Environmental Protection

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farming: Financial Sustainability

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

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

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

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

[Emma Reynolds]

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

Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

May I start by saying how deeply saddened I was by the news that three Royal Navy personnel based out of Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton in my constituency tragically lost their lives on a training exercise in Devon the night before last? My thoughts are with their families, friends and colleagues at this incredibly difficult time.

Fuel is one of the biggest operating costs for farming businesses. Soaring red diesel and fertiliser costs, driven by Trump’s war in Iran, are squeezing already tight farming business margins. While the red diesel duty is welcome, it cannot paper over the wider crisis facing farm finances, with farm cash flows and profitability under real pressure. Farmers are now looking to the sustainable farming incentive 2026 as a lifeline. Can the Minister confirm how quickly applications will be processed and then the first payments made to farmers? Can she also give the 28,000 farmers with agreements that are expiring this year certainty that they can apply ahead of their current agreements—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You cannot go on and on; we have only a very short time.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Leaving thousands of South East Water customers without access to drinking water has become a pattern of neglect, enabled by a water system that fails to hold water companies accountable for their actions. Whether it is environmental disruption or consistent water disruption, this situation is simply unacceptable, but the Government’s timid reforms do not rise to the scale of the challenge. We do not need more tinkering—we need a total structural overhaul. Given the repeated failures in water supply and sewage pollution in the South East Water area and across the country, will the Minister back Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies, focusing investment on the environment, customers and infrastructure, rather than on lining the pockets of the bosses of water companies such as South East Water?

[Emma Hardy]

South East Water is a water only company, not a sewage company, so we can criticise it for many things, but sewage pollution is not one of them. When the Government came to power we introduced customer panels on day one, and since then we have secured £104 billion of private investment, passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and given the Environment Agency more powers to monitor water companies and uncover wrongdoing. In fact, the EA has done more than 10,000 inspections of water companies and uncovered 81 examples that have gone on to criminal investigations. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that under the coalition Government funding for the EA was cut by more than a half.

We have also introduced criminal liability for water companies, introduced automatic penalties, reduced the burden of proof, introduced cost recovery, banned the sale and supply of wet wipes, looked at reforming our bathing waters, established the water delivery taskforce and have abolished Ofwat. Yes, there is more work to do on top of that, but I stand proud on the record of the actions that we have already taken following years of inaction.

Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. The Liberal Democrats support the expansion of offshore wind and renewables as part of our commitment to achieving 95% decarbonisation of power by 2030. We are equally committed to the principle that climate and nature must be tackled together, not as competing priorities. With carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. But we are concerned that these changes represent a shift away from existing safeguards that prioritise the protection of specific sites towards a more flexible framework that may not always ensure direct or equivalent restoration of affected habitats.

Without sufficient compensation measures, a surge in offshore wind could push declining sea bird populations and other species and habitats over the edge. If rushed and implemented poorly, it could result in the collapse of entire marine ecosystems and undermine the environmental and economic security of those areas. We are further concerned that key details about how this new framework will operate in practice have been left to guidance that has not yet been finalised. That limits Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise the real-world impact of these changes, and raises questions about how consistent and robust the new framework will be once it is applied. We will therefore abstain on this statutory instrument.

Fur: Import and Sale

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning on animal rights.

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today. We have a track record of animal rights advocacy, and we are clear that the fur trade should have no place in this country, which has some of the highest animal welfare standards anywhere in the world. Yet today’s debate has outlined a glaring contradiction. We have banned the cruelty at home, but by continuing to source fur from overseas, we remain wholly complicit in this unnecessary suffering.

It is understandable that over three quarters of the British public want to see this double standard ended for good. I commend the work of the Fur Free Britain coalition in mobilising such strong public opinion on the topic of fur. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. The previous Conservative Government wrongly pivoted on their decision to scrap the planned ban on the import of fur, and we now call on this Government to enact a comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, once and for all, to help to maintain the UK as a global leader in the promotion of animal welfare.

