Sarah Dyke MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Cocklemoor in Langport is a popular spot for water sports on the River Parrett and it sits right at the heart of the community. I am campaigning for it to be designated as a bathing water site, but in 2025 alone, it was polluted more than 200 times as a direct result of Wessex Water prioritising profits over investment in stopping discharges. Does the hon. Member agree that tackling sewage dumping at official bathing water sites should be prioritised over paying big bonuses to water company bosses?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because I have quite a lot to get through. I recently visited Wessex Water’s constructed wetland at Shapwick Heath in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). At 21 hectares, it is the largest water treatment wetland of its kind in the UK, filtering forever chemicals, phosphates and microplastics from our water, while boosting flood resilience and supporting Somerset’s biodiversity. Wessex Water is currently upgrading its sewage treatment plant, which will remove 170 tonnes of phosphates over the next 10 years. To put that into context, the 18,000 homes across Somerset that are currently stuck in a planning moratorium due to the nutrient neutrality regulations would produce only 3 tonnes of phosphate. That clearly demonstrates what nature-based solutions can bring to the future of water management and nutrient neutrality. Somerset is increasingly exposed to devastating flooding that impacts farmers and homeowners alike. I was really happy to secure £50 million of flood defence funding for Somerset earlier this year, and I welcome Somerset council agreeing to ringfence some of those funds to target nature-based solutions that work in conjunction with hard engineering river maintenance across high-risk catchments, restoring natural hydrology upstream while protecting communities and infrastructure downstream. I am also pleased that a major element of the programme will be the council’s “My Community” programme, empowering local communities with bespoke, bureaucracy-cutting support and creating shared action on the ground. Peatlands like those in the Somerset levels and moors provide vital species habitats, flood alleviation and water filtration, yet across the UK over 80% of peatlands are damaged. Somerset is one of only two counties still extracting peat, with licences to 2042 despite the levels and moors storing an estimated 11 million tonnes of carbon, which is equivalent to 10 years of the county’s emission. My Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill sought to end the sale of peat, building on local efforts that are already under way, with companies such as Durstons near Street and RocketGro growing peat-free compost ranges. I congratulate the Minister on her new role, but I would be grateful for clarity on peat issues. Will there be a dedicated funding scheme for peatland restoration once the nature for climate peatland grant scheme ends next year? Will she go further and provide a timeline on when the Government will seek to end the sale of horticultural peat? Habitat destruction also impacts insect life. For example, the shrill carder bee, which is one of the UK’s rarest bumblebees, has retreated from its historic stronghold on the Somerset levels and moors to a depleting population around Somerton, Castle Cary and Ham Hill. Its numbers have collapsed from around 140 in 2015 to just seven in 2022. Only five of 22 biodiversity indicators show long-term improvement, and 13 are still deteriorating. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s current approach is failing to meet their own Environment Act targets? What new action will change that trajectory? Central to this failure to protect habitats is planning policy. The Government must adopt a strategic spatial approach to planning that protects the UK’s most important places for nature, which would support, not undermine, environmental regulation and champion nature-friendly design in house building and infrastructure from the outset. That is why the Liberal Democrats opposed and voted against Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. If the Government are expecting 75,000 of their 1.5 million homes target to be delivered in Somerset, they must be fit for the future. I visited Bradfords Building Supplies in Glastonbury recently to discuss exactly this: how we make homes resilient to a changing climate, and how we prepare for extreme heat in summer and flooding in winter, including by making sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments. We cannot keep building homes for yesterday’s climate; Government planning policy needs to catch up.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), on securing this important debate, her excellent speech and her continued advocacy on the issue. The Liberal Democrats are committed to delivering a circular economy where value is kept in the system, not thrown away—one that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products and that cuts costs for consumers and businesses, reducing exposure to volatile commodity prices, protecting the environment and creating new economic opportunities. Aluminium is one of the success stories of the circular economy and has an important role to play in this cycle. Aluminium can be recycled indefinitely without quality loss. Cans can be recycled and back on supermarket shelves within 60 days. Some 75% of all the aluminium ever produced is still in use today. Reprocessing aluminium uses 95% less energy and 90% less carbon than primary manufacturing. Aluminium is a critical mineral and recognised as such by both the UK Government and NATO. Reprocessing it domestically protects