Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England

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 hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing this important debate.

In recent years, communities across the north-west have repeatedly endured devastating flooding, most recently following Storm Éowyn, which brought with it devastation and a prolonged recovery. We have also seen that severe impact in Somerset, including when Storm Claudia reaped havoc right across the south-west and into Oxfordshire over the weekend. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, which means that it is even more important to ensure that robust flood resilience is in place, through both a national strategy and local community flood resilience strategies. These events underline the fact that we cannot continue building homes without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is in place to protect communities from flooding.

My constituent Zoe moved into her new home in Martock in 2022 and then discovered that her property had been built without basic flood protection infrastructure. Her garden was built on clay without appropriate drainage and is also on a severe slope. Every time it rains, it floods. That is not an isolated case, more a consequence of a planning system that too often prioritises completion over responsibility. It is also a legacy of the former Conservative Government, who slashed flood protection plans for homes and failed to invest in flood defences, leaving communities to fend for themselves.

If the Government are committed to building the homes that people need, they must also ensure that new developments provide suitable flood mitigation measures, including sustainable drainage systems that properly manage excess rainfall. The Liberal Democrats have been clear: the Government must commit to implementing schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to legally require the installation of drainage systems in new builds to strengthen local flood resilience.

Furthermore, the Government have an obligation to ensure that all future housing developments are supported by upgrades to infrastructure to accommodate the expansion. Their current failure to do so is causing my constituents in Mudford, which floods regularly, to face the prospect of another 1,000 homes just outside their village. That is causing great anxiety. The proposals for that development would use the existing fragile sewerage system without any further enhancements, heightening the flood risk as the infrastructure will simply not cope with the increased capacity.

The Liberal Democrats have been consistent: the Government must ensure water companies are made statutory consultees during the planning process. That will help prevent future sewage spills and local flooding by ensuring that any increases in capacity are matched by suitable infrastructure upgrades.

The concerns are not limited to planning decisions; in fact, they are being weakened by the agencies tasked with protecting our communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) mentioned, owing to a funding shortfall the Environment Agency recently issued withdrawal notices to ratepayers in Somerset regarding the cessation of maintenance on the designated main rivers. I thank the Minister, who met me last week to discuss the issue, for her commitment to come and meet me and Somerset stakeholders at some point next year.

The Environment Agency’s decision passes the responsibility on to riparian owners, who in many cases lack the financial ability or knowledge to undertake maintenance, and it will only heighten their anxiety around flood risk. Given the Environment Agency’s own modelling, which has shown that an additional 39,000 homes in the south-west could be at risk of flooding by 2050, that action is contrary to the urgent need to strengthen flood resilience in flood-prone areas such as Somerset.

Last autumn, we welcomed the Chancellor’s decision to commit £2.4 billion towards flood defences. However, with increasingly severe and frequent flooding, compounded by the Environment Agency’s budgetary constraints, the Government need to urgently commit to address longer-term flooding. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a further £5.3 billion to ensure that flood defences are built more quickly and provided to all necessary communities, to increase local preparedness and resilience.

As a Liberal Democrat and the daughter of a farmer, I recognise the invaluable role of farmers in flood management: they store flood water on their land to protect rural communities. For example, the Kerton family, based at Higher Farm in Chilton Cantelo, have repeatedly stored water on their farm, including having half of their farmland submerged for much of last winter. The current custodian, Nobby, told me that he is extremely concerned that the Government have no clear plan for supporting farmers who are sacrificing their land and livelihoods to plug the gaps in rural infrastructure. By acting now, we can protect homes, safeguard livelihoods and create greater flood resilience for rural communities.

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.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Waste crime on an industrial scale is blighting rural communities across the country and costing the UK economy £1 billion a year. It has even been described as the “new narcotics” by a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency needs the resources to both investigate the criminal activity that leads to the waste dumping, and to prevent environmental damage and toxic run-off, not just one or the other. Waste crime is significantly under-reported. Criminal activity is widespread, and there is little chance of prosecutions being brought. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled in the other place? They would designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic policy threat, establish a national action plan, ensure that waste crime data was collected and published quarterly, and establish an independent review of serious and organised waste crime. Will she support the National Crime Agency in preventing and effectively prosecuting serious and organised waste crime?

[Emma Hardy]

Again, I share the hon. Lady’s anger about what is happening in our beautiful countryside; we see more and more evidence of illegal dumping. As I have mentioned, the Environment Agency’s total budget for 2025-26 has increased, and it includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is a 50% increase. Overall, the Environment Agency has been able to increase its frontline criminal enforcement resource in the joint unit for waste crime and in environmental crime teams as well. It has a wide range of powers, but of course we are always keen to look at what further could be done.

Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed. The Minister too, might like to look at where best practice is happening across the country, because that is what we are looking to achieve.

Since working with Fiona, I have heard at first hand from individuals who have tried to report trees in imminent danger of falling, only to have their urgent complaints lost among other correspondence. Inevitably, such trees end up falling, and people have been injured in those circumstances. The excuse that there was too much correspondence and that the council could not deal with the reports does not really wash.