The moral arguments have been well rehearsed by many hon. and right hon. Members today, and those arguments are full of merit. However, I will also evaluate some of the arguments put forward by the fur industry against a ban. The British Fur Trade Association has stated that a ban would not improve animal welfare standards, would result in illegal fur imports, would be unenforceable and would lead to job losses. In addition, it argues that a ban would raise concerns that the World Trade Organisation rules might be broken.

The BFTA has proposed a five-point plan for the Government, including improved labelling of fur products. However, let me be clear that keeping animals in cages for their whole lives inevitably leads to a variety of physical and psychological health problems, so the fur industry’s certification schemes clearly incorporate a high tolerance for poor welfare. Under the “WelFur” approach used within Furmark, farms can retain accreditation even when significant levels of illness and injury persist. The scheme allows alarm thresholds, under which no serious action is triggered.

How we treat animals is a reflection of who we are as a society. The UK is a nation of animal lovers, and we should be proud of the action we have taken to lead the world in upholding some of the highest animal welfare standards. When we take a stand, others follow, such as with the ban on fur farming that was implemented in the early 2000s. Since then, over 20 countries have followed suit. That is something to be proud of, and there is now an opportunity for us to extend that legacy even further.

It is disappointing that there have been claims that a ban would result in job losses and economic damage. A recent report by WPI Economics on behalf of Humane World for Animals has revealed that that is simply not the case. The fur trade’s contribution to the UK economy is very limited and has declined significantly over recent years. In 2023, the value of international fur exports and imports into the UK had fallen by nearly 50% and 39% respectively since 2018, while data from the Business Register Employment Survey shows that the number of people employed in the sector is also declining sharply. Indeed, in 2022-23 only 35 people were employed in the sector in the UK.

There is also growing evidence that a ban is enforceable under WTO rules. The landmark 2014 WTO ruling on the EU’s ban on the import of seal skins shows that WTO rules permit restrictions on imports based on ethical concerns. In March 2021, the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission recommended that the UK should show world leadership in embedding animal welfare into international trade policy and in helping to raise standards worldwide, which is what the public want. Polling suggests that 77% of the public back a ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, while 96% of respondents to the call for evidence under the last Government strongly agreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for their fur.

In the build-up to this debate, many of my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton wrote to me to outline their support for a ban. All were united in their belief that it is time to end this cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade, and I agree with them.

I underscore that the global fur trade, of which the UK is still a part, is not just a problem for animals; it is a serious public health risk. The interface between humans and millions of intensively kept and traded animals is giving rise to an era of unprecedented zoonotic disease threats, and fur farming sits squarely in that danger zone. Professor Edward Holmes, an evolutionary biologist and virologist from the University of Sydney, said of the fur trade,

“I think that this trade is a roll of the dice. We’re exposing ourselves to viruses that come from wildlife,”

which is

“an obvious route for the next pandemic to occur… Fur farms present a clear epidemic or pandemic risk.”

Crucially, this is not a hypothetical risk. Reports and official responses in Europe have shown outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza affecting fur-bearing animals on farms, and public health and biosecurity measures are not consistently implemented in practice. We must heed virologists’ warnings and not sleepwalk into another global pandemic.

I take this opportunity to recognise some of the Government’s progress on the issue. I was pleased to see the Government publish the results of the previous Government’s call for evidence on the fur trade. I also welcome the recently launched animal welfare strategy for England, which promises the highest jump in welfare in a generation. It is clear, however, that trade policy must go hand in hand with domestic welfare action. If we do not do that, we risk offshoring animal cruelty. We must not import goods that are not allowed to be produced in this country, and we must extend that to food products produced abroad to standards that would be illegal for British farmers. The Liberal Democrats want to see minimum standards for all imported food, to meet UK animal welfare standards, and we must ensure that no animal product that would be illegal to produce in the UK can be sold in Britain, including foie gras.

The Liberal Democrats have also urged the Government to sign the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, and to ensure alignment on standards and quality. Part of those discussions will likely focus on the import of fur. Given that it is not an agrifood commodity, however, incorporating it into the SPS agreement would serve only to complicate the matter unnecessarily and delay the process.

