Horse and Rider Road Safety

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dillon]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Dowd. I will move on.

I want to talk about some excellent examples of best practice that are already in place. In Leicestershire and Rutland, the rural policing team, alongside Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, have been delivering the “Virtual Insanity Experience” through the Hazard Express van. That involves a mounted volunteer riding on a bike, and if drivers pass dangerously, they are invited to experience that situation through VR headsets. The scheme is focused on education, not punishment, and it could be rolled out nationally for people coming across horses so that motorists understand the experience of a horse rider when a vehicle passes too quickly or closely. I urge the Minister to look at the wider adoption of that scheme.

Before Christmas, the Minister raised the Government’s desire to re-publicise the 2022 highway code changes. Despite £2.4 million being spent on advertising, a YouGov poll in January 2023 found that 25% of adults were unaware of those changes. Mary from south Derbyshire told me:

“The Highway Code revisions made in January 2022 have not really enhanced our safety when using the roads.”

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

Given the lack of knowledge about the changes to the highway code, Somerset council has a road safety initiative that offers training to riders and drivers. Would my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Somerset council on its position and on the training it is providing to make our roads safer?

[Mr Dillon]

I do add my congratulations to the council. This debate pulls out the local innovations that are taking place, which the Government can hopefully consider rolling out to a national platform.

I am conscious of time and of other hon. Members who wish to contribute, but it is important to thank the BHS, the British Horseracing Authority, Project EDWARD, the Blue Cross, Brake and the hundreds of people from across the country who have written to me in support of this debate. I urge the Minister to ensure that horses, riders, carriage drivers and all equestrian users are fully included in the Government’s road safety ambitions, not just in principle, but in practice. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points raised, and commit to taking this work forward.

Clause 1

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge]

I will not.

Our farmers have been battered by Brexit, with their incomes and standards of living falling drastically since 2016. Crop yields have been impacted by flooding, and trade deals agreed by the Conservatives sold them down the river. Those 14 years of Conservative government were just as bad for my farmers as they were for the rest of us. I am afraid that I am not particularly inclined to take criticism from the Opposition Benches. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are against taxing the largest estates. They are saying that estates that are worth more than £2.5 million, or £5 million—[Interruption.] I have listened closely to the debate, and I am confident in my quoting of what has been said by Opposition Members. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his chuntering from a seated position.

I grew up in a tiny village in Cumbria. With the surrounding farms, it numbered about 300 people. We had no shop, and there was one bus to Carlisle a week. We did have two pubs—we knew how to have a good time. I will take no lectures from Opposition Members about what country life is really about, and I certainly will take no lectures from the wealthy Reform MPs—they are not in the Chamber now and have taken no part in the debate—who seem to enjoy cosplaying as country folk, in a display of what I think is patronising political opportunism. We need to ensure that there is fairness in our inheritance tax system, which is why I urge all Members to support clause 62 and schedule 12.

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

Clause 62 shows that this Labour Government simply do not understand farming communities. Persevering with an ill-thought-through family farm tax that treats business assets as personal wealth, even with the recent concession, will continue to harm investment in food security and rural growth. At the very least, it should be paused entirely until the publication of an independent impact assessment identifying the true extent of the changes to farming livelihoods. I therefore support amendments 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, the combination of which would ensure that the full inheritance tax relief remained in place for family farms.

It is time that the farming sector moved away from survival mode to become a thriving industry once more, but, against a background of huge cost pressures, farmers are being asked to do more with less. They face input costs that are 30% higher this year than they were in 2020, while the £2.4 billion farming budget has barely changed since 2007. That alone has presented difficult business conditions, but in addition, during 2025 farmers were forced into making plans towards a gloomy future surrounded by all the family farm tax uncertainties. As a result, many have delayed making any investment in their businesses. Farmers such as those in Glastonbury and Somerton are the catalysts of growth in rural areas, but they now need confidence to make the investments that they have put off after 14 months of angst and frustration.