This is not unique to Cheshire East council. The court heard that five or six people die every year from falling branches or trees. This year alone, we have seen similar deaths caused by falling trees in Southend-on-Sea in June, West Didsbury in August and Blackpool only last month. Last Saturday my husband went to pick up a friend from Wilmslow train station. He drove through Ashley on the way there. On the way back he could not come along the same road because during that journey a tree had collapsed right across the road and he had to take a detour. Trees collapsing is not an infrequent occurrence.

Each case that I have mentioned might have been avoided if the tree had been maintained adequately. In 2025 there is no excuse. We have a wealth of technology at our disposal: drones, microprobes or other advanced tools that make maintenance inspections more effective and efficient. We hear often about budgetary constraints preventing councils carrying out their maintenance duty, but preventive work is cost-effective. Legal fines, like Cheshire East’s £500,000, are far more costly than routine inspections.

Cheshire and Warrington have voted to set up a new mayoral structure costing millions of pounds to establish and millions of pounds to run annually. It seems the Government and councils can find money for pet projects and devolved Mayors across the country and yet routine work, the most basic of maintenance, is forgone at the first sign of financial strain when it should always be a council’s priority.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. In addition to proper maintenance, which is essential—it is heartbreaking to hear the stories that she has outlined today—the current protection under tree preservation orders is inadequate and covers only a small section of ancient and veteran trees. She talked about the age of trees—300-year-old veteran oaks, for example, and ancient trees even older than that, so they have the ability to live a long time. Somerset has about 3,000 trees on the ancient tree inventory. Nearly 500 of those are threatened by cultivation, development and overshading. Does the right hon. Member agree that, in addition to maintenance, stronger protections for ancient and veteran trees are also required?

[Esther McVey]

As I started the debate today I said how magnificent and majestic trees can add to an area. I agree with the hon. Member. We have to look after something that so enhances the beauty of our country.

I spend an increasing amount of my time battling with my local council about the most basic of maintenance work that needs to be done now. Drains being unblocked, roads being repaired and rivers dredged all feed into, when maintenance is not done properly, a bigger and more costly problem. I am sure many Members will share that experience. Maintenance must be a council’s priority, especially when it comes to the danger of trees. Too often local councillors treat maintenance work as a box-ticking exercise—a quick fix to get someone off their case while the future consequences of a bodged repair job or no repair job are not considered. Maintenance work is essential. It is not a “nice to have” or a nice little addition. It is essential. As we have seen, if it is not done, it has tragic consequences.

In the four weeks since Fiona launched the campaign for Chris’s law, 35,000 signatures have been gathered and the campaign has caught the attention of the media, too, from BBC Breakfast to BBC Radio 5 Live, and regional channels such as BBC North West and ITV Granada Reports. There is a mindshare among the public and the media that incidents of collapsing trees should not be occurring. Trees are a vital part of our daily lives, bringing many benefits to the environment and our wellbeing. Governments have spent millions of pounds planting trees, with the current Government pledging £800 million for this. But such an increase must be underpinned by a commitment to maintain the trees properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this debate, and thank other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.

Let me begin by saying how incredibly sorry and sad I am to hear about Mr Hall’s death. I offer my profound sympathies to his family—to Fiona, his wife, and to Sam, his son—on their tragic loss, as well as to other families who have lost loved ones in similar circumstances. I also pay tribute to their courage and commitment in their selfless campaigning to reduce the risk of other families suffering such a grievous tragedy. We are all here today to think about how we can prevent that from happening to anybody else. Nothing we can say today can make up for their loss, but it is right that we are having this debate.

Health and safety matters to everyone in this country, and this Government are dedicated to protecting people. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety; it works to ensure that people feel safe where they live, where they work and in their environment. It prosecuted Cheshire East council over Mr Hall’s tragic death, which led to the £500,000 fine.

When those responsible for controlling risks to public safety fail to do so, they will be held to account. As in this case, the Health and Safety Executive will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action where necessary, but I do not want us to be in that position. Local authorities, just like any landowner, must ensure that the land they own or occupy is not in a condition that could cause injury or damage to people who might reasonably be expected to enter it. They must not allow activities or conditions on their land that could foreseeably cause harm. If someone is injured due to negligence, the authority may be liable, as was the case with Mr Hall’s death.

There is current guidance available from the National Tree Safety Group, the membership of which is made up of organisations with an interest in tree risk management, including the Forestry Commission. Its publication, “Common sense risk management of trees”, was updated last year, and provides guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. It recommends that tree owners follow a plan for zoning their tree stock, based on frequency of access, and implementing tree management according to risk. Where trees pose a higher level of risk—for example, a tree with faults that likely make it unstable, such as the oak described by the right hon. Lady, that is in an area frequently visited by the public, such as a park—they will require a higher level of assessment and monitoring.

I have visited parks where veteran trees have been cordoned off. Cordoning off very large trees with known defects from public access during periods of very hot weather, when branches may be more likely to fall, and similarly advising the public not to sit under or next to such trees when wind speeds are higher than normal, is a sensible, common-sense response to changing conditions.

Trees are important to our society and to us intrinsically —we come from the forests—and they are particularly important in this changing climate. However, that does not absolve tree owners from their legal duty of care and the need to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks of injury to people or property. For the breach of its responsibilities leading to Mr Hall’s death, the council was handed a significant fine.