The Minister has previously indicated her support for a ban, as have many Cabinet Ministers, many Labour Members and most of Parliament. There is cross-party consensus on the issue, and it is shameful that the previous Conservative Government reversed their commitment to action. This Government must now do the right thing and take this opportunity, once again, to make Britain a global trailblazer by banning the sale and import of fur and fur-related products as soon as possible. The fur trade has no place in a country with such high standards of animal welfare.

It is hypocritical to allow the import and sale of real fur from abroad. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. We call on the Government to enact the comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products once and for all, helping to maintain the UK as a global leader in the sale and promotion of animal welfare.

Storm Chandra Flooding

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for having secured this debate on the Government’s response to flooding as a result of Storm Chandra. Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the flood effort in Somerset. I would also like to take a moment to recognise the impact that flooding has on people’s mental health. Victims of repeated flooding describe living in a “permanent state of anxiety”, and this has been palpable when hearing from residents across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency over the last few weeks. There has been a feeling of déjà vu, and of “Here we go again!”

Between 26 and 27 January, Storm Chandra, hot on the heels of Storms Goretti and Ingrid, brought exceptional rainfall to Somerset: 50 mm of intense rainfall fell across large parts of Somerset causing widespread flooding and set new 24-hour rainfall records in many parts of the south-west. Somerset council acted swiftly, and declared a major incident as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater. The major incident remains in place following persistent rain over the following two weeks, with yet more rain in the forecast and high spring tides imminent. Because the ground is fully saturated, local rivers are highly sensitive to further rainfall, while five flood warnings and 11 flood alerts remain in place across Somerset. Roads are still flooded and communities are cut off.

This issue will not disappear of its own accord. Climate change pushes the extremes, and Somerset, which is so often at the forefront of climate change, will see further extreme weather, with prolonged droughts and intense rainfall becoming common. The Environment Agency projects that there will be a 90% increase in properties at risk from river and coastal flooding, alongside an increase in surface water flood risk by the 2080s. Physical damage alone is estimated at £2.4 billion annually, and it could rise to £3.6 billion annually by 2050. Insurers are set to pay out £1.6 billion for weather-related property claims made last year alone, as the UK battles with the impact of climate change. The Government response to flooding incidents such as Storm Chandra must not just focus on helping the communities currently dealing with flood water, but on how we can better protect those communities and help them to be more resilient in future. Building flood-resilient communities is desperately important and it must be a priority, because these events are getting more frequent and more serious.

Before I move on, I would like to reflect on what we really mean when we discuss resilience. Constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton are dealing with flooding with ever more regularly. Louise owns GingerFred dance studio in Langport. She told me that she has been battling the floodwater that has been lapping up against at her dance studio door for the past two weeks. Despite questioning whether she might have to move her studio, which she has been running for 14 years now—that has been some hard graft—she is absolutely determined to fight on. She wants to fight on, but she also wants to learn how she can better understand flooding, be resilient to it, and help to protect other businesses and help her community.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I say respectfully that the friendship we have had over the past few years is one that I appreciate very much. In her time here she has been assiduous and hard working on behalf of her constituents, and tonight is an example of that. She will perhaps not be aware, but the storm hit Northern Ireland with ferocity and our schools had to close. The aftermath saw the loss of even more trees, which have taken a hammering in an unending list of named storms. That loss has had an impact on our natural flood defences and that was very clear in the aftermath of Storm Chandra. Does she not agree that natural flood defences need to be shored up, or we will create an unsolvable problem for the very near future?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his intervention. Indeed, nature-based solutions and natural flood defences are absolutely important—I know that the Minister is also an advocate for them—and I will come on to that later on in my speech.

In this place, I have advocated for communities to receive the support they need to develop their own bespoke extreme weather resilience plans. I pay tribute to the tireless work done by people such as Flood Mary in helping victims of flooding and raising awareness of flood risk and property flood resilience. Communities who regularly suffer flooding are resilient, but they deserve action and investment. Flood resilience in Somerset cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget and people deserve better. The Prime Minister has spoken about

“national security for national renewal”.

We must remember that resilience to flooding is part of our national security.

