Support for Farmers

Debate between Sarah Dyke and James Naish

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We chose to use our Opposition day to discuss support for farmers because farmers are the backbone of rural communities across the country, and today’s debate has shown just how deeply that is felt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened the debate by explaining that the Liberal Democrats would reform the SFI so that it allocated every farmer a sum that was consistent with the capacity of their farm. That sum would be theirs to claim within a long window. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us that we, and farmers, are in the middle of a perfect storm. We have heard from Members in all parts of the House about farmers who prepared SFI applications for months on end, only to be shut out in an afternoon. In Glastonbury and Somerton, this is not an abstract issue. It is about whether family farms can plan not just for next year, but for the years and generations ahead.

On 22 September, the second window opened, with £233 million in the fund. By 3.48 pm, it had shut. Farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble. At least festival-goers know when the fallow years are coming; farmers who missed out have been handed one with no warning at all. One farmer from Curry Rivel wrote to me describing the process simply as a “disaster”. The money has been shared out badly, not just too thinly. Window 1 left £3 million unallocated, but window 2 was oversubscribed within hours, and it was not an even scramble. A recent survey conducted by the Select Committee found that 60% of respondents could not submit before the window closed. Only 31% of those running farm businesses were successful, compared with 68% of land agents. That is a two-tier system. Those who can afford an adviser are waved through the farm gate, while those who cannot are left out in the field. Until it was privatised in 1997, ADAS gave farmers free independent advice, provided by the state. Today, those who cannot afford an agent are on their own.

That was not just bad luck. DEFRA’s own forecasts, made in April and May, modelled the window’s closing on its very first day; it predicted 12,200 applications. On the day, 12,204 were submitted, just four more than were forecast. DEFRA saw it coming, and nearly 2,900 farmers started applications that they were never able to submit. Others were let down by DEFRA’s IT systems. Tom Kimber, who farms at Higher Stavordale farm in Charlton Musgrove, had an SFI agreement that was coming to an end. He applied in window 2, and missed out because of technical problems. He was assured that farmers like him would be given a route back in, but he has heard nothing since. Tom wants to deliver for the environment, and demand for the SFI proves that thousands of other farmers want to, too, but their commitment is not matched by a Government who understand the scheme.

Last week, the Minister told the House that “first come, first served” will end. I welcome that, but one cannot feed a whole farm herd from a trough that is simply too small. The expiring agreements are worth over £520 million, but the budget across both windows is just £310 million; as the NFU has asked, where has the missing funding gone? Around 8,800 of this autumn’s applicants have agreements ending in February. Clare, who farms near Puckington, is one of them. For years, she has protected the river margins on her land, thereby slowing run-off, filtering pollution and giving wildlife space to thrive. SFI was meant to be her way forward, but now those margins have no funding.

Before I move on to the Conservatives’ utter failure to support British farmers, I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, which includes BPR and APR. The Conservatives cannot escape their share of the blame for the chaos that farmers face today. They designed SFI on a “first come, first served” basis, botched the transition from basic payment schemes, let farming budgets fall behind inflation, and signed trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand that undercut British farmers. However, this Government cannot keep hiding behind their predecessors. They chose to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments while stop-starting SFI, so farmers have no universal payment offer at all for the first time since 1945. The Government imposed the family farm tax, and cut the DEFRA and farming budgets.

The Liberal Democrats warned that this would happen. I wrote to the former Secretary of State in July, before the first window closed, to ask how the Department would stop window 2 meeting this exact fate. All of this is happening as our farmers face one of their worst years in memory. Mark Humphrey, who farms at Isle Brewers and chairs NFU Somerset, has described a torrid 18 months. Milk is down at 32p per litre, selling for 8p less than it costs to produce, and maize yields are down by 10% to 15%. Our farmers must be profitable.

However, Somerset shows what is possible with long-term certainty. Last week, I met Damon Bridge of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Greater Sedgemoor landscape recovery team on North Moor, near Langport, where farmers and conservation groups are working together across 4,000 hectares. This involves 20-year agreements, not a window that slams shut in an afternoon, but only a handful of landscape recovery projects have reached delivery. Farmers need to know that they will actually happen, because food security is national security.

All this comes back to one question: can this country feed itself? We produce only about 60% of the food we eat. Between 2019 and 2024, the farming budget was frozen at £2.4 million, while input costs rose by 44%. With war in Ukraine and conflict in the middle east, food security is national security, yet the Government still do not treat it as a priority.

[James Naish]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will not, given the time.

I brought forward my Food Bill, which is now Liberal Democrat policy, to tackle this issue. It has binding targets for domestic food production, would ensure that an annual food security audit was reported to the House, and would take action to drive down food waste. We have long called for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes, so that every eligible farmer who applies in good faith gets an agreement, there is a proper bridge for the 8,800 farmers whose agreements are ending, and we invest in the training and technology that cut farmers’ costs in the long term—not fairer rationing, but a bigger pot. The Chancellor has the perfect opportunity to deliver that money in next week’s Budget.

