PETITIONS
Debate between Sarah Dyke and Neil Duncan-Jordan
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition on the River Brue and water regulation, following 203 sewage dumping events last year, which lasted 2,716 hours. I also mention the work done by groups such as BrueCREW, Somerset Wildlife Trust and Somerset Eel Recovery Project, which have campaigned to improve the river’s health. The petition declares
“that the River Brue is a valued ecological area that supports local trout, eel and other fish populations.”
The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to take further action to save the River Brue catchment, starting with replacing Ofwat with a stronger unified regulator, and enforcing full transparency on sewage discharges.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that the River Brue is a valued ecological area that supports local trout, eel and other fish populations; further declares that the River Brue was polluted by sewage 203 times in 2025 lasting 2,716 hours; further notes with concern the high phosphate levels in the Brue; further notes the work done by groups such as the Brue Crew, Somerset Wildlife Trust and the Somerset Eel Recovery Project to campaign for the River Brue’s health; further notes the use of the River Brue for recreational use and wild swimming; further declares that the Government should replace Ofwat with a stronger unified regulator; further declares that there should be full transparency on sewage discharges including mandatory reporting of volume as well as duration; further declares that there should be a shift to public benefit models for water companies that are mutually owned by customers and professionally managed to ensure profits are reinvested into infrastructure; and further declares that action should be taken to close loopholes that allow water company executives to avoid bonus restrictions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take further action to save the River Brue catchment, starting with replacing Ofwat with a stronger unified regulator, and enforcing full transparency on sewage discharges.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003189]
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition in support of my constituents in Poole who are opposed to the threatened closure of Hamworthy fire station. This petition sits alongside an online campaign led by the Fire Brigades Union, signed by over 16,700 people, and relates to wider proposed closures across Dorset and Wiltshire of eight stations, which risk longer response times for residents and more dangerous conditions for firefighters. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to find a solution that will prevent the closure of Hamworthy fire station.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Hamworthy Fire Station provides essential emergency cover not only for Hamworthy, but also for Upton, Lytchett Minster, Turlin Moor and the wider Poole area; and further declares that Hamworthy Fire station must remain open to support the local community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to withdraw Hamworthy Fire Station from the closure consultation and to abandon any proposal to close it.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003190]
Disabled People in Poverty
Debate between Sarah Dyke and Neil Duncan-Jordan(10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, I agree, and later I will talk about disabled people and how employment may be a route out of poverty.
Any losses through changes to benefits will overwhelmingly fall on those who are already the poorest in our society. The Government are right that the social security system is in need of reform, but benefits are far from generous, and they often fail to cover the essentials of living. The process of claiming support can also be extremely complicated and confusing, and that often leads to individuals incorrectly filling in the forms or finding the process too difficult to even start. The assessment process, which is outsourced to five private companies, can be slow and is often open to appeal.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My constituent in Langport, Samantha, is a recipient of personal independence payment. She had treatment for endometritis and is struggling with cancer. Her PIP review was submitted in 2024. It comprised 100 pages of evidence—an onerous process that took six weeks to complete—and she is still awaiting a decision. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise my concern that the Government’s intention to make what is already a burdensome process more challenging will discriminate against the most vulnerable in our society?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
All the things I described need to be addressed, but the fear among disabled people is that the changes outlined in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, which may or may not find their way into the Bill, amount to piling more cuts on to an already broken system.