I agree with the right hon. Lady that maintenance and prevention are cost effective. This Government have given more money to councils. There has been a long period of reduction in council budgets, but we have made more than £69 billion available to local government, and Cheshire East, the council in question, has had a 6.6% cash terms increase in its core spending power on the previous year. The majority of the funding is un-ringfenced—we removed central Government controls on that—and can be used to address a range of pressures facing local government. I hope that some of it will have been spent on long-overdue tree maintenance work.

As mentioned, National Tree Safety Group guidance provides a nationally recognised, evidence-based framework for managing tree safety, balancing public safety with the environmental and social benefits of trees. It is grounded in legal precedent and supported by the Health and Safety Executive. Local tree strategies, such as the one in Bromley, play an important role. I encourage councils to use the existing Government-endorsed trees and woodlands strategy toolkit, which has been developed to support local authorities and stakeholders to create and deliver a local tree strategy. These strategies can help to safeguard people from harm. However, it is also important to remember that trees are living organisms and that things can change depending on the weather. They undergo natural processes of growth and development, and eventually fall.

As the right hon. Lady says, we are spending a record £816 million on tree planting. Many of those trees will be in forests, so that involves a different set of risks and limited public access. However, we need to think about street or park trees. I live in Islington, which was planting street trees back in the ’90s. I can think of two street trees, one in my street and one in the neighbouring street, that have fallen over in the past three years. Thankfully, they landed on walls and not on cars or people, but of course from one day to the next, they simply go—often in very hot weather.

As we increase canopy cover, we need to understand what we are doing. We are giving grants to local authorities, but what is the accountability mechanism? As with flood defence assets, it is no good building the asset if we are not going to look after it. Flood defence assets were not in good shape when we came in, so we have spent a lot of extra money—tens of millions—to make sure that fail-safe mechanisms are put in place and that assets are kept up to date.

[Sarah Dyke]

On tree canopy cover, I was lead member for environment and climate change at Somerset council when it was developing the tree strategy. The county is 8% tree canopy—way below the national average, which is about 13%. Obviously, increased canopy cover helps to reduce storm water run-off, prevent flooding, and improve biodiversity and habitats for local wildlife. Will the Minister commit to setting targets for neighbourhood tree cover to help to ensure equal resilience to flooding and stronger biodiversity in areas with below-average tree canopy cover?

[Mary Creagh]

Of course, the hon. Member’s area is benefiting, under this Government, from the first national forest to be planted for 30 years. The Western forest will stretch from the Mendip hills up to Bristol, Gloucester—for the flood prevention—and the Forest of Dean, so there will be a huge increase. [Interruption.] She has quite a bit in her area, I hear her say—good. The canopy cover will increase there, with 20 million trees planted over the next 25 years. Some of that will be agroforestry and some restoration of ancient woodland.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and to speak in this important debate. I thank all the petitioners, including the 321 from Glastonbury and Somerton.

Having grown up on a dairy and beef farm, I am all too aware of the devastating impact that TB is capable of unleashing. I also recently attended the dairy industry dinner and the dairy show, both held at the Bath and West showground just outside my constituency, where I spoke to dairy farmers from all over the country and was once again reminded of the emotional trauma they experience when they are told they have reactors in their herd. Farmers rear their animals with exceptional care and are proud to uphold high welfare standards, so when an outbreak occurs, it is the worst news they can receive.

Of course, farming is also a business, and alongside the emotional impact, there is also the financial impact. Currently, farmers receive about £2,000 in compensation for slaughtered cows, but that does not account for the business costs. A family farm in South Barrow in my constituency had been TB free for over 50 years, but a recent suspected case in an animal brought in from a market forced its temporary closure. The family told me that the rules as they stand are not fit for purpose and fail to adapt for different farming practices.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

That sounds like a case in the area I represent, where Rachel and Andrew Webber had TB found. They then introduced an additional 11 cows, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said they would be compensated for only 50% of the cost of those cows, given that they were introduced after an ongoing TB outbreak had been found. Does my hon. Friend think that DEFRA should pay 100% compensation for those losses?

[Sarah Dyke]

I wholeheartedly agree. The financial burden, and also the emotional burden, on farmers is devastating. We know the pressures our farmers are under already. With inheritance tax, the recent withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the countryside stewardship scheme coming to an end this year, many farmers are on the brink. As we know, TB leads many to close their farm gates for the very last time, so proper compensation is crucial.

The current testing system is failing animals and failing our farmers. Too many infected animals slip through undetected, and many farmers lose clean stock completely unnecessarily. All the while, the taxpayer spends nearly £30 million per year on compensation alone to UK farmers. In total, the cost of TB is estimated to be well over £100 million per year to the public purse.

I recently visited Gatcombe farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), where the TB eradication project is being led by the farmer, Robert Reed, and his vet, Dick Sibley. The research carried out there over the last 10 years raises important questions for the Minister about how we should solve this problem. That work has shown that undetected infection in cattle is the main driver of transmission and that the current skin-testing method has serious flaws. Some cows pass the test 30 times over, but they fail more advanced blood or faeces tests. Enhanced testing is currently illegal in officially tuberculosis-free herds, despite the fact that the failure to detect TB and the lack of trust in the system are causing so many of the issues.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

A farmer in my constituency has engaged in some of the methods suggested by Dick Sibley at Gatcombe and has made practical changes to prevent TB from spreading in her herd. After years of positive tests and the brutal effect on her and her family’s mental health of losing much-loved pedigree animals, the changes appeared to have had the desired effect. However, it took a great deal of time and commitment for her to carry out the research needed to better understand the biosecurity and how to manage the herd—time that many farmers simply do not have. Does my hon. Friend agree that better advice and engagement with farmers would help to ensure they have the resources to understand alternative ways to prevent the spread within a herd?