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for her determined and dedicated advocacy on behalf of the farming community, especially around mental health. Although my farmers and I welcome this U-turn, I wonder how much damage has been done, not just to the farming sector directly but to the many businesses that surround the farming sector—the suppliers of equipment, grain and so on. I wonder how much damage has been done to the economy of our country, and how many irrevocable decisions have been made about the future by farmers and others in the farming industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must get it right this time around?

[Sarah Dyke]

Absolutely. There is no doubt that the agricultural supply chain has been affected by the torrid 14 months of uncertainty caused by the family farm tax. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor speak consistently of growth, but their damaging policies have crippled family farms. Some 49% of farm businesses have paused or cancelled investment, 10% have downsized their operations, and 21% intend to do so before April this year.

Our farmers pride themselves on being resilient and getting on with the job, but the long-awaited and delayed Batters farming profitability review summed up the impact of the family farm tax well: it stated that the sector was “bewildered and frightened”. Following the Government’s last-minute concession, I am pleased that some farmers—such as David, who farms in Compton Dundon in Glastonbury and Somerton—are now fully exempt, but this comes after more than a year of sleepless nights, and we know that David is not alone. If the reforms are expected to raise only around £500 million a year, why have the Government been so willing to impose this level of disruption and uncertainty on family farms for a relatively small return to the Exchequer?

The Government’s whole attitude toward family farming communities has been hugely disappointing, to say the least. At the end of last week, after months of silence, we finally heard the details of the 2026 sustainable farming incentive, but despite this announcement, England is still on course to be an outlier in Europe, because English farmers will not receive any direct support in fulfilling their primary mission and motivation, which is to produce food. After being taken for granted and ignored by the Conservatives for so long, it is no wonder that half of British farmers have little confidence in this Government’s vision for farming, and many do not believe that this Government take food security seriously at all.

I want to be clear that although the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this concession, and although raising the thresholds will go some way towards mitigating the devastating impacts on the industry, this does not negate the year of stress and anxiety that farmers have endured, and many will still be hit by this tax. Many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the constituency, run their businesses in multi-generational partnerships or extended family partnerships. It is totally outdated that this Government believe that farm businesses are managed by married couples. So many businesses will not benefit from the combined spousal allowance of up to £5 million, and it seems grossly unfair that if two farms are valued the same, one could be free of IHT, while the other could be landed with a huge tax burden.

Additionally, although the anti-forestalling rules remain in place, they deny those over 65, or anyone who dies within seven years of making a transfer, the ability to manage their tax affairs in a sensible way. The rules also put a massive burden on those who are over 75. The Liberal Democrats are clear that this is an unfair measure, which is why we have proposed new clause 7. It would ensure that a review of the provisions takes place.

Although the Environment Secretary has declared that there will be no more changes to the family farm tax, I hope that the Government have recognised the scale of the damage that they have done to British agriculture. British farmers produce a public good; they are the linchpins of our country’s food security and therefore our national security. In an ever more volatile world, this is more important than ever. This Government must not let British farmers down again.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)]

I rise to speak in favour of Government amendment 24 and the associated amendments that will increase the 100% allowance cap for agricultural property relief from £1 million to £2.5 million. In December, I believe I closed my last speech on this issue with a plea for the Government to listen to my more reasonable rural colleagues and to change course. I said that it was not too late. It was a plea, but for many of my constituents it was a prayer, and much to the relief of many farmers, it was a prayer answered on 23 December.

It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for seeing sense, as it would be not to thank the Members from across the House who have raised this issue consistently over the last year. While this amendment falls short of the full U-turn I would have preferred, today I will vote with the many rural Labour MPs who lobbied Ministers for many months to see this change. They may not have joined me in the No Lobby to vote against Budget resolution 50, but I have no doubt that we would not have seen a change of course without what I believe the Government have called their “constructive engagement”. I know what many of them did, and I hope in time that their constituents and their farmers know what they did, too.