the broader UK supply chain, supporting defence, construction and green energy infrastructure. However, the supply chain is increasingly vulnerable, with scrap aluminium being exported to Asia and the US, while our domestic reprocessing capacity has fallen. UK and EU reprocessing of UK scrap packaging fell from 83% in 2021 to 68% in 2024. Alupro’s projections show a further decline without policy intervention amid the impact of UK tariffs and instability in the middle east. That is despite UK capacity for reprocessing this material having increased in recent years following multimillion-pound investments. Somerset’s focus on improving recycling rates has been a success. Nearly 150,000 tonnes of waste was collected, with 87,500 tonnes reprocessed here in the UK—over half of it within the county itself. Somerset Waste sends its scrap steel and aluminium to reprocessing facilities within the UK. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills stated in opening this debate, the disparity in local authorities’ recycling arrangements varies widely. Aluminium can be hugely profitable for local authorities. Somerset gains considerable income from its recycled aluminium, while others receive nothing at all. In addition, despite some councils specifically requiring their aluminium to be reprocessed in the UK, it is subsequently discovered that it has been exported to China. With the deposit return scheme due to launch in October 2027, councils stand to lose used aluminium cans, the most valuable material in recycling bins, from kerbside collection altogether. We are going to lose that most important and valuable recycling material, which generates an income for councils when sold as recycling—it is really important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outlined, transparency is really important here and it is much required. A recent poll found that the single factor most damaging public confidence in recycling is the lack of information on what happens to materials after collection. That indicates that greater traceability is not just supported by the public; it could drive higher recycling rates through greater public participation. Local authorities play a vital role in managing waste and reducing pollution, yet too many are being asked to deliver world-class recycling services on a shoestring budget. They must be properly funded and supported to deliver high-quality, consistent recycling services that maximise the value recovered from these materials, not left to patch together a postcode lottery of provision. The Liberal Democrats have been keen to see changes to the waste management system that encourage more recycling. However, with extended producer responsibility live since October 2025 and simpler recycling live since April 2026, local authorities are already having to adapt to a changed landscape. The next major shift will be the deposit return scheme from October 2027. Once most aluminium is no longer collected at the kerbside, local authorities could lose a valuable revenue stream. Furthermore, despite these changes, some residents will inevitably continue to place their aluminium in kerbside bins, so can the Minister confirm whether local authorities will be able to claim that deposit for the aluminium items they continue to collect? Aluminium recycling sits at the intersection of our climate ambitions, our industrial strategy and our local government funding crisis. To conclude, I want to ask the Minister to address three things. Can she confirm how the deposit will be treated for aluminium cans left in kerbside recycling after DRS launches, and will it contribute to the local authority collection costs? Will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ensure that local authorities are properly funded to sustain high-quality recycling services through the transition, given the revenue that it stands to lose? What steps are the Government taking to close the loophole that allows UK-collected aluminium, including aluminium collected from councils with UK-only reprocessing requirements, to end up being processed overseas? I hope the Minister will give me some answers on that today.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a very good point, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Small businesses also suffer from bank closures because they are not able to deposit their takings, transfer money between accounts, manage fraud or get simple advice on opening a business account. This has a large impact on small businesses in rural areas. For local charities, closures can mean the difference between banking the proceeds of a coffee morning and not banking them at all. This also demonstrates the impact of the rural premium that people in rural communities face when living their everyday lives. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton has felt the full consequences of the decline. Many market towns have lost all banking facilities already, and the Lloyds branch in Street is due to close next March. I have collected many signatures from concerned constituents who will be impacted by this change, and I have urged Lloyds—and will continue to do so—to reconsider the decision. I recognise that a community banking hub is expected to begin visiting Street from early 2027, and I welcome that effort to maintain some local presence of banking services, but let us be clear: a fortnightly visit from a community banker is not a substitute for a staffed bank branch. Of course, banking hubs and community bankers do have an important role to play, but they must be integrated as part of the conversation around banking services, rather than being the Government’s answer to it. In addition, the Coventry Building Society branch in Wincanton will close in nine days’ time, leaving the town without any face-to-face banking services. Coventry Building Society has informed its members that they will be able to deposit their cash at their nearest branch in Frome, but that is a 40-mile round trip, so the closure will undoubtedly affect both rural local residents and local businesses, who will now need to make alternative arrangements.