[Sarah Dyke]

I absolutely agree: education is critical. It is also critical in allowing research to continue. Of course, that requires funding, but we also need the right capital investment in farms, so that they can carry out the herd management required to stop the transmission of bovine TB.

[Olivia Blake]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it could seem counterintuitive to the public for new testing to be illegal and to require the Secretary of State’s intervention, and for testing in herds considered not to have TB to therefore not be possible, allowing undetected cows to be left in herds?

[Sarah Dyke]

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is saying that detection is important at any stage, and I agree with that. It is absolutely ludicrous that we cannot continue to test all animals in a herd.

The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to develop safe, effective, humane and evidence-based ways of controlling TB. We must invest to produce workable vaccines and surveillance measures that minimise harm to badgers and cattle. The previous Farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), visited Gatcombe farm alongside the current head of the National Farmers Union, and to his credit showed intent on this issue. I urge the Minister to follow in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and also to give an update on whether she will implement the recommendations of the Godfray report.

The UK lags behind other countries in tackling TB, with prevalence still at around 8% of cattle, despite the culling of nearly a quarter of a million badgers since 2013. We must look beyond culling and focus on testing cattle, while investing in further research into badger vaccination. I would also like data sharing to be improved, especially by providing farmers with access to their TB testing data alongside relevant supplementary tests. We must also ensure that governmental agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the British Cattle Movement Service actually talk to each other.

British farming is at a crossroads and this Government must stand up and support our farmers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want an extra £1 billion boost to the farming budget, which would help farmers with capital investment to support herd management and biosecurity, and help break the transmission routes of tuberculosis in cattle. But trust is difficult to build, and unfortunately DEFRA is not conveying confidence to the industry. Farmers are still waiting on the next iteration of the SFI, despite promises that it would come by the end of the summer. We cannot continue to kill our way out of the TB crisis. Solutions must be found to keep our beef and dairy herds OTF. To safeguard the long-term future of British farming, industry and Government must work together to ensure that we reach the target of eliminating TB by 2038.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for leading this important debate. I also thank the 348 petitioners in my constituency.

The red grouse is a unique wild bird, native to the moorland areas of the UK, but it is under threat. Challenges such as habitat loss, disease, predation and climate change act together to suppress population recovery. Driven and walked grouse shooting have been a tradition in the UK for over 100 years, and it is important to recognise the benefits that well managed, sustainable shooting and moor management bring. It is an important part of the rural economy, providing both direct and indirect employment opportunities.

In England, grouse moor management creates 42,500 working days a year and is responsible for 1,500 full-time posts, particularly in remote areas where employment opportunities are limited. It generates at least £23.3 million annually for the rural economy. Grouse shooting also represents an important cultural pastime and is part of upland heritage. It supports land and habitat management and benefits biodiversity. However, that does not mean the practice is immune from illegal activity, as we have heard—particularly the persecution of birds of prey such as hen harriers, golden eagles and other raptors. That is why today’s debate is so important. It enables us to discuss the benefits and the actions that can be taken to ensure grouse shooting can continue, how it can benefit nature and continue to play a vital role in supporting the rural economy, and, alongside all this, how a robust framework can be put in place to deter illegal practices and increase accountability.

Historically, red grouse lived in the moorlands of south-west England, but their population suffered and they are now considered extinct in the region, with the last bird sighted around 2005. It is imperative that we ensure the red grouse does not disappear from our uplands as well. It must be recognised that land managers have a huge responsibility in managing grouse populations. We must also be cognisant of the worrying reports of serious crimes against birds of prey.

We know it is illegal to kill, injure or take a wild bird of prey in the UK, but between 2009 and 2023, the RSPB recorded 1,529 confirmed incidents of persecution —the equivalent of one bird every four days. Rare species such as goshawks, peregrine falcons and hen harriers are frequently killed and their populations impacted, yet a worrying lack of prosecutions for such crimes means that the number of confirmed and suspected hen harrier persecution incidents has increased, with 102 recorded between 2020 and 2024. This has some stakeholders, including the RSPB, to call for the introduction of a licensing system for driven grouse moors like that introduced in Scotland in 2024.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that grouse shooting should be carried out with the necessary code of practice in place to prevent crimes against birds of prey, and we are clear that land managers and upland farmers play a significant role in protecting nature and preserving biodiversity by providing habitats for diverse wildlife such as curlew, lapwings and golden plovers. The UK is responsible for 75% of the world’s heather moorland, and evidence suggests that the reason why the UK has largely retained its heather moorland is the presence of management for grouse shooting. More than 60% of England’s upland sites of special scientific interest are in managed grouse moors.