I regret being placed in a position where I voted against the Government, but not to do so would have broken a promise. However, I believe the Government had more than ample time to reconsider this policy. To see colleagues whipped to vote for the measure days before the Government proposed amendments that some colleagues had called for over a year ago caused unnecessary pain. On that, I hope lessons are learned. Now, Whip or no Whip, I look forward to supporting this Government in their important task of helping all working people thrive.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to listen to, and engage with, the over 150 Labour MPs who represent rural and semi-rural constituencies.

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

It really should not have taken over a year for the pleas of thousands of farmers to be heard, and for the Government to finally concede their mistake and change the disastrous family farm tax. However, it is clear that they still simply do not understand the industry. Many farms in Glastonbury and Somerton are run by multi-generational family partnerships, rather than married couples. Those businesses will not benefit from the combined spousal allowance of up to £5 million, so will the Chancellor finally give up and completely leave farmers alone to get on with what they do best: producing food for the nation?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We think that continuing to raise around £300 million from this policy is the right thing to do, so that—alongside the other changes that the Government are making—we can raise revenue in a fair and sustainable way to fund our public services.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

At last year’s autumn Budget, the Chancellor claimed that 75% of farms would be unaffected by agricultural property relief and business property relief, a figure that has been widely disputed. This year there is yet more confusion over the figures, with the Chancellor implying that public finances were significantly worse than the OBR assessment suggested. After years of being ignored and taken for granted by the Conservatives, how can rural businesses have confidence in this Government’s economic strategy if key figures are inaccurate or misrepresented?

[James Murray]

I have taken part in a number of debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall on the changes to APR and BPR that the Government introduced at the Budget last year. We have debated the figures extensively. Some of the difference in people’s figures stems from the fact that we are talking about estates, which is the right measure when we are talking about inheritance tax, rather than the value of farms themselves. I also hope that the hon. Lady will have seen the change we made to the system at this Budget through the spousal transfer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the report by CenTax entitled, “The Impact of Changes to Inheritance Tax on Farm Estates” published on 14 August 2025.

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

10. If she will hold discussions with farming representatives on the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

20. If she will hold discussions with farming representatives on the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he is a strong advocate in this place for his constituency and for farming communities. Just last week, he made the point to me that our farmers and farming communities are crucial to economic and social and cultural life. Along with other Labour colleagues from rural constituencies, he has been working hard to raise the points that matter to farmers, and this Government are doing all we can to support our farming industry.

On the specific point about CenTax’s proposals on minimum share, I do not need to direct officials to look at them, because I have read the proposals. It is worth noting that the number of losers from the proposed policy would be more than double the number of people affected by the changes that this Government are making. Over 1,000 estates would be affected by the proposals put forward by CenTax.

[Sarah Dyke]

A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request revealed that the Treasury recently had plans to review the family farm tax. Farmers across the country are fed up with bickering and infighting from a Government who just do not understand them, but there is still time to act and end months of confusion and misery. Will the Chancellor and her Ministers meet farmers from Glastonbury and Somerton, and me, to provide some clarity and reveal the full extent of the Government’s discussions on revoking this damaging family farm tax?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Just a few weeks ago, I met farmers to discuss this and other important issues. The Government believe that even though this tax is a difficult change—I do not shy away from that fact—it is the right change to make, because it is a method of raising revenue in a fair way that helps contribute to restoring the public finances.

Community Helipads: Rural Access

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr MacDonald]

The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, as usual. I have met all the interested parties, apart from the Health and Safety Executive, which we will come back to. The CAA has made it clear that the new guidance does not prevent Bristow helicopters from landing in Portree. Its guidance is non-mandatory. In any case, helicopter operators can land anywhere if they carry out what is known as a dynamic risk assessment, a real-time safety judgment that allows them to land wherever conditions permit and it is deemed necessary to do so.

One would think that clarification was a cover-all, but the Health and Safety Executive’s rules have led to an overly heavy-handed approach. It now treats every landing site as a shared workplace—those are the key words. It is piling on paperwork and bureaucracy. By contrast, a boggy hillside or the King George V play area in Portree are not shared workplaces, so Bristow can land at such sites. That is ridiculous; Bristow is not allowed to use a helipad, but it is allowed to land in a play area, which it does occasionally.