I thank the Minister for joining me in Glastonbury and Somerton yesterday. We visited Langport, Thorney and Drayton to see the impact Storm Chandra has had on the area. I am sure she would agree, after hearing from the farmer Mike Curtis, who took us on his tractor and showed us some of his land, that Somerset communities are resilient, but much more must be done to protect them from flooding. If flooding does happen, they must have the tools on hand and the support in place to help their communities mitigate it.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the amazing work she does on her side of the Levels and Moors that span our two constituencies—I hope I do similar work on my side. She may be coming on to this point, but does she agree that one of the key messages I hear most strongly from residents in Stathe and Burrowbridge, some of whom have water lapping up against their houses right now as we sit in this Chamber and are frightened about what is going to happen tomorrow and the next day, especially with the long forecasts for rain, is that they need better communication, so they have the maximum information about what is happening with the Levels—when pumping will or will not start—as well as about the long-term plan that is needed after this flooding event to reduce flooding?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. Every flooding incident is different and sometimes it is difficult to dictate where flooding incidents will happen, but there is certainly a lot more we can do. The Minister and I talked about the trigger points with the Environment Agency yesterday, which it has committed to looking at. I also agree that communication with local authorities and a collaborative, joined-up approach should be better.

I also feel that communities should have better real-time information on flooding. There is a really good example of that in the River Cam catchment, where flood monitors have been put on bridges and an app tracks the flow of water so that communities within the catchment are aware of any significant increase in the water levels. I hope that that can be rolled out so that our communities can be better protected and can better protect themselves in these instances of terrific rainfall.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an exceptional speech. There was an excellent debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on tree planting, with thoughtful contributions from a number of Members. Does the hon. Lady agree that tree planting is essential not just to biodiversity, lowering temperatures and carbon capture, but for preventing flooding?

[Sarah Dyke]

In a previous life, before being elected to this House, I was the lead member for climate change and environment on Somerset council. Somerset has a lower-than-average tree canopy cover at 8%, compared with the national average of 14%, so we committed in our 10-year tree strategy to plant more trees. There are lots of community groups doing that across Somerset, including Reimagining the Levels, which brings together volunteer networks to plant trees. I was out on Ham Hill a couple of months ago planting 3,000 trees for exactly that reason: once those trees become established, they can soak in more moisture and play their part in slowing the flow through those catchment areas. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady.

According to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience,

“the UK is not on track to be fully…flood resilient by the time”

the Flood Re programme ends in 2039. It further states that without clear standards, flood resilience is just

“a vague ambition rather than a deliverable goal.”

I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on what she means when she talks about resilience, especially at community level. Some communities have spent time and money putting in place property-level mitigations but still face flooding. How can they better understand what it means to be flood resilient?

The memories of the devastating 2013-14 floods are still painfully vivid in the minds of those who experienced them. Following those floods, the Environment Agency carried out what was, at the time, the single largest pumping operation ever undertaken in Somerset. Following flooding in January 2023, the EA once again put in place another large temporary pumping operation on the levels and moors.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this essential debate. Her speaking of 2014 reminds me of the previous great storm, which took out the railway lines in Dawlish. This January, we had three storms in quick succession, as we did last January, so there appears to be more of a pattern now —it seems to be something we can expect every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more Government funds to call upon to clear up areas after they have been hit so hard by these devastating storms, as Dawlish and Teignmouth were by the storms in January?

[Sarah Dyke]

I could not agree more. We need mitigation, resilience and protection, but we also need to support our communities through the aftermath. That is absolutely crucial. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

While it is yet to be confirmed, it looks like the ongoing pumping operation this year will once again supersede its predecessors that I mentioned. What does that tell us about flooding in Somerset? Despite the Government’s claim that they are investing a record £10.5 billion in flood defences, the reality is that these problems are critical now, and they are continuing to grow. Despite that, analysis by Flooded People UK shows that capital spending commitment is at a lower annual rate than the previous capital regime.

In Somerset, we need action and investment to ensure the availability of critical assets in emergencies, when they are needed to mitigate flooding. Every £1 spent by the Government prevents £5 in damage, and means £2 in direct savings to the Exchequer, yet national flooding budgets have been cut in real terms. It is crucial that the Government invest in cost-effective strategies relating to flood preparedness, prevention, traditional flood defences and nature-based solutions, so that communities like those in Somerset and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) are not left to fend for themselves.