Moorlands are also home to one of our most important natural habitats—peatland. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that I am very passionate about protection of our peatlands. In fact, later this week, my Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill is due to have its Second Reading. Our peatlands are globally rare ecosystems, making up less than 3% of the Earth’s surface. They are also natural resource assets for climate mitigation and adaption, so preserving peatlands is crucial if the Government are to hit net zero and environmental targets. Degraded and damaged peatlands have the opposite effect: they become a net source of emissions and their ability to act as a natural defence to climate change is hampered.

Somerset is the last place in England where active peat extraction still takes place; indeed, some extraction licences will be in place until 2042. That undermines the fantastic peat restoration work undertaken by organisations such as the Somerset Wildlife Trust. Shockingly, 10% of Somerset’s carbon emissions now come from degraded peat. It is estimated that, across uplands and lowlands, an enormous 3,200 million tonnes of carbon are stored in peatlands, representing England’s largest terrestrial carbon stores.

There is no doubt that protecting and restoring nature is an important tool in achieving net zero. If we continue to work against nature, our hopes of achieving our targets will just end up being warm words. Studies have shown that burning peatland contributes to the current poor condition of many upland SSSIs, special areas of conservation and special protection areas. That is why we must ensure that parties work together to ensure that grouse shooting is carried out sustainably, with the best-practice models being in place to prevent destruction of unique habitats.

The Government have taken some action, such as the 2021 prohibition on burning vegetation on peat more than 40 cm deep inside protected sites. It was recently announced that that ban will be extended, and defining deep peat as anything deeper than 30 cm will ensure that an extra 146,000 hectares are protected. It is vital that the regulations are firmly in place, as they create a best-practice framework, they must be upheld and enforced. There have been 632 records of burnings reported to the RSPB, which believes that a quarter may be in breach of the regulations, but there have been only two prosecutions under the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021, with small fines handed out. That is clearly not enough of a deterrent to protect our precious peatlands.

Land managers and upland farmers know that they must work together to balance and enhance our precious environment, but these areas also provide grazing space for sheep, as they have done for hundreds of years, and they are central to the viability of upland farming. That is why the Liberal Democrats are concerned about the Government’s lack of support for upland farmers, who manage land and produce quality food in some of the toughest conditions. Under the previous Conservative Government, hill farmers’ incomes dropped by 41% in just five years, and last year upland farmers received only 8% of sustainable farming incentive funding, despite uplands occupying 15% of England’s area.

The Liberal Democrats want to see a greater commitment from the Government to supporting sustainable farming practices and our upland farmers and communities. The family farm tax, the decision to abruptly close the SFI scheme and the reduction of the farming budget in the recent spending review are all terribly short-sighted and will make it harder to achieve both environmental and food security goals. They will also force many farmers out of business. As we have heard, farmers are the guardians of our beautiful countryside. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to support them with a £1 billion boost to the farming budget.

It is important that we provide farmers and landowners with the support they need to fulfil their role as guardians of the countryside. Grouse shooting should be carried out sustainably. It plays an important role in preventing the destruction of unique species and habitats such as peatlands, and it prevents the illegal persecution of birds of prey. Stakeholders must work together to ensure a balanced and long-term future on the moorlands of which we can be proud. To achieve that, appropriate regulations must be enforced, and our rural communities must be empowered.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate, and I thank the 322 petitioners in Glastonbury and Somerton.

As a nation, we value high animal welfare standards. The public care about animal welfare—84% of shoppers consider it when buying their food. The UK has helped to lead the way, banning veal crates for calves 16 years before the EU and banning sow stalls 14 years before the EU’s partial ban. The Liberal Democrats in government fought to improve poultry welfare standards by implementing an all-out ban on caged hens. Moving towards a cage and crate-free future is not just good for our farmed livestock: it is crucial if we are to ensure a trusted, sustainable and resilient farming future. Despite huge progress, we still have some way to go. Some 20% of UK eggs are from hens that live in enriched cages, while farrowing crates are still legal and used for up to 50% of sows in the UK.

As the support for the petition shows, the public want to end the cage age. Polling highlights the strength of feeling, with 94% of people in agreement that cages for laying hens are unacceptable and 96% believing the same for farrowing crates. Taking the necessary steps to reduce and eliminate usage is both popular and the right thing to do, and we should implement change as soon as possible, alongside a robust transition that works with farmers to support them to raise welfare standards in pig and poultry production.

The Government promised to have the highest rise in animal welfare standards in a generation, and just last month the revised animal health and welfare pathway stated that a transition out of cages is a priority. However, we have yet to see concrete action in that direction. I urge the Minister to commit today to bringing that work forward.

At our spring conference, the Liberal Democrats passed a new motion calling for a national strategy to end the cage age. We have also urged the Government to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates, which the previous Conservative Government failed to do despite their promises. That is not really a surprise, given that they failed to act on the 2018 Stacey review on farm regulation, and in 2023 they scrapped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It is time that we put our ambitions back on track. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, because we must not fall behind our European neighbours. This action must be taken in conjunction with a strong trade policy that ensures that our farmers are not undercut.