I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a problem of health and safety over-regulation. The coastguard, Bristow Helicopters, the CAA and the Department of Transport all have a responsibility to make sure that whatever actions they take in the name of health and safety do not hinder helipad sites. I know that the CAA does not wish for its guidance to close helipads; that is why it did not make its guidance mandatory. That was also the sentiment of the family of the Derriford victim, who agreed that they did not want the CAA’s guidance to negatively impact helicopters’ being able to land and pick up people.

I have a brief anecdote, which is true—a real incident in Portree recently. A woman was suffering from a suspected heart attack. An ambulance was called and took her to the bit of land adjacent to the helipad. The ambulance crew could not get a wheelchair or stretcher to take her to the helicopter. Instead, despite thinking that she was having a heart attack, she had to walk across the boggy ground to get to the helicopter. She could have taken the ambulance right to the helipad, but that was not available, so she had to walk across a very rough bit of ground—I have done that walk myself. One could not make it up.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. South Western Ambulance Service covers 10,000 square miles. However, due to the large rural areas in the region—different from, but similar to those in his constituency—the response times are three times slower than the NHS target. Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, which is based in Henstridge in my constituency, provides a vital service to support the ambulance service. They carry out 3,000 missions a year, covering the isolated rural and coastal areas where demand is highest. Does he recognise, as I do, the importance of helipads in rural areas, which enable the air ambulance crews to get to isolated areas, so that they can provide exceptional care and get severely injured patients to hospitals within the crucial golden hour after an incident?

[Mr MacDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I do not think that many people in urban Britain know how important the ambulance services are to remote and rural areas, so her point is bang-on.

Had that lady in Portree had a heart attack while walking to that helicopter, would we not all be shouting at the Health and Safety Executive, asking, “Why wouldn’t you allow the use of the purpose-built helipad?” We would all be saying that. We would have had another Derriford-type inquiry, because a helicopter landed on a boggy hillside rather than on the perfect helipad on the other side of the fence.

I hope that I have articulated the reason behind my application for this debate, which was to shine a light on what I consider to be a bewildering anomaly of over-regulation. I have great respect for the CAA, the coastguard, Bristow and the Department for Transport, all of which have been incredibly responsible and helpful. However, I ask the Minister to meet me in person to discuss in more detail the issue that I have raised today, so that, hopefully, we can move to a position where it is resolved once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I offer my congratulations and thanks to the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for bringing this debate to the House and allowing what has been a very useful discussion.

I begin by acknowledging the vital role played by air ambulances and search-and-rescue helicopters in saving lives. Across the United Kingdom there are 21 air ambulance charities, covering all regions of the country by air and also, often, by land in rapid response vehicles. In Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service, funded by the Scottish Government, helps to convey patients to hospital from some of the most remote areas of the United Kingdom. Some of those areas are represented here this morning.

As the hon. Member highlighted from his own family’s experiences—I hope his wife is recovering—these dedicated teams serve communities across the UK day and night and often in really challenging conditions, providing lifesaving care when it is needed most and delivering patients directly to major trauma centres and other specialist medical facilities. It is not only air ambulances that save lives. Bristow Helicopters operates a dedicated fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters on behalf of His Majesty’s Coastguard. From 10 bases, stretching from Newquay in the south-west to Sumburgh in the Shetland Islands, these crews stand ready to respond in order to save lives at sea and on land. When capacity allows, they also support the NHS to ensure that patients receive lifesaving care when air ambulances are unable to operate—for example, in particularly bad weather. I thank all members of our air ambulance and search-and-rescue teams for their continuing commitment to saving lives.

In more remote regions, such as the highlands and islands of Scotland, air ambulance aircraft play a crucial role in transferring patients from smaller hospitals to specialist centres. These operations may be supported by HM Coastguard search-and-rescue air assets when capacity allows and when air ambulances are unavailable or where conditions are beyond the capabilities of smaller air ambulances. Working hand in hand with NHS colleagues, these teams ensure that patients receive the highest standards of care swiftly and efficiently, no matter the distance or challenge.

