Horse and Rider Road Safety

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I beg to move, 

That this House has considered horse and rider road safety. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate and grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that has, for far too long, not received the attention it deserves. It is a timely debate as well, because just last week the Government published its new road safety strategy, stating that

“every individual deserves to feel safe and supported”

on our roads. Unfortunately, for many horse riders across the country, that aspiration does not reflect their lived reality. While the Government’s strategy does reference horse riders in some places, alongside other vulnerable road users, this is not consistent, and there is no specific mention of their safety.

The issue goes far wider than a single document. Building a stronger foundation of road safety education, with clearer rules and guidance, is essential to ensure that all road users understand how to behave safely and responsibly when encountering horses on the road. According to data from the British Horse Society, in 2024 there were more than 3,000 road incidents that involved horses.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I was shocked to read those statistics, but in Devon since 2020, there have been 375 road incidents involving horses, with 19 horses injured and three killed, and 29 riders injured and one killed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for asking riders across the country to use body cameras to record evidence of dangerous driving, as many motorists and cyclists do today?

[Mr Dillon]

I agree that body-worn cameras can help to produce evidence to bring drivers to account when they are causing horses or people to suffer injury or death.

Fifty-eight horses lost their lives in 2024 and a further 97 were injured.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I apologise for intervening so soon, but it is important to emphasise how significant this debate is. It is not a niche issue. During my career as a horse vet, I have stitched up and euthanised more horses that have been hit by cars than I can remember—they get broken legs and their owners are injured. This is a very regular occurrence for vets. Just this morning in Winchester, in Hambledon on the B3041, a horse was hit by a car and had to be euthanised. This is not a niche problem, nor is it an unusual occurrence, so I fully support the action that my hon. Friend has taken in securing this debate.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I ask him to pass on my best wishes to his constituent. That shows why the debate is so important, because this is a daily reality on our national highways.

Behind all the figures we talk about, there is a rider, a family and a community affected by trauma and loss. I was contacted by many people from across the country when they heard about this debate. Laura from Essex experienced a devastating accident while riding her horse, Angel. The pair were struck by a car travelling at 53 mph. Laura was extremely fortunate to survive, but tragically Angel, who was just three years old, did not. That incident starkly illustrates the life-threatening dangers that riders face when sharing the road with fast-moving vehicles, and the heartbreaking consequences that can follow.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, a constituent contacted me ahead of this debate and told me that, although many motorists act responsibly, there is an increasing problem with drivers behaving more aggressively and passing horses at unsafe distances. Given that horses can react unpredictably when they think their lives are at risk, that puts everybody’s lives at risk. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that teaching equestrian safety as part of driver training would be an important way of tackling this issue?

[Mr Dillon]

I absolutely do, and I will come to that later in my speech and also highlight some of the good work happening in police forces across the country on driver awareness, once drivers have been caught going too close to a horse.

Turning to my own constituency, in Lambourn the horseracing industry contributes over £22 million to the local economy each year and supports approximately one in three jobs in the area. It is not just an emotional issue; it is a financial one, too. That concentration of equestrian activity also means there is a higher number of horse-related incidents in my constituency.

Unfortunately, Laura from Essex’s story is not an isolated one. Last May, I had the honour of joining the Project EDWARD—Every Day Without A Road Death—equestrian road safety awareness ride out from Lambourn to Windsor. It is held in memory of a racehorse named Knockalla, a two-year-old racehorse that was killed on a road in my constituency. Heavy rainfall caused flooding and standing water and a local driver who was familiar with the road was proceeding slowly down the centre of the carriageway to avoid aquaplaning. But horses are flight animals and as they approached from the opposite direction a splash of water startled Knockalla, causing her to move into the road. In that split second, Knockalla was struck and suffered injuries so severe that she had to be euthanised. Importantly, this case was not about speeding or reckless driving but was rather a tragic accident, and it demonstrates that even when motorists act cautiously, horses and riders remain extremely vulnerable, as horses are flight animals that can react unexpectedly.

Eighty-one per cent of incidents involving horses and vehicles occur because drivers pass too closely or too quickly. That is why I have consistently campaigned for stronger protections for horses and riders.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that clear rules on the speed and distance required when passing walkers, cyclists and horses on the road are needed, and that this should be included in driver theory tests and must be at the heart of driver education? Too many walkers, cyclists and horse riders have been hurt in our constituencies, including mine, and it must come to an end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

The hierarchy of vulnerability introduced in 2022 is important in establishing who are the most vulnerable on our roads, but the highway code could go further and say “must” go at 10 mph rather than “should”.

Last September, I introduced the Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill. Through that presentation Bill, I called on the Government to strengthen the highway code guidance for passing horses and to improve driver education so that motorists better understand horses’ behaviour and the potentially devastating consequences of their actions. Those changes would raise awareness among all road users and provide greater safety and reassurance when horses are ridden or are pulling horse-drawn vehicles or carriages.