Communities that are deemed to be at flood risk have long felt abandoned by Government and their agencies; the Environment Agency’s recent decision to withdraw from main river maintenance owing to funding shortfalls is a clear example of this. With no consultation, riparian owners in Somerset were issued with withdrawal notices last summer, and were left with the responsibility for undertaking maintenance work alone—a decision that has rightly heightened anxieties about further flood risks. Appropriate maintenance of main rivers reduces the likelihood that channel capacity will be exceeded or assets will fail. The likelihood, extent, depth, and duration of flooding, and the damage caused by it, is then significantly reduced. We do not need to go back very far to understand the profound impact that this can have. Main river maintenance reduced over several years leading up to 2012, and what followed was a catastrophic flood in 2012, and then, of course, the extreme flood during the winter of 2013. It has been evidenced that had regular main river maintenance been undertaken, those events would have had much less of an impact. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an urgent review of the decision to effectively abandon main river maintenance.

We are also calling for a further £5.3 billion of investment to ensure that flood defences are built quickly and provided to all necessary communities to increase local preparedness and resilience. It is not in doubt that the cost of flood defences and resilience is significant, but the cost of getting this wrong or doing nothing is far greater. Some £6.1 billion in gross value added has been lost from downward pressure as a result of flooding in the last five to 10 years. Given that one in four properties nationally, and some 1,500 in Glastonbury and Somerton alone, will be at flood risk by 2050, the costs will only rise. That scenario opens up a broader question about communication and how different bodies—including the Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the EA, internal drainage boards, the Somerset Rivers Authority and Somerset council—work together with communities and individuals. In the meantime, many riparian owners are confused about what their responsibilities are, and more must still be done to improve communication and understanding. This lack of clarity is causing frustration and yet further anxiety.

I was pleased that the Minister found time to meet the Somerset internal drainage board with me yesterday. The board has called for a collaborative approach, but that must be backed with appropriate local and national funding to move it forward, and it must be sustainable. Any change will take time to implement, so it is paramount that the necessary main river maintenance works continue until alternative solutions are in place.

Alongside the importance of ensuring that dredging and regular maintenance take place, I would like to highlight the importance of natural flood management and its part in making Somerset more resilient to flooding. I am aware that the Minister shares my appreciation for such solutions, but as the Environmental Audit Committee report made clear, these interventions remain undervalued and underused in England, and must take their place alongside hard engineering projects.

The urgent need to build more homes has led to there being full or conditional planning permission for more than 7,000 new homes in England on previously undeveloped floodplain land. I am clear that new developments should not be built on floodplains, because they increase the speed of run-off and the risk of flooding downstream, putting homes and communities at risk. We desperately need new homes, but if Somerset is to hit the Government’s house building targets, the question must be: where do the houses go?

Surface water flooding is the fastest-accelerating risk affecting areas of the country that are not traditionally expected to flood. The Liberal Democrats have led calls to ensure that new homes are built with a range of measures to enhance their flood resilience, and to ensure that sustainable urban drainage systems do their job and are maintained properly. We also believe that older homes should be retrofitted to help mitigate the risk of flooding.

I pay credit to my constituent Tim Adams, the flood warden for Blackford, just outside Wincanton. Tim has undertaken research on the rapid run-off of surface water from the A303, which has often been recognised as materially increasing flood risk. His work has shown how attenuation ponds or wetlands could reduce peak flows, improve water quality and deliver biodiversity gains. In my view, it is essential to use citizen science, local knowledge and natural flood management techniques in a catchment area approach to flood mitigation.

We must also recognise the key role that farmers play in flood management by storing floodwater on their land, protecting those downstream, and consider building natural flood defences, because 58% of grade 1 agricultural land is situated on a floodplain, while 9% is at high risk of coastal flooding. If there is not appropriate insurance in place to compensate farmers for holding water on their land to prevent communities from flooding, we put those businesses under increased financial pressure after each and every flood event.