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to many farmers who take pride in upholding the highest standards. Lizzie and Rob Walrond, who run Glebe farm, are a shining example. On their 90 acres, they run an organic, outdoor herd of Saddleback sows, free-range laying hens and a flock of mule ewes, with much of their produce sold direct to customers through their fantastic Pitney Farm Shop and Café. Silverthorne shop in Milborne Wick is a free-range farm, with 15,000 hens all free to roam naturally on its 32 acres, and the eggs—as I can testify—are absolutely fantastic. Of course, there are many others, including Gilcombe farm, near Bruton; the Slow Farming Company in Castle Cary; Upton Bridge farm in Long Sutton; and the Kimber family, who run a farm in Charlton Musgrove.

Those businesses are under threat. If we do not ensure that trade policy is in line with domestic welfare practices, it could allow the market to be flooded with cheaper products that are likely to be reared to lower standards, punishing UK farmers for doing the right thing and maintaining high welfare standards. It is happening already: at a time when farmers are under unprecedented pressure, it is worrying that cheaper chicken and beef from Australia, Poland and Uruguay is increasingly seen on UK supermarket shelves in what seems to be a glaring and hypocritical betrayal of British farmers and misleading to the consumer.

There is not just a moral case to be made for moving away from crates and cages, but a sustainable and financial one. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set outs the need for a sustainable food system, and I urge the Government’s new food strategy to ensure that animal welfare is part of that. In addition, supporting nature-friendly farming is critical to achieving the Government’s environmental standards. The special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2019 estimated that 8.5% of global greenhouse gas comes from animal agriculture.

Intensive rearing methods, such as those that rely on cages and crates, can create excess agricultural run-off that ends up in our rivers, while reliance on antibiotics to treat the spread of disease, in part due to intensive methods, can be harmful to animal and human health. Instead, nature-friendly, extensive and traditional farming methods enhance nature while providing quality food for our tables.

Encouraging innovative modern farming systems is critical to growing and rearing the enormous amount of food required to feed us all, but does Government policy support the transition? Worryingly, research shows that intensive systems have ballooned, particularly in the pig and poultry sectors. There has been a 13% increase in factory farms over the last five years, with 22 million animals in mega-farms in the UK. Such units are designed purely for maximum production and profit. I am concerned that the family farm tax and the reduction in nature-friendly farming incentives will only increase the number further, as smaller farms are forced to sell up and are gobbled up by bigger units while the remaining family farms are forced to intensify to remain profitable. The upcoming farming profitability review should investigate that.

We stand at a crucial point for reshaping the future of farming in the UK, and we must take actions to secure a sustainable future. The Liberal Democrats want to support farms by reversing the family farm tax and investing an extra £1 billion into the farming budget. We would provide training, support and financial incentives for farmers to deliver world-leading animal welfare standards. We also believe that a comprehensive workflow review is needed to ensure that all parts of the food supply chain are resilient, including vets and local abattoirs, about which I have spoken before in this place.

Ultimately, ending the use of cages and crates is not only the right thing to do but part of a movement that would achieve the UK’s goals while securing the future of farming in the UK. It is better for our animals, better for people and better for the planet.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

Glastonbury and Somerton is synonymous with farming. I have spoken many times about how Thomas Hardy described Blackmore vale, where I call home, as the “Vale of Little Dairies”. My connection with farming runs deep, so I know that farmers have a deep and complex bond with the animals they rear, shaped by the daily care, emotional attachment and professional responsibilities they have towards them. Farmers form concerned attachment for individual animals and feel empathy, even though the animals are part of their livelihood.

Hundreds of farming businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton take great pride in the high animal welfare standards they implement. Take the Slow Farming Company near Castle Cary, for example: it produces beef, pork and eggs to the highest welfare standards, as certified by A Greener World, and recognises the value of doing so not just for the animals that are reared, but for human health. This weekend, the Slow Farming Company is hosting an open farm weekend to celebrate Open Farm Sunday and showcase the concept of slow farming and slow food.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving standards of animal health and welfare in agriculture. We know not only that it is important to support British farmers to implement such measures, but that we must not punish farmers by importing animal products with low welfare standards from abroad. Given the Government’s flurry of recent trade deals, this is an opportune time to remember why we must continue to keep high animal welfare standards at home and must not allow the Government to offshore poor animal welfare practices.

The new report from Animal Policy International, Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals notes that 95% of potential UK trading partners have lower animal welfare standards. The Liberal Democrats are aware of the threat that new trade deals could pose, and there is the ongoing risk that the deals will further undermine British farmers by allowing in animal products that simply would not be produced in the UK, such as foie gras and food produced with antibiotic growth promoters. We are clear that we must not allow that to happen. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that all imported food meets UK standards for health and welfare, while introducing robust food labelling that is simple to understand. That is paramount, because maintaining high food standards supports environmental sustainability and public trust in farming practices.

Last month, the Government announced a trade deal with the US. The deal included £180 million-worth of beef, and UK tariff exemptions on US beef expanded from historical levels of 1,000 tonnes to 13,000 tonnes. At the time, many right hon. and hon. Members demanded reassurance that British farmers would not be undercut by the deal. Although the sanitary and phytosanitary aspect of the deal is in line with UK standards, animal welfare concerns remain because US beef is produced to lower standards.

Last week, I attended the Royal Bath and West show and spent a morning with the National Farmers Union, speaking to local farmers. We were all horrified to learn that Asda is now stocking Uruguayan beef under labelling that could be described, at best, as misleading. I am not suggesting that the meat is of a lower standard, but it calls into question the wonderful work that Asda is doing on sustainability in its beef supply chain and in supporting British farmers, including the work it does to make UK suppliers jump through various sustainability hoops.