I have four simple questions for the Minister. First, what will be different next year to ensure that a family farm without an agent has the same chance as an estate with one, and will he look at restoring free independent advice services for smaller farms? Secondly, will he guarantee that farmers like Tom, who missed out because of DEFRA’s IT failures, will not lose out again? Has any money from window 2 been left unallocated, and if so, how much? Thirdly, will the Minister open SFI27 early in the new year, or even before that, and publish its budget now, so that no farmer with an expiring agreement faces a gap from April next year? Fourthly, will he press the Chancellor to use next week’s Budget to properly fund the schemes on which our farmers depend, and can he confirm that the DEFRA budget will not be cut? 

Our farmers have kept their side of the deal. They have adapted to the end of the basic payment scheme, prepared for scheme after scheme, and kept growing our food despite soaring costs, extreme weather, disease outbreaks and attacks that threaten their livelihoods. What they have not had is a Government, Conservative or Labour, who keep their side of the deal. This motion offers a way forward, with long-term funding for every eligible SFI applicant, a reversal of the farm family farm tax, a comprehensive national food strategy and an extra £1 billion a year for the schemes our farmers depend on, because a nation that cannot feed itself cannot protect itself.

Animal Rescue Centres

Debate between Sarah Dyke and James Naish

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James Naish]

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

[Sarah Dyke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rural Communities: Government Support

Debate between Sarah Dyke and James Naish

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James Naish]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Dyke]

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

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

Ambulance Response Times

Debate between Sarah Dyke and James Naish

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ambulance service response times.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate.

Unacceptable ambulance response times have become endemic in the UK, leaving people in pain and distress and costing lives. An estimated 50,000 people died last year after long A&E waits, according to Office for National Statistics data. One of those was Jim�s wife in Street. She was suffering from aggressive liver and bowel cancer and had to wait seven hours in agony for an ambulance in February last year. When the ambulance arrived, Jim and his wife were told that the crew were not trained to take her downstairs, so they were left to wait for another crew. When they arrived, several hours later, Jim�s wife was too ill to be moved and was told that the journey would kill her. She died shortly after.

Jim told me again today how that experience still makes him angry, yet he recognises the perilous state that the NHS is in, caused largely by the last Conservative Government. Like Jim, many people have lost faith in health services after the NHS was stretched and left grossly underfunded as a result of the last Conservative Government�s neglect.

We know that this is having a devastating impact on patients, but it is also impacting the incredibly hard-working medical staff. The 2023 NHS staff survey showed that 39% of ambulance staff respondents often or always felt burnt out. The number is higher for control room staff, at 44%, and higher still for ambulance technicians and paramedics, at 45%. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in thanking and paying tribute to everyone working in the ambulance service whose hard work, dedication and commitment to patient safety is second to none.

Most people in Somerset will sadly know of someone who has faced a heartbreakingly long wait for an ambulance. The family of an 89-year-old Somerton resident told me how they faced a 10-hour wait, stuck in agony on the floor, as no ambulances could come to help them. Another resident told me about their ordeal of having to prop their mother up on the toilet after she had had a fall. They then had to spend 13 long hours waiting for an ambulance to arrive. I am sure other Members will have similar heartbreaking examples.

It is important to understand the context of these examples, so I will briefly outline the NHS targets: seven minutes for category 1 calls, for which 90% of ambulances should arrive within 15 minutes; 18 minutes for category 2 calls, for which 90% of ambulances should arrive within 40 minutes; while 90% of ambulances for category 3 and 4 calls should arrive within two and three hours respectively.

Those targets remain unmet in the south-west, where we have the worst-performing ambulance service in the country. In January 2025, South Western Ambulance Service failed to meet the targets for category 1 and 2 calls. The average time it took to respond to a category 2 call was 51 minutes and 45 seconds�nearly three times slower than the NHS target. This has serious repercussions for people�s health. In every minute that a stroke is left untreated, nearly 2 million brain cells die, and lifesaving treatments such as clot-busting drugs need to be delivered quickly, often within four and a half hours.

I have heard from many constituents across Glastonbury and Somerton who are deeply concerned by the delays in stroke treatment due to ambulance waiting times. These fears are compounded by the planned closure of Yeovil district hospital�s hyper-acute services. The reconfiguration of services will mean that all patients who have suffered a serious life-threatening stroke will be taken to hyper-acute stroke units in Dorchester or Taunton to receive care.

As much as these new cutting-edge services and facilities are welcome in the south-west, the fact remains that if stroke patients or any patient needing emergency treatment gets to hospital too late, the results will be catastrophic without improvements to the ambulance service, and all the best equipment, drugs and treatment by clinicians will have minimal impact on patient outcomes. I have spoken about the impact of these changes on stroke care in this place before. I do not feel it necessary to go into detail again today, suffice to say that ambulance delays only increase the pressure on stroke services. The Liberal Democrats have demanded that localised data on ambulance delays is published, so rural areas like Somerset that are underperforming can receive focused and appropriate support. I would welcome the Minister�s comments on that.