However, this vital service depends on the availability of helicopter landing sites that helicopter operators are able and willing to use. These landing sites range from helipads and airfields to community spaces, playing fields and car parks, most of which require patients to be transported to and from them by land ambulance. Currently, the CAA does not formally regulate any of these helipads or landing sites. Although the CAA has best practice guidance—as the hon. Member highlighted—for hospital helipads, known as CAP 1264, it is not mandatory guidance. Helicopter operators can face unique challenges at these sites, including questions about legal responsibility for site safety and ensuring that there are no obstructions or bystanders who could be harmed by the powerful winds or downdraughts generated by a helicopter landing or taking off. As the hon. Member set out, that was made evident in 2022, when the downdraught produced by a search-and-rescue helicopter fatally injured one bystander, and seriously injured another, while it was arriving at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.

Following that incident, HM Coastguard helicopters took the decision that they will transfer patients using helipads only where there is clear responsibility and accountability for safety at the site, as well as a helicopter operations manual that manages known risks. When those safety requirements are satisfied, ultimately it is still the decision of the pilot in command of a helicopter to make a dynamic risk assessment of landing at a particular site, based on the company’s standard operating procedures, safety management systems, weather conditions, and the situation on the ground on the day—these are professionals who can make such judgments.

The Department for Transport continues to work with NHS Scotland, His Majesty’s Coastguard and helicopter operators to encourage all parties to work together to ensure safety at landing sites. I completely understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire on behalf of his constituent; he described the situation where his constituent had to be transported to a boggy field rather than a helipad. I understand why he has asked about the role of the Health and Safety Executive, which is investigating the Derriford situation.

It would not be right for me to comment on or seek to intervene in a live investigation—the HSE is not responsible to the Department for Transport in any case—but my officials are working closely with the coastguard, the CAA, the NHS, and HEMS operators, as well as consulting with HSE to understand the concerns and ensure that operators can continue to fly into hospital helipads safely. But the decision about whether to land at any particular site is always at the discretion of the pilot in command.

As the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire set out, at the moment coastguard helicopters are not landing at Portree because they will only land at sites where they know who is responsible and accountable for safety, and where there is a helicopter operations manual to help ensure safe operations. If someone from Portree and Braes Community Trust or NHS Scotland is willing to take responsibility for the site and produce a helicopter operations manual, the coastguard and the helicopter operator will consider landing at the site. I appreciate that this sounds like a huge undertaking, but it is worth saying that the site at Portree is not wholly dissimilar to the site at Arran, where the helicopter operating manual, which sounds like it might be a weighty tome, is only four pages long. It sets out a responsible person and the operations. The manuals can be 60 pages long—it depends on the complexity of the site and how busy it is. There is potentially a way forward, and the hon. Member knows that the Department will work with him and others to help find a solution.

The Government recognise the crucial role that helicopter landing sites in rural areas, especially in the far north of Scotland, play in ensuring that local residents and visitors can access the highest possible standards of healthcare in an emergency. We are also cognisant of the potential risks to bystanders, ground staff and aircraft crew and patients when such sites are not properly managed and lack sufficient oversight.

Since the Derriford incident, the Government have taken on a collaborative role with the blue-light aviation sector, and we remain committed to working together with all parties as one team to explore solutions that are capable of both advancing safety and safeguarding the provision of this lifeline service. I am sure that the Department and ministerial colleagues will be happy to work with the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire to look at the detail of this particular case and see if we can assist.

[Sarah Dyke]

I also want to celebrate and thank all ambulance crews, as well as everybody working in the NHS, for the brilliant work they do providing this service. Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Since its first mission in 2000, the team has responded to 29,000 missions—an average of eight missions a day— and each mission costs around £3,500.

