of those road maps, and the others will concern agrifood, chemicals and plastics, textiles and waste electricals. We have a lot of different sectoral road maps, and I urge the Tyre Recovery Association to feed into that working group.

We have lots of ideas about how to reuse materials for a different purpose and they are all coming to the fore. The problem is that some ideas will win and some will lose, and we are in the stage where we are not quite clear about what is the right thing to do, and there are lots of good counter-arguments.

In the case of tyres, the rubber crumb produced by recycling them has a range of applications. The hon. Member mentioned, for example, that it can be used to produce asphalt, but it can also be used as a surfacing material in children’s playgrounds. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) mentioned a responsible and long-standing business that is doing the right thing, but is looking around the landscape, thinking, “Hang on, why are we doing the right thing when the cowboys are undercutting us?” The principle of fairness is important, as is enforcement of the law as it stands—before we make new laws, we should look at enforcing the laws we already have.

We have a competitive market in the UK for waste management services. New people and innovators are always welcome to join the field. There are a lot of management options available to waste handling operators; they need to be selected according to market conditions and local needs. Operators need to look at the waste hierarchy and the need to ensure the best available outcome for the waste. I am very interested in the Australian model and the Australian experience. I know that my officials have been in contact with Australian Government officials.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Minister mentioned Tyre Renewals in Castle Cary. I would very much like to welcome her to Glastonbury and Somerton to meet Tyre Renewals so that the company can show her what it does.

[Mary Creagh]

I will do a deal: I will come as long as we can go to The Newt, which I understand is the sponsor of this year’s Chelsea Flower Show. I have been reading all about The Newt, so I have been looking up Castle Cary and seeing how easy it would be to get to—my private office will not be very happy with me for saying that.

Sewage

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I am delighted to speak on the issue of how we can fix our broken water and sewerage sector, and get serious about cleaning up our rivers and lakes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate.

My constituency of Witney, in west Oxfordshire, has borne the brunt of the sewage scandal. Many beautiful rivers flow through it, and the Thames bisects it. We have the Windrush and the Evenlode, Shell brook to the north, and the Ock to the south. They are all heavily and frequently polluted.

I welcome the calls from colleagues to introduce a new blue flag status so that we can guarantee that a river is clean enough to swim in. That would help to restore people’s confidence in swimming, and the bathing place in Witney would be a fantastic example. It is just north of Early’s mill, where generations of people have spent their summer swimming but no longer do so.

We know what a car crash our sewerage network is, thanks to the many campaigners who have gone to so much trouble in their own time, and often using their own money, to bring this issue to our attention. At the top of the star is WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—which is run by Professor Peter Hammond, Ash Smith, Vaughan Lewis and Geoff Tombs, who have worked tirelessly for the last five years to highlight what has gone wrong. I thank them and all the other citizen scientists in my constituency and beyond, who have done so much to bring this issue to national attention. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude.

I will focus on failures of regulation—specifically, Ofwat’s failures. Ofwat is responsible for holding water companies accountable against the terms of their operating licences. DEFRA has oversight of Ofwat, sets the policy framework and provides strategic guidance to Ofwat on key environmental and social policies. As many Members have said, Ofwat is clearly failing on pollution. The Environment Agency’s own data shows that Thames Water discharged raw sewage for almost 300,000 hours in 2024—up by almost 50% on the 196,000 hours in 2023. That is well known.

Ofwat is also failing to enforce financial viability. Just like every other water company in the country, Thames Water, which serves my constituency, has to have two investment grade credit ratings, but it has not done so for nearly a year. It has been beaten with limp celery, but that is about it. It has £19 billion of debt and is quite possibly heading towards £23 billion of debt, and it has cash flows of just £1.2 billion. That obviously makes no financial sense, yet Thames Water is allowed to breach the rule with impunity. I have no doubt that other water companies, and companies in other sectors, take note of what Thames Water has been allowed to do and say, “We, too, can cross that line in water and other regulated sectors.” How is that good news? It introduces a moral hazard that does enormous damage to our country. Who is ultimately paying the cost of all this debt, and the enormous interest and advisory fees that go with it? Of course, it is the bill payers.

Ofwat fails to provide value for money. As per the Water Industry Act 1991, it has a statutory duty “to protect the interests of consumers” and “to promote economy and efficiency” on the part of water companies. As WASP’s recently published note on water companies’ capital project costs states, the costs that companies are proposing are extraordinary. In some cases, they are almost an order of magnitude higher than those in comparator companies in countries such as the USA and Denmark. Why is this, and why is it being allowed to happen?