Yesterday, Mike Curtis told the Minister and me that he had reared cattle in Thorney for over 30 years, with his herd peaking at 750 head of beef cattle 10 years ago. He now keeps less than half that number, because his land spends so much time under water. While Mike’s land saves thousands of homes downstream from flooding, he is unable to access any Government compensation for these losses to his business. Sadly, Mike is not alone in facing this. Trish and Ron from Bineham City Farm near Knole also have hundreds of acres under water, and will run short of feed for their dairy herd before they are able to turn their cattle out this year. This is having a massive, catastrophic impact on their business. That is why farmers who store water on their land to protect housing or other critical infrastructure—they are providing a public good—should be properly recognised for doing so and compensated fairly.

Liberal Democrats would tailor the qualifying criteria for the farming recovery fund to reflect the realities of flooding for rural communities and farmers. We would also raise the environmental land management scheme budget by £1 billion, to support farmers in their transition to environmentally sustainable farming, and to recognise their key role in accepting and managing flood water.

Flood defences in Somerset cannot be run on a shoestring budget. We urgently need to ensure that critical assets are available and able to operate at capacity during flood events. We must use the multitude of flood defence techniques available to ensure that our communities are resilient to future extreme weather events. There is much work to be done to ensure that England has a strong framework that recognises the role of the multiple bodies and agencies that work together to make flood-resilient communities.

To conclude as I began, flooding can have a profound impact on mental health, affecting individuals and communities long after the waters recede. We must always remember the very real and persistent anxiety that flood victims experience; that must be central when considering future Government support for communities at risk of flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I think the best answer to that is for me to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for that policy, to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer. I recall from that debate that the Department is considering how the long-term maintenance of SUDS can be achieved, but I am mindful of the fact that it is another Department’s responsibility.

Through the internal drainage board fund, we are further investing in resilient infrastructure that can withstand more frequent and intense storms, supporting communities with clear information, accessible resources and long-term recovery assistance, and enhancing natural flood management by restoring wetlands—that is brilliant—improving soil health and working with nature to slow the flow of water.

In April 2025, the Environment Agency proposed pausing main river maintenance in certain low-risk areas of Somerset. However, it became clear, following a query raised by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton in November 2025, that the initial process did not provide sufficient opportunities for engagement with local communities and stakeholders. As a result, a new consultation period is now open, running until April 2026. This consultation will allow residents, landowners and local organisations to share their views and to help to shape the future of flood risk management in their area.

I fully recognise the importance of flood risk maintenance, particularly in areas like Somerset, where the landscape and hydrology create unique challenges. DEFRA and Environment Agency officials are already in discussion with key stakeholders, and this formed part of a wider conversation at December’s floods resilience taskforce meeting, which I chaired. These discussions are essential to ensuring that our approach to maintenance is fair, transparent and grounded in the needs of local communities. My letters to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) in February 2025 detailed the actions being undertaken in support of this.

The Environment Agency needs to prioritise its funding rigorously, and focus on those areas and activities that deliver the greatest overall benefits for people and property, including reducing flood risk and ensuring value for money. It is spending significant resources every year on pumping and managing the Somerset levels. Its work is essential to maintaining the delicate balance of water across the landscape, supporting agriculture, protecting homes and preserving the unique ecology of the area.

[Sarah Dyke]

I am pleased that the consultation is open, and that will be good news for riparian owners across Somerset. Should the consultation come back saying that riparian owners need to continue to do their own maintenance work, what support will be put in place for those who do not have the equipment or the wherewithal to support that? If we are looking at a holistic approach, then if one riparian owner decides not to do any maintenance, what will be the knock-on effect? How do we then ensure that our network of rivers is resilient and does not flood other areas?

[Emma Hardy]

The challenge that the hon. Lady sets out is the next step. For me, the first step is to see what the response to the consultation says and then we can continue the conversations. However, I recognise her point about riparian ownership and responsibility, and the challenge of what happens if everyone does not respond to the responsibility in the same way.

As we look to the future, we must ensure that the investment continues to be targeted, effective and sustainable. Beyond the technical and financial considerations, we must recognise the human dimension of flooding. Behind every statistic is a person—someone who has had to leave their home, someone who has lost possessions, someone who is worried about the future. Flooding affects mental health, financial stability and community cohesion. It can take months or even years for people to fully recover. That is why our response must be compassionate, comprehensive and long term.