As well as celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, does the Minister recognise the vital service our air ambulances provide, as well as the work they do to provide rural services? Will she help me to secure and protect those services for the future?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the work of Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance. I add my congratulations on their 25-year anniversary. It is clear that they have made a huge impact not just on the local community, but for the many visitors to that area. I am sure we all want to see the continuation of these vital services, which matter to so many people across this country and share a commitment to work together, where there are any issues, to ensure those services can continue. I have enjoyed today’s debate, and look forward to continuing these discussions on another occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Property Taxes

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper]

Again, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I recall—as I am sure he does—that in the previous Parliament, we Liberal Democrats tabled a number of amendments to legislation introduced by the Conservatives, to try to make that happen. Unfortunately, those amendments were not accepted by the now official Opposition.

In principle, a land value tax could help address land banking. All of us in this House say that we want to build on brownfield first, but of course, part of the problem is that big developers can land bank. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly tried to table amendments to ensure that local authorities could buy that land at land value, rather than hope value. In principle, there are some merits to at least considering a land value tax, but the devil will be in the detail. If the Government bring forward any such proposals, we will scrutinise them closely.

There are a couple of major omissions from the official Opposition’s motion, one of which—as I have already outlined—is business rates. Business rates are a property tax facing small businesses, and the business rates system is broken. We have heard repeated promises, both from the previous Government and this one, that business rates will be fixed, so it is incredibly disappointing that as yet, we have not seen an ambition to replace the business rates system. Instead, we have seen tinkering around the edges, and the Government’s proposals will potentially make business rates a little bit worse, particularly as they will target hospitality. There is another major omission: the motion should refer to giving local authorities real power to regulate the location and number of short-term lets, particularly in the south-west and Cumbria, but also in many other areas.

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

Queen Camel Community Land Trust is working to create much-needed homes in south Somerset, but it is often hampered by lack of access to finance and an outdated planning system. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should focus on community-led development to deliver the affordable homes that are so greatly needed—homes that communities want, and will appreciate?

[Daisy Cooper]

I agree. We are discussing property taxation, but of course, taxation on its own without a broader vision for property may well lead us towards the kind of fiasco we had with the jobs tax. There absolutely should be a community-led planning system, rather than the top-down planning system we had under the previous Government, and have under this one, too.

In my constituency of St Albans, Airbnbs are a real problem. A previous Conservative Housing Secretary gave approval for offices to be turned into blocks of flats, but local authorities were given no power to control how that happened. That means that many young people who get a job in my constituency cannot afford to take it up unless they live with mum and dad. They cannot even afford to rent a place, let alone get on the housing ladder. It is absolutely essential that the Government not only come forward with a registration scheme for short-term rentals, but give local authorities real power to regulate the number and location of Airbnbs, so that we can get the balance right between tourism and homes for young people and others who want to live where they work.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the trade deals that this Government have entered into with the United States, India and the European Union, with whom we got a great deal, especially on food and drink imports and exports, which will result in lower prices on the shelves of our supermarkets across the country. As my hon. Friend knows, we have committed to an annual summit with our counterparts in the European Union, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will set out further detail on those negotiations in due course.

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

George is the fifth-generation owner of Knight’s fish and chip shop in Glastonbury. It is a much-loved business in the town, but it is under severe pressure after the NICs increases and business rates and some of the decisions made by Ministers on our economy. Hiking national insurance hurts our small businesses and economic growth. So will the Minister back small businesses by overhauling business rates and scrapping the NICs hike?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady will know that when the changes in national insurances contributions for employers were implemented, the scheme was designed so as to protect smaller businesses, in relation to bigger business. She points to our fish and chip shops, which are often beloved in all our communities. I know from fish and chip shops in my own constituency that the price of fish, for example, has gone from about £100 to £300 a box. The price of oil has gone up following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even the price of potatoes has gone up, often because those products are imported from the European Union into the UK. That is why our trade deal on food and drink with the EU as well as our investment into cheaper renewable energy will make a big difference to fish and chip shops such as the one that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

As we set out at the spring statement, we are looking at the balance between investments in cash and investments in stocks and shares in ISAs. We want to get that balance right. We understand the importance of a rainy day buffer in cash, but we need to give people the confidence to invest. That is a win-win: it is a win for them and a win for British companies listed on our stock exchange.