Why are our costs so much greater? Is it because our regulatory capital value pricing model is based on asset values, and therefore gives an incentive to water companies to boost their asset bases? They do this through extraordinarily long depreciation periods for network assets such as pipes, which were installed 50 years ago, but somehow have depreciation periods of 100 years and are leaking like sieves. It also gives them an incentive to pour really expensive concrete. Why is it that something built over here costs eight times the price in Denmark? Why has, say, the Oxford sewage treatment works gone from £40 million to more than £400 million in planned spend in the last four years? What sort of inflation is that?

Ofwat fails to provide fair pricing. Water companies have a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers, which, again, Ofwat is supposed to uphold. Water companies have been allowed to hike bills this year—in the case of Thames Water, by 31%, although some of my constituents have come to me and said they have received increases of 50%, 70% or even more than 90%—and what are bill payers getting for that? This is not fair when more than a quarter of the bills in Thames Water’s case are just paying the interest—not paying down the debt, but just paying the interest. Again, Ofwat is continuing to allow the pockets of water company creditors to be lined at the expense of ordinary households.

Ofwat fails to be awake. It has a responsibility—bear with me on this one—for tracking who are the ultimate controllers of the water companies. That should be pretty simple; there are not many of them. In Thames Water’s case, it is taking wilful ignorance to an extreme of utterly determined ignorance. Last May, Thames Water’s largest shareholder, OMERS, wrote its stake in Thames Water down to zero and pulled its directors off the board. This has been widely reported in the press—it is not secret—yet I got a letter from Ofwat last month confirming that it believes OMERS is still the ultimate controller of the company. Why is Ofwat ignoring this, and why does it matter? Being the ultimate controller of the company means it has certain responsibilities. Those responsibilities are just being ignored, and Ofwat, which is exactly what is supposed to be holding the company to account, is hiding under a stone somewhere. It needs to stop doing this.

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

My hon. Friend says that Ofwat has failed to regulate the water system effectively, and is failing on environmental, public health and financial interests. In my constituency, Wessex Water leaked sewage for over 400,000 hours last year alone. Does he agree that the water regulator should be replaced with a clean water authority, which would bring together the environmental and financial regulation of water companies?

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend, and, yes, I absolutely do.

Ofwat is also failing to innovate. It appears to do little, if anything, to push companies to do this. This is so critical because, if we are going to increase capacity in sewage treatment works, there are many better ways of doing so. There is a host of new technologies out there from leak detection, pipeline monitoring and predictive maintenance equipment to trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. Yet I have heard from firms in my constituency that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions in the US and Europe than in the UK. This is where the issues of the dire state of water companies’ finances and the sewage scandal intersect, because companies cannot make basic repairs, let alone properly innovate and improve, when so much of their revenue is going straight out of the door in interest payments.

The previous Government have a lot to answer for. It was on their watch that dumping sewage in our rivers and lakes reached record levels, as water companies piled up billions in debt. All the while, bosses rewarded themselves with generous bonuses for mismanagement and failure on so many levels. Many people who work so hard in those companies suffered under that mismanagement.

There is only so much point in looking backwards. What I am appalled by is that the new Government, who came into power with promises to get tough with the water companies and sort out the scandal, have so far shown themselves to be about as tough as Ofwat. The Water (Special Measures) Act—by the way, I say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) that it was not voted on by us—was, well, just about nothing. Government Members and Conservative Members rejected a whole host of basic common sense steps, proposed as amendments, which could have made the legislation genuinely impactful. I will give some examples.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid I was genuinely dismayed, but perhaps not entirely surprised, by what I found when I came into the Department. We have spent the last six or seven months trying to get control of the situation because if we have a scheme that is not capped or managed, or has no budgetary control, there is a problem. The figure of £5 billion overall is the biggest amount for farming that we have had. We will make sure the money gets out to farmers.

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

Coming at a time of record low confidence in farming, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme will bring them closer to closing their farm gates for the very last time, and at a time when food security is at an all-time low. What communications will go to affected farming businesses and what support will DEFRA give to those who are dealing with vulnerable farmers at the sharp end?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not agree with some of the hon. Lady’s question, because the food security report published at the end of last year did not bear out her analysis. The Rural Payments Agency has written to farmers today setting out exactly the situation to give people reassurance.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I also thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate and for her excellent speech.