Lengthy delays are made all the worse when we consider the impact of drawn-out handover times, meaning ambulance crews are unable to head back out on to the road to pick up more patients. The Darzi review laid bare just how dire the situation has become. In 2024, around 800 working days each day were lost due to handover delays. Incredibly, that is the full-time equivalent of nearly 14,000 paramedics over a year. In addition, ambulances across England collectively spent 112 years waiting outside hospitals to hand over patients in 2023-24.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I was in my local hospital, Queen�s medical centre in Nottingham, where they are currently trialling 45-minute handovers, to make sure that paramedics get back on the road as quickly as possible, while also making sure that patients are safely handed over into the target speciality care they need. Does the hon. Member welcome that sort of trial, given the challenges she describes?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to that point a little later.

With the stark realities facing people in an emergency and the distressing sight of ambulances backed up at hospitals now commonplace, leaving my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton in despair, it is time to properly address these failures. The NHS standard contract states that handovers between ambulance and emergency departments should be 100% within 60 minutes, 95% within 30 minutes and 65% within 15 minutes, but these targets are left unmet. Between October 2023 and June 2024, 3.7 million handovers took an average of 35 minutes and one second, resulting in over 900,000 hours lost. It is even worse in the south-west. In January 2025, over half the handovers took over 30 minutes, which is nearly 30% higher than the England average.

We in the south-west face specific issues due to our rurality. Analysis by the Liberal Democrats revealed that waits for life-threatening calls were 45% longer in rural areas than in urban areas. The South Western Ambulance Service has responsibility for the provision of ambulance services across 10,000 square miles, covering an incredible 20% of mainland England. Rural regions have a lower capacity to divert ambulances to other hospitals during periods of significant pressure, largely due to the vast distances between emergency departments.

We may now see ambulance teams in Somerset adopt a �drop and go� policy, which involves leaving patients in certain areas in a hospital without an official handover to A&E staff. The nationally defined target for hospitals included in the NHS standard contract states that after 15 minutes of waiting, the patient in the ambulance becomes the responsibility of the hospital. If no formal handover to A&E happens within 45 minutes, the ambulance crews can just leave the patient within the department and get back on the road.

The South West Ambulance Service is moving towards this approach with hospitals from Swindon and Bristol to Cornwall and Plymouth. Although this policy might alleviate some of the pressure on ambulance crews, it would fail to ease the struggles that underfunded and overstretched A&E departments in Somerset are facing. Somerset has an ageing population: within the next decade, one in three people in Glastonbury and Somerton will be 65 or older. That may make it harder to quickly discharge patients, as some may also require onward social care provision. It is inevitable, therefore, that delayed discharge due to internal processes such as waiting for pharmacy diagnostics and therapy assessments, and a lack of capacity in adult social care, will lead to poorer ambulance service performance. The social care crisis has a devastating effect on the healthcare system.

Last year, Care England said that

�over 45% of hospital discharge delays are linked to social care�.

One in seven hospital beds are taken up by people who are medically fit to be discharged. For patients, delayed discharge can lead to an increased risk of hospital infections and the loss of mobility or cognitive function, and can make it harder for them to regain their independence. The problems in the healthcare system will never be fixed unless we urgently address the social care crisis. Only last week, social care providers felt the need to protest against Government inaction for the first time ever.

The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning to fix social care by introducing free personal care based on the model introduced in Scotland, so that provision is based on need, not ability to pay. We also welcome the cross-party commission to forge a long-term agreement on social care, but we believe it can be completed within a year, not three. We cannot afford to kick this can any further down the road, and I urge the Government to listen to the Liberal Democrats� calls.

We also need to solve the hospital bed shortage in the UK. The lack of available beds negatively impacts hospital flow. As a comparison, the OECD EU nations have about five beds per 1,000 people, whereas the UK has only 2.4. The Royal College of Physicians revealed that four out of five doctors were forced to provide corridor care in the past month due to a lack of hospital beds. According to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, bed occupancy is at a staggering 93%. The Liberal Democrats want to bring that down to a safe 85% by increasing the number of staffed hospital beds.

We are waiting for the Government to publish the urgent and emergency care improvement plan soon, along with the 10-year health plan. It is vital that we urgently wrestle with the problems that the Conservatives left behind to ensure the safety of patients. Over the past seven years, the previous Conservative Government were forced to find an average of �376 million of emergency funding each year to tackle the NHS winter crises. Under the Liberal Democrat proposals, a new winter taskforce would instead manage a ringfenced fund of �1.5 billion over the next four years to build resilience in hospital wards, accident and emergency departments, ambulance services and patient discharging. That would allow integrated care boards and NHS trusts to plan their budgets more effectively to prevent winter crises, instead of just receiving emergency funding from the Government at the last minute.

We urgently need to give our healthcare services the ability to forward plan. They must not be forced to deal with crises on the fly as situations unfold. Somerset�s ambulance services, like all services across the country, desperately need and deserve support. Localised data must be published to help pinpoint specific improvements that can be made in rural areas. The Government have outlined their desire to improve urgent and emergency care�they accept that ambulance waiting times are unacceptable�but now is the time to act to achieve those objectives; otherwise, more people will suffer and sadly some lives will be lost. That must be part of a serious rethink about the way we fund social care; otherwise, we will never move towards a solution that works.