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

Jackie from Street suffers with Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and mental health issues. She worked for most of her life until ill health made it impossible. Under the reforms, she will lose her entitlement to personal independence payment and employment and support allowance, plunging her into poverty. Can the Chancellor give Jackie the reassurance she needs that she will not be left in poverty?

[Rachel Reeves]

Yes, I can absolutely give my assurance to Jackie, and to other people who are currently claiming PIP, that they will see absolutely no change in their entitlement. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced to the Chamber yesterday: everybody who is currently on those benefits will see no change whatever. The Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people and those who represent them, will build a new system for the future.

Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses.

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am deeply privileged to have secured this debate.

When we think about the communities that we represent, we so often think about the centre of those communities—the town, village or city centres that truly define the communities that are our constituencies. That is certainly no different in my constituency. Even in some of the very small villages such as Salt or Great Chatwell, the main centre is sometimes the pub, which is the hive of community interest—I would recommend any of the pubs in my constituency to the Minister, if ever he wanted to visit them. They bring the community together. The larger towns and villages, such as Stone, Great Wyrley, Cheslyn Hay or Penkridge, have thriving high streets and centres that are vital for the people who live there. Centres give towns density and, critically, create employment for so many people in my constituency and all our constituencies.

The Government’s changes to business rates relief have already had a significant impact on so many businesses, not just in my constituency but right across Staffordshire, the west midlands and England itself. The change in relief, which was 75% but has been reduced to 40%, has had a material impact on the way that people run their businesses.

We are all aware that the initial rates relief was introduced at the height of the pandemic to help businesses. However, businesses, especially on our high streets, have taken time to recover from the pandemic, which saw a shift in the way that many people buy their goods, in people’s shopping habits and in the way that we use our town, city and village centres. The rates relief was vital to so many businesses, shops, pubs, hotels and people in adjusting to the new reality that they found themselves living in.

In my constituency, the hospitality industry contributes £70 million in gross value added and employs just short of 3,000 people. If it was a single employer, we would be talking about it all the time, but of course it is not one employer—it is many small family businesses. They may be individuals employing two or three people. They may be limited companies, although often they will be sole traders or partnerships. They are the backbone of England and of our economy, and they are feeling the pain of the changes that the Government introduced.

Many people in my constituency and across the country listened when Labour said, in opposition, that relief would be coming and that there would be changes, but they were not expecting those changes to cost them more money. Let us look at the analysis of the impact on a typical shop in terms of business rates. A typical shop has seen its bill climb from £3,589 to £8,613. For a typical restaurant, the bill has climbed from an average of £5,051 to £12,122. I appreciate that, in the Treasury’s view, those are not even rounding errors—they are not something that it should be concerned about or even think about—but for a business or an individual trying to work out how they will pay their employees’ wages, order in more stock or pay themselves a wage that month, that really matters. It impacts those who are in business and dampens the aspirations of those who wish to start one.

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

April’s retail, hospitality and leisure relief reduction left Samantha, a shopkeeper from Langport in my constituency, with a £2,000 business rates bill, on top of a £5,000 bill, despite the fact that she was potentially eligible for exemption. She consequently faces losing her shop. When I spoke to her recently, she told me that the system has ended her livelihood. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to reform rates and exemptions to boost local high streets’ viability?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need reform. Such closures affect her constituent and many others, but these are not just businesses; they are someone’s hopes, dreams and aspirations to create something better and build a better life for themselves and other people. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 125 pubs have already closed since 1 April. That is 125 communities that have lost something that they may never get back. It is 125 families—and many more, if we take into account the families of the many people working in those pubs—who have seen their livelihoods disappear.