Rural communities and farming go hand in hand, as farmers are the backbone of our rural economy. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, and a quarter of England’s agricultural holdings and a fifth of England’s total farmed area are in the south-west. Agriculture employs over 60,000 people in the region, with many more indirectly affected by the industry. However, since the Budget, the only topic on farmers’ minds is the lack of support from the Government. They tell me that they did not think their plight could get any worse after the last Conservative Government—because that Government “just didn’t care”—but it has.

This Labour Government do not even seem to want to understand the agricultural industry. Yesterday’s announcement, with no notice, to halt the sustainable farming incentive has sent shockwaves through farming circles. It beggars belief that the largest farming trade body, the National Farmers Union, had only 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement. The absence of warning and communication will only further alarm farmers across the country who are feeling anxious, left behind and forgotten.

The sudden closure of an important scheme has left thousands of farmers cut off from funding, and I worry about the impact this will have on nature-friendly farming. The scheme is vital to incentivising farmers to carry out their work for the public good, such as managing flood water and storing slurry safely—this is of extreme importance in Somerset, given the high threat of flooding.

A beef farmer from Wick, near Langport, recently told me that he has “no confidence” in the Environment Agency to protect his and other people’s land from flooding—it is too slow to pump water off fields, which increases the risk of flooding when it next rains.

The closure of the SFI will now make it more difficult for farmers to put flood management measures in place. The scheme had more than 37,000 live, multi-year agreements, and it had the highest demand since it began. The Government have not announced any plans to replace it. This announcement comes at a time when farmers are already losing the vast majority of basic payments this year, and they should rightly be rewarded for good environmental work.

[James Naish]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will not, because of time. Given that the SFI has now finished, will the Department publish the scheme’s key performance indicators and how they were met? Or will it keep farmers in the dark again?

The Liberal Democrats are deeply disappointed by Labour’s decision to compound the damage done to our farmers by the Conservatives, who left the farming budget with an underspend of hundreds of millions of pounds. Yet again, smaller farmers will be hardest hit, especially hill farmers and those earning significantly less than the minimum wage. We want to see the Chancellor urgently reverse the changes, and we want to see £1 billion a year in support for farmers. We want clarity from the Government about the impact of cutting SFI on farmers’ incomes, nature restoration, food production and rural communities.

Bathing Water Regulations

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered bathing water regulations.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. It is a privilege to open this debate, and fantastic to see so many hon. Friends and Members. I am grateful to all of them, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister, for their time this afternoon.

We are fortunate in this country to have beautiful natural landscapes. We are blessed with an abundance of beautiful beaches, inland lakes and rivers, pre-eminent among them the River Tone, which runs through Taunton and Wellington. We are lucky to have French Weir and Longrun Meadow as one of the 27 new bathing water sites. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteers, the Friends of French Weir Park, who worked with me to apply for and achieve designated bathing water status there last year.

That means that for the first time we know the river’s water quality. It is variable and now proven to be poor, generally speaking. We now have that information because it is publicly available, and we can work towards getting the investment we need to improve the water. I am sure there are similar groups across the country in the constituencies of other hon. Members.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate. I know how much he enjoys a dip in the River Tone. The River Parrett in Langport is a well known and loved body of water for swimming and water sports, which I hope will soon become a designated bathing water site. Sadly, polluters discharged sewage into it 54 times in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to support such sites to obtain bathing water status, so that they are safe for all who wish to use them?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We need to see more bathing waters not fewer. That is one of the concerns I have in this debate. Bathing waters are not just places where people swim; they are part of the identity and lifeblood of our communities across the country. As in my constituency, they are places where people come together for swimming clubs, rowing clubs, kayaking, paddleboarding, or just to enjoy the natural beauty of the river.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Yet another wet winter across Somerset highlights the need for the Government to urgently deliver solutions to mitigate the impact of flooding on farmland and protect domestic food production. The Brue headwaters multi-benefit project, facilitated by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group South West, is working with farmers and landowners in Bruton, Charlton Musgrove and Wincanton to address flooding issues and to hold workshops that focus on natural flood management, to slow the flow of water across the upper Brue, thus reducing flooding, sediment run-off and the associated pollution of water- courses. Despite those efforts, many farmers in the catchment, and indeed the county and the country, are angry at the level of inundation of land that could be prevented by better flood management. How will the Minister work to support farmers, build flood resilience and protect food security?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is right to point out how angry farmers are and how they feel they have been let down by the previous Government on flood defences. The previous formula allocated funding only based on numbers of properties protected and paid little regard to rural areas. She also mentioned one of my favourite themes: natural flood management. We recently held a roundtable on that, with representatives from the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association, to talk about how we can better protect our rural areas in a more nature-friendly way.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have had many victims of domestic abuse write to me, following lengthy periods of inaction from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other organisations, which have left victims at risk and feeling horribly anxious. How will the Minister ensure that prosecution rates improve and victims have confidence in the criminal justice system?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member makes an important point. I am sorry to hear of the examples that she raises. This Government have a historic mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and we are taking a series of important steps to work towards the increased number of prosecutions that she refers to. For example, we are introducing specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force; working to increase referrals with the recently launched domestic abuse joint justice plan; fast-tracking rape cases; and introducing free independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape. I referred earlier to domestic abuse protection orders, and the first convictions for breach of them are already being seen.