World Animal Protection has given the US an animal protection index rating of E for protecting animals used in farming, highlighting the stark contrast between the UK and the US. Therefore, as further details of the agreement are finalised, it is critical that the Government ensure that US—or any—beef entering the UK has been produced not only to equivalent food safety standards, but to animal welfare standards. Not to do so would be a betrayal of British farmers and the British public. Some 84% of the British public support restricting or banning low-welfare imports that do not meet UK standards. As a country, we are proud to support our farmers, who produce food for our tables to the highest animal welfare standards in the world, so we must make sure we do not kowtow to foreign Governments who want us to open the floodgates and fill our supermarket shelves with low-welfare animal produce. We must not stand by and expect our farmers to compete on an unlevel playing field. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must instead lead the way to raise standards around the world, while continuing to raise them at home.

The previous Conservative Government signed trade deals that undercut our farmers. The CPTPP agreement—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—could allow Mexican farmers who use battery-cage production to export to Britain large numbers of eggs produced in a manner that would be illegal in the UK. A former Environment Secretary criticised the free trade agreement with Australia that he helped to secure, stating that the deal was not good for the UK and

“gave away far too much”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

We must not let that happen again.

The recent EU-UK agreement is a positive step in beginning to reverse the damage caused by the Conservatives’ deal with Europe and so was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. We are committed to deepening our trading relationship with the EU and called for a comprehensive veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. However, half the pork sold in the UK comes from countries that permit sow stalls—a practice that we banned, as we have heard, in 1999. Most comes from EU countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Poland. The requirement in the common understanding that exceptions to dynamic alignment must not

“negatively affect European Union animals and goods”

could prevent welfare-based restrictions on those imports. The fear is that that provision could systematically prevent the UK from applying its higher standards across the market. The UK must preserve its sovereign right to maintain and enhance domestic animal welfare standards for all products entering the market. The Government’s trade strategy is expected soon, and it is clear that that must ensure that animal welfare standards are not undermined by the Government’s approach to trade.

The Liberal Democrats also recognise the need to work on standards domestically. That is why we want to introduce a new comprehensive animal welfare Bill that would ensure the highest standards possible. In the UK, 11 million egg-laying hens, representing 18% of the egg-laying industry, are kept in “enriched” cages; and, although we banned sow stalls in 1999, farrowing crates are still legal and used for up to 60% of sows in the UK. Therefore we still have further to go if we are to continue proudly leading the world in animal welfare.

The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs, and to end the use of cages for farm animals. However, I worry that some recent policy decisions might limit farmers’ ability to make progress. DEFRA transferred support for farmers looking to convert to organic out of the countryside stewardship scheme and into the sustainable farming incentive months before its abrupt closure, meaning that for the first time in 30 years no Government funding is available for farmers looking to convert to organic farming. Cuts to the nature-friendly farming budget, expected to be outlined in the forthcoming spending review, will limit farmers’ ability to improve animal welfare standards further. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the impact that these measures will have on farmers across the country. Farmers have a huge role in hitting the Government’s environmental and climate change aims, but short-sighted decisions will make those aims impossible. The Liberal Democrats instead have pledged to add an additional £1 billion a year to the farming budget, which will help farmers to keep standards high while producing food for the country.

We must improve the UK’s food labelling with regard to animal welfare. Under the last Conservative Government, DEFRA, to its credit, undertook a consultation on introducing mandatory methods of product labelling. The assessment for that found that food labelling could improve animal welfare standards. It found that the policy would improve the welfare of 110 million meat chickens, 510,000 pigs, 250,000 beef cattle, 180,000 dairy cattle and 1 million sheep, while also financially benefiting farmers by around £40 million a year. The Liberal Democrats have called for labelling that includes the locality that the animal was reared in, the conditions they were kept in, the methods of slaughter and the environmental impact of the product. We can improve the lives of farmed animals while helping farmers increase their profitability.

The future of animal welfare standards in farming and farming businesses are intertwined. As a country, we are proud of our standards, but we can and should go further. This must come with a firm commitment not to undercut British farmers through trade deals, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

It is right that the Government are taking action to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable. Recycling is essential for protecting natural resources and reducing the environmental impact of waste, but given that only 9% of plastic ever produced has been recycled, it has never been more urgent to make packaging more sustainable. The introduction of EPR can help us to achieve that, but it is important that it does not come at the cost of business viability.

The Liberal Democrats have real concerns that the EPR scheme, as it stands, will put the financial stability of small and medium-sized businesses at risk. Further uncertainty and instability for these businesses must be avoided, especially as they navigate the aftermath of the previous Conservative Government’s economic mismanagement and try to find a way through the challenges being put on them by the current Government.

Representatives from the pub, beer and cider sectors have told me that they are really concerned about the impact that EPR will have on their businesses. The drinks sector in Glastonbury and Somerton supports 101 pubs and over 1,200 local jobs, and contributes £29 million to the local economy. Profit margins for many of these businesses are paper thin, and they will have no choice but to pass on the additional costs they incur to their customers.