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very good point. For people wishing to access banking services in Wincanton only the post office remains, despite the town’s continued growth, with more homes being built. Yet research from the Post Office found that 82% of consumers find it important to be able to access at least one in-person banking service, and the many small local and independent businesses that make Wincanton such a lovely market town will undoubtedly be inconvenienced. In a rural county such as Somerset a significant number of businesses are SMEs: 78% employ fewer than five people. As the Countryside Alliance outlined earlier this year in its submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on access to banking services, cash plays “an important role across much of the rural economy.” Business owners in rural areas are forced to travel further to bank their takings, deposit cash and obtain change. That reduces their productivity, increases fuel costs and adds to their administrative burden when they already operate on tight margins. SMEs, on average, deposit cash twice per month, but rural businesses may now postpone cashing in until they have more to deposit in order to avoid additional travel. However, that makes them more vulnerable to a growing rural crime epidemic. The total cost of rural crime in 2025 was estimated by the National Farmers Union Mutual to be £41.5 million, and increasingly sophisticated and organised gangs are operating in rural areas. If rural economies are to thrive it is vital that rural businesses are not put at a disadvantage simply due to their location. That is why Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would require the Treasury to assess alternative frameworks, including the post office banking framework, for providing access to banking and cash services. In many rural areas the post office network has become a lifeline. It is often the only local place to make cash withdrawals, deposits, and everyday banking transactions. During the summer recess I was delighted to support the reopening of two post offices in my constituency. Henstridge post office recently opened after local residents Lesley and Andy Scard and their neighbours Barry and Helen Howlett worked tirelessly to reopen the much-missed and much-needed community shop and post office. In Somerton the long-awaited post office has also returned, based inside the Stationery House, after Malcolm Adams stepped up and refurbished part of his shop to accommodate it. However, many local post offices are still under threat and we have seen closures recently in Butleigh and Charlton Adam. Following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must commit to rural-proofing the post office and look at ways in which the post office can drive wider access to banking as part of the Treasury’s ongoing access to banking services review. Without adequate investment post offices cannot replace bank branches. Will the Minister commit to properly rural-proof the post office network so that postmasters are adequately resourced to take on the increased demand for local banking, rather than forced to absorb the cost when they are providing such a vital service? The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a fair banking Act to tackle financial exclusion. We have committed to the introduction of a national financial inclusion strategy that would require both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard for financial inclusion, such as by protecting access to cash in remote areas and supporting banking hubs. Of course, the impact of bank closures is compounded by a deeper problem of digital exclusion. Across the country 1.7 million households have no broadband or mobile internet at home, around 2.4 million people cannot complete a single basic online task such as opening an internet browser, and over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital tasks at work. Basic digital skills are set to become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. With the cost of living still biting, up to 1 million people have cut back or cancelled their internet packages altogether in the past year, while banks push them to access services online. In rural Somerset, patchy mobile signal and frustratingly slow broadband are not just an inconvenience; they are the difference between banking and not banking at all. Older and disabled residents, and those with visual impairments, are too often advised to download an app as if that were an appropriate solution; instead, it simply causes a further barrier. Rural communities are not asking for special treatment or to be treated differently. They ask for a fair formula so that they are not left behind. Face-to-face banking, a functioning post office network and reliable connectivity are not luxuries; they are part of the basic infrastructure of rural life. Will the Minister commit to rural-proof banking policy and to bring forward without further delay a national financial inclusion strategy that genuinely supports rural communities? Unreliable access to face-to-face banking stymies economic growth and drives people and businesses out of rural communities. Somerset cannot wait, and neither can rural Britain.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  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.