Public Services: Rural Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

Absolutely. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is looking at the formula for how grants are made to local authorities in rural areas. Fundamentally, there should not be a penalty to living in the countryside or in a rural area. It is not an indulgence; it is vital to the future of our country, so we need public services in rural areas.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his comments. We know that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas, yet rural councils are set to receive 41% less central Government funding than urban councils in the local government finance settlement that is coming up. Does the hon. Member agree that the settlement formula should consider rural deprivation alongside clustered deprivation to ensure that rural areas receive the services they deserve?

[David Smith]

People would expect me as a Member of Parliament for a rural area to say it is absolutely essential that we consider the peculiar circumstances, geography, logistics, the long-term challenges and the rural deprivation, which really does exist, when considering grants to local authorities in rural areas.

I will move on to education, which is another of the four areas I want to discuss. Assuming that children can get to school, having just talked about transport, we need to ensure that they can go to a good school that sets up their future and energises the local community, but when the school provision in rural areas suffers, so does the whole town or village, because there is no business or transport link more significant than the nearby secondary school.

The town of Berwick is extremely reliant on its one secondary school for the nurturing of the necessary skills and qualifications for the town’s economy, so when the school struggles, the town struggles. A report from 2017—I think it still stands—noted:

“Berwick is one of Northumberland’s most deprived towns. It has a vulnerable economy characterised by poor quality job opportunities, part time working, low wages and very limited education facilities.”

Berwick does not just need a better school; it needs a school that can generate a revival in a beautiful but isolated town that has no A&E, no major employer and minimal further education. Right now, Berwick deserves, and has the opportunity to build, a new world-class educational campus on the secondary school site that combines learning with further education, vocational study, special educational needs provision, local enterprise and primary healthcare. That makes the slow progress of Conservative Northumberland county council’s plan to rebuild Berwick Academy frustrating for parents, students and the whole community.

The further education point is important. North Northumberland students keep pace with their national peers up to GCSE level, but at A-level and higher education level they begin to struggle, because further education opportunities are few and difficult to access. One constituent in Berwick told me about their son who wants to be on a sports course in Newcastle that would set him up to go to university. The council is able to provide basic transport, but only to a course in the closer town of Ashington, which would not provide him with qualifications for university. Instead, his family are paying £15 a day for his transport to the educational opportunities that he needs—an unsustainable amount for basic provision.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is an unusual outbreak, in a sense. It is a very small herd of 20 water buffalo. What is unknown to the German authorities at the moment is how they got infected in the first place. Extensive work is going on in Germany to try to understand that. The difference from 20 years ago is that we now have much better science to be able to trace where it may have come from. Extensive work is going on across Europe, because it is a threat to the entire continent. I can assure my hon. Friend that every avenue is being explored to try to make sure that we understand how this has happened and that it goes no further.

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

As a farmer’s daughter, I fully remember the sickening impact of the last foot and mouth outbreaks across Somerset and Dorset, particularly on farmers’ mental health. The culling restrictions resulted in 73% of farmers experiencing depression and anxiety following the last outbreak. Now, almost one half of the farming community are already experiencing anxiety. What plans do the Government have to support farmers who may be impacted by this disease or any other biosecurity risk?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know she takes these issues very seriously and we have discussed them before. Let me be clear: this is an outbreak in Germany at the moment. We are doing everything we can to ensure it does not extend into our country. Of course people are concerned and worried. Should it develop further, which we are absolutely determined to make sure does not happen, then we will look at further measures to help and support people, but we are not at that stage.