We must acknowledge the broader context in which these events are occurring. The increasing frequency and intensity of storms like Chandra and Ingrid reflect a changing climate. While no single weather event can be attributed solely to climate change, the pattern is clear: we are facing more extreme rainfall, more volatile weather systems and greater pressure on our flood defences. This reality demands that we strengthen our resilience, not only through infrastructure but through planning, community engagement and environmental stewardship. That is why protecting communities from the dangers of flooding is a key priority for this Government.

This year has started with record-breaking rainfall, amounting to nearly twice the long-term monthly average in the south-west, which has been deeply challenging. Strengthening local and national co-ordination to ensure that agencies, councils and emergency services can respond swiftly and effectively is crucial, as is listening to communities, as we were yesterday, valuing their lived experience and ensuring that their voices help to shape future policy.

This Government’s record investment in flood defences will better protect communities from flooding right across the country. Not only that, but it will boost economic growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change. This Government are committed to acting to ensure that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes.

The emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready, as ever, to support affected people in any future flooding event. This is a personal priority and it is a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to make sure that this Government respond as effectively as possible to floods.

Question put and agreed to.

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate and on his excellent and knowledgeable speech. I also point to the important intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) about developers using up-to-date datasets.

In Somerset, management of water is essential. My constituency is frequently impacted by extreme weather—flooding in the winter and droughts in the summer. The low-lying land of the Somerset levels and local river catchments can become overwhelmed quickly when heavy and prolonged rain sets in, or when hit by a flash flood, as we were in May 2023.

The Somerset Rivers Authority was established in 2015 as a partnership of local stakeholders, and it is now knowledgeably chaired by the Liberal Democrat councillor, Mike Stanton. Its overarching purpose is to reduce the risks and impacts of flooding across Somerset. The SRA was formed after devastating floods in 2013-14, which was the wettest winter for over 250 years. Around 150 sq km of the Somerset levels was submerged for weeks, 165 homes were flooded, 7,000 businesses affected and 81 roads closed across the area. The cost to Somerset was in the region of £147.5 million.

Once again this winter my constituents are dealing with the devastating impact of flooding. Last week, Storm Chandra saw 50 mm of intense rainfall across large parts of Somerset in a really short period. It exacerbated the already saturated ground; as a result Somerset council declared a major incident last Tuesday, as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater.

I pay tribute to everyone who has been part of the emergency effort to support communities across Somerset. Their commitment to help in times of need is much appreciated, whether we are talking about staff members from Somerset council, the SRA, the Environment Agency, the emergency services or other partners; members of affected communities who have opened their homes to displaced residents or those at risk of displacement; people who have been out with sandbags in 4x4s; those who made hot drinks for people who were cold and wet; or, as in my case last Saturday, people sweeping up car parks as floodwaters receded.

Sadly, the incident is not a one-off. Given the Environment Agency warning that river levels are expected to remain high for several weeks, unsettled weather forecasts for some time ahead and the imminence of high spring tides, the risk of further flooding in Somerset remains. With increasingly unpredictable, intense and changing patterns of rainfall, it is essential that local communities are now given the resources they need to prepare long-term, bespoke, extreme weather resilience plans.

Residents must feel confident that their homes will be safe from severe damage by floodwater, and they must be better prepared to cope with flooding when it happens. Sustainable drainage systems have an important role to play, but proper measures must be in place to bring sustainable drainage provisions into force and the systems must be properly maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot argued, the Government should implement schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to require sustainable drainage systems in all new developments.

Well-designed sustainable drainage systems contribute to climate change resilience, provide habitats for nature, boost biodiversity and build flood preparedness. But the current lack of clarity has contributed to widespread problems on new estates, particularly where SuDS fall under the control of private estate management companies. Homeowners are often left paying for poorly maintained systems with no public accountability. In some cases SuDS are simply left unmanaged and it is no surprise when, inevitably, they fail. If the Government are committed to building the homes that people need, they must ensure that new developments provide suitable flood mitigation measures, including SuDS, that properly manage excess rainfall.