That is backed up by DEFRA’s impact assessment, which confirms that 85% of the costs will be passed on to consumers. Research from the British Beer and Pub Association has found that EPR could add £154 million a year to the cost of beer bottles, negatively impacting many traditional beer and cider-producing businesses that use glass bottles. The Society of Independent Brewers and Associates has noted that the implementation of EPR in its current form will likely have a significant impact on small independent breweries, pubs and consumers.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I should declare an interest, as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group.

My hon. Friend mentions independent brewers. Independent distilleries in North East Fife and elsewhere in Scotland face a real challenge, because they often do not produce separate bottles for hospitality and for other consumers. Does she agree that the Government need to look at that in their consultation, because those businesses will end up being taken into EPR through both household waste and hospitality?

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Those are, indeed, the unintended consequences we will see if the scheme is rolled out in its current form.

I am really worried about how this will impact the independent pubs in my constituency such as the Etsome Arms in Somerton, which prides itself on celebrating brilliant local brewers. This comes at a time when the UK has lost a hundred small breweries in the past year alone, with many more facing costs that they cannot absorb by themselves.

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to breweries such as Glastonbury Ales and Fine Tuned Brewery, near Somerton, as well as distilleries such as the Spirit of Glastonbury gin company. I visited Fine Tuned Brewery earlier this year to hear about some of the challenges that small breweries face, and the people who run the brewery explained their concerns about the impact that EPR will have on their business. They feel like they have been left in the dark due to poor communication from DEFRA.

It is clear that the knock-on costs of EPR will have an impact on these businesses. In fact, many in the industry are concerned that beer and cider producers might be incentivised to switch to less costly packaging such as aluminium or plastic. Those materials are more difficult to recycle than glass, so there is a risk that the scheme will achieve the opposite of its intentions. This potential backward shift in material usage may be only two years away, when the deposit return scheme comes into force.

In addition—and this concern has been echoed by many Members today—I have spoken to people in the industry who say it is clear that producers may end up paying twice for hospitality and business waste packaging under the current guidelines: once for existing waste collection and then again through EPR. I hope the Minister will comment on this uncertainty and provide businesses with the clarity they need.

On Sunday, people across my wonderful county celebrated Somerset Day and the important traditions of the region. One such deep-seated tradition is cider making. It is an economically significant and indispensable part of Somerset’s cultural fabric. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to fantastic producers such as Dowding’s in Wincanton, King Brain in Little Weston, Burrow Hill in Kingsbury Episcopi, Tricky Cider in Low Ham, Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, Hecks Cider in Street and Bere Cider in Bere, near Aller, to name just a few.

Cider makers are fully supportive of a circular economy, but many are worried about how EPR might make their businesses unviable. Many cider producers operate on thin profit margins, as I have said, and some may struggle to remain viable if they are laden with these additional costs. The National Association of Cider Makers has expressed frustration that the introduction of EPR does not align with the introduction of the DRS in two years’ time. While the full costs of EPR will not be confirmed until June, the hammer blow is already being felt. Businesses have been experiencing disruption since its introduction last month, making it very difficult for them to plan effectively.

Combined with other costs, EPR is squeezing profitability and threatening employment. Given the economic importance of cider makers, whether through the people they employ or the cider apple-growing farms they partner with, it is a massive concern to many in Somerset that these additional costs could seriously damage the industry.

When I held a very well-attended cider blossom season tasting event in Parliament earlier this year, a cider maker told me that cider is often seen as synonymous with Britain, and that British cider’s terroir is something that no other country can replicate. Cider making is a unique industry, so the costs of EPR must be proportionate and producers must be supported as they move towards a circular economy, rather than being forced out of business.

The Liberal Democrats know how important it is that businesses are given the notice, support and time they need to plan and adjust. The lack of clear information on the final fees and the timing of the start of producer liability creates challenges for business planning. I hope the Minister can give some clarity on that matter today.

The Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial that businesses are supported in this transition, especially when they have already been hit by higher employer national insurance contributions and higher business rates, as has been outlined by my colleagues today. We have concerns not only about how EPR’s implementation might affect small businesses but about how the scheme will be regulated.

The Environment Agency is already severely underfunded and struggles to fulfil its regulatory obligations on water quality. Consequently, we are cautious about EPR and want to ensure that it comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the Environment Agency to meet this additional responsibility.

Likewise, given that EPR changes the way local authorities will be required to manage household recycling, we believe that the role of local authorities in the scheme must be properly supported—they are constantly being asked to do more and more with less and less.

The Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of making packaging more sustainable, which is why we have long been committed to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers. It is also why we want to see the complete elimination of non-recyclable, single-use plastics within three years, and why we want to end plastic waste exports by 2030. However, we are also clear that those ambitions must be achieved by working collaboratively with industry to ensure that small drinks businesses are not left behind or struggle to remain viable. If we do not deal with this issue, then less recyclable and less circular materials, or cheaper imported glass with a larger carbon footprint, will become a more viable option for businesses in a sector in which the margins are already very tight.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member is 100% correct. It is interesting that some of the older properties in my constituency are the ones that are most resilient. In many cases, they were built hundreds of years ago to resist flooding, or for it not to be the end of the world when it does flood. The design of the new buildings in Carlisle absolutely measures up, and we should do more of that.

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

I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?