We cannot just dismiss this problem. I thank the Chamber engagement team, which, in preparation for this debate, did a number of surveys asking for the views of people from across the country about the impact of business rates on their businesses. It is interesting to hear those stories. Lorraine, who has a hospitality business, said:

“It is time our industry had some real help. We had nothing left to give. I predict even more closures in the next two years.”

Karen, who runs a salon and health club, said:

“The rates are more than my rent and with the wage increases and massive hike in rates, I can’t survive. I’m on borrowed time.”

This is about not just those people, but the many people they employ. Rachel, who has a beauty salon, said:

“I used to employ 18 people and now only employ four, so it’s effectively made me shrink the business.”

James, who runs a hospitality business, said:

“The reduction in relief has led me to reduce my workforce by 33%.”

There are business out there that last year were perhaps thinking about expanding—maybe taking on another pub or opening another shop—but that is no longer viable. Most business owners—who, like the people employed, are working people—are the last ones to get paid. They take the risk, and the Government do not seem to want to encourage them, let them grow or give them the opportunity to succeed. They just make it harder.

This issue is not just about businesses; it is also about communities. Although there can be no finer high streets than the ones in my constituency—[Interruption.] Now we are getting into a real debate, but I will stand firm. However, there is nothing sadder than seeing an empty shop that was previously occupied. That is not just about the demise of a particular business; it brings down the whole high street.

We see so many businesses being impacted in multiple ways. We see the impact of the changes in business rate relief; we see the impact of the changes in national insurance, and not just in terms of the rate but in terms of when it starts to get paid; and we see the cumulative impact of changes to employment law. We want businesses to take on people and to make it as easy as possible for them to take on new starters. Sadly, it is becoming harder and harder for them to do so.

The reality is that young people are some of the most impacted. Almost half of those working in hospitality in my constituency are aged between 16 and 24. I appreciate that the Government may take the view that their jobs are not important ones and that they will go on to something else, but I think that it is vital that we provide opportunities for young people at the start of their careers. Hospitality and retail are vital for that, whether the jobs are full time or part time. The impact of the changes to rate relief means that fewer young people are in a position where they can get the jobs they need to get on in life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I congratulate him on coming from the glorious county of Somerset, where our Liberal Democrat colleagues have had to pick up the pieces after the disastrous Conservative-run council effectively ran it into the ground for many years.

[Sarah Dyke]

As my hon. Friend alluded to, the previous Conservative administration in Somerset was a disaster; indeed, it oversaw an irresponsible record six-year freeze on council tax. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrats in Somerset are now delivering a successfully run administration after a very difficult run of Conservative irresponsibility?

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend makes some very powerful points. In my experience, the Conservatives in county councils are more interested in painting the grass greener than in actually getting on and sorting out people’s services.

Back to the main point, we need to be reimagining our town centres. In my constituency of Torbay, a Merlin cinema has appeared where there used to be a department store, and there is an NHS diagnostic offer in our town centre. That reimagining of what the town centre should be about is essential. We have also seen a really popular new pool hall appear in the last few weeks. That is what we need to do to our town centres. Will the Minister do the right thing and undertake a root-and-branch reform of the system to drive the positive change that we want to see?

A couple of businesses have told me about their challenges. A photographer says that he sees no benefit in the doubling of the rates and has had to let a member of staff go due to the national insurance hike. Another business—a gaming café particularly for the LGBTQ community—told me that it is really challenged and is on a knife edge due to the business rates increase; it remains extremely worried.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a commercial land value levy, which would ensure that we look at the value of the land rather than what is developed on the site. That would lead to a major rebalancing across the United Kingdom and significantly reduce land values in some of our more deprived communities, such as mine in Torbay, driving the productivity and regeneration in our town centres that we desperately need. The only saviour for the Labour Government would be growth in the economy, because that would get us out of the rut that we are in.

I would welcome any assurances the Minister can give us that we will have a root-and-branch reform of the system, rather than tinkering. An element of the Government’s scheme is a cap of £100,000 on what chains pay, and I fear that the books will be balanced on the backs of the poorer independents in our town centres.