Since 2020, Somerset council has carried out over 100 formal inspections of SuDS on housing developments. While most are found to be inadequate, maintenance issues are often highlighted. In Somerton, there are examples of where that has not happened. During the 2013-14 floods, Somerton was badly hit and flooded between Farm Drive and the recreation field. Defects were found in the drainage provided by the developers, while the attenuation pond that had not been maintained appropriately overtopped. Retention tanks were later installed, but they were paid for by the taxpayer and not the developer, as they should have been.

Last week, the same area experienced heavy flooding yet again. Sue and Amber, live locally in Somerton, told me they had lost three days’ worth of income due to the recent floods, because they simply could not get through the flood water. They are concerned about a planning proposal on Ricksey Lane that could make the situation much, much worse. They are not alone: many people fear that the development will create increased surface run-off, leading to flooding downstream.

Those anxieties are sadly not restricted to Somerton. Residents in Street fear that the developer of a planned additional 280 homes has not taken the precautions necessary to prevent the potentially catastrophic flooding of their properties. Residents told me that their key concerns are about the proposed surface water drainage for the site, because the developer plans to discharge water into two attenuation ponds. That, along with the volume of the Portway stream, will then flow into an existing northern watercourse; however, they believe the watercourse will not be properly maintained as it falls outside the developer’s remit.

Current national guidelines are designed to prevent new developments from worsening flooding downstream, but the existing drainage guidance is based on assumptions that do not always hold true in Somerset. In very flat areas like the Somerset levels and moors, water can linger for days, weeks or even months, rather than flowing quickly away. Across different sub-catchments, many factors such as soil type, infrastructure and rainfall patterns interact in complex ways that current standards simply do not address fully. That is why Somerset council is asking the Somerset Rivers Authority to fund an ambitious study of how water really behaves across Somerset’s catchment. The aim is to build a better evidence base, so that planners can update guidance, developers can design smarter drainage systems, and communities face less flood risk.

I hope the study can influence the national conversation, but without action from the Government setting mandatory standards for developers, residents’ anxieties will continue to grow. Disappointingly, the Government are consulting on deleting the rule that prevents planning permission from being granted where the Environment Agency objects due to flood risk. The Liberal Democrats are clear that that must not happen and that the absolute need for new homes must be weighed against very real flood risk. The water management sector is already frustrated that the Government have yet to commit to implementing mandatory SuDS, and the recent Cunliffe review identified inconsistencies in their use as one of the four main issues with the current waste water and drainage regime. The updated standards published last June were a welcome step in the right direction, but they are not a substitute for legislation.

The Liberal Democrats believe that a clear, enforceable national SuDS framework is required that standardises design, guarantees long-term adoption and maintenance, and ensures that someone is genuinely responsible when systems fail. Anything less will continue to leave residents exposed to flooding, unexpected charging and environmental harm. That is why we tabled an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that would have required water companies to provide, when consulted, honest and accurate assessments of their infrastructure’s capacity to meet the needs of proposed developments, and it was disappointing that the Government and the Conservatives did not support it. I hope the Government will review that proposal, as it is essential to ensure that water system capacity is better accounted for in future developments. Will the Minister provide an update on that?

The Welsh Government have implemented schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and their post-implementation review has revealed the value and benefit of the legislation. Although improvements may still be required, it is a necessary first step, and we must follow that example. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are considering what action to take but are still deciding whether they will improve the planning-led system or commence schedule 3. I urge her to listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls. She is very welcome to take forward our ideas, because the current regime has not done enough to make at-risk communities more resilient to flooding, which leaves residents frightened, anxious and desperately worried every time dark clouds roll in.

In Somerset, we know what it is like to live at the forefront of climate change. The county will always be at risk of flooding, but with the right planning, investment and collaborative working, the risk and impact of flooding can be mitigated so that people feel safer in their homes. I once again extend to the Minister, and other right hon. and hon. Members, an invitation to visit my constituency and witness the terrible impact of flooding on communities. It is important to see that while the water levels remain high. I am certain that that would focus minds and give impetus, if any is needed, to the urgent implementation of schedule 3.