As I have mentioned, last week the Government published the road safety strategy. Although I welcome many of its measures, it missed some relatively straightforward opportunities to better protect horses and riders. The strategy announced that the Ministry of Justice

“will consult on a new victims’ code.”

I welcome that, but it raises an important issue. Under current law, horses are classed as personal property, which means that when one is killed or fatally injured in a road traffic collision, compensation is largely limited to financial loss.

I have recently been contacted by Cathryn from Leeds, a long-standing horse rider and a solicitor who supports people who have suffered serious injuries from horse accidents. She highlights the psychological trauma experienced by injured riders as a recurring theme, which is often compounded by guilt, grief and gratitude that the horse took the main impact and saved the rider from even greater harm. The current legal framework significantly restricts recognition of that emotional distress. I urge the Government to use the consultation on the new victims’ code to consider how horse riders and owners who lose horses can be properly recognised in that framework.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly support his proposed legislation; indeed, I am a sponsor of it. Does he agree that, in order to advance new regulations, the Government need to review whether there is sufficient bridleway capacity across the countryside to avoid the necessity of using roads? It is clear that there are insufficient bridleways across much of the countryside, which is why riders end up having to use the roads to traverse.

[Mr Dillon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Councils are responsible for maintaining bridleways, but unfortunately their funding has been cut over numerous years and they do not have the money to do so. That forces more riders to use the roads because other routes are not available. Indeed, I was contacted this morning by a lady who said that they do not have any bridleways where she rides, only pavements, so she always has to be on the carriageway. She asked whether we would consider allowing horses to use public pavements in that instance.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and his Bill. Does he agree that it is not just about bridleways? Forestry England has recently introduced quite substantial fees for carriages, which are used by a lot of disabled people, to use their paths, and complex paperwork more akin to that for people organising events. Does he agree that we should call on Forestry England to review that for individual carriage drivers?

[Mr Dillon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Forestry Commission looks after our forests. They should be open for us to be able to enjoy, and the Forestry Commission should work with all relevant groups to make open access as easy as possible.

The road safety strategy also announces the establishment of a new road safety board. Given that horses and riders are among the most vulnerable of road users, will the Minister commit to ensuring that an equestrian representative organisation, such as the British Horse Society, is included on that board? I know that horse-related bodies have been on previous safety advisory boards.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of equestrian representation in these structures. In my constituency, there is a major equestrian centre at Somerford. We also have many horse riders throughout the area, and there have been multiple accidents. We really need to take action on this issue, and I know that the Minister will be listening carefully.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which shows that this is not a party political issue; rather, it is about the safety of riders. I am sure that the Minister, too, will take the hon. Lady’s views onboard.

I welcome the commitment to publish the national guidance on road safety education training and publicity, but I urge the Government to align that work with the measures in my Bill and in particular the need for stronger education in the driving test for new drivers.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Horse riders in my constituency are absolutely spoilt for hacking on Epsom downs, but there are lots of busy roads to navigate. Even at Pegasus crossings, drivers are jumping red lights as horses are approaching, which makes it incredibly dangerous. Many have reported near misses, and there have been instances of loose horses in Epsom as a consequence. Does my hon. Friend agree that better education on Pegasus crossings is vital to reducing the number of near misses and potential deaths of riders and horses?

[Mr Dillon]

My hon. Friend makes a key contribution with that intervention: it is that holistic approach to all road traffic management systems that people need to be aware of.

It is vital that young drivers understand how to drive safely on our rural roads and how to behave when encountering animals. Alongside that, I urge the Government to consider requiring companies that operate large vehicles, such as buses and delivery lorries, to include specific equine road safety training as part of their initial driver training. In 2019, a horse rider suffered serious injuries, including a fractured pelvis, after being thrown on to a pavement when her horse was spooked by a bus that passed too quickly and too closely. I think that shows why we need that initial driver training.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; I will have to buy him a pint for making him wait.

Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many rural communities where horse riding is a much-loved and much-enjoyed way to spend time. My constituent Carol Whitehouse took me out recently on her horse, and Sarah, who runs Horsleys in Audley, lent me her boots because I was wearing trainers. Both spoke of the fear and concern they feel as they ride their horses, particularly as a result of big lorries, so the points that the hon. Member has raised about Berkshire and other places across the country are felt strongly in Staffordshire, too.

[Mr Dillon]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I just want to bring it to Members’ attention that we will get to the Opposition spokespersons and the Minister at 10 past. Lots of people wish to speak and we have had lots of interventions. I am going to be as flexible as I possibly can, but I am not quite sure that we are going to get through all the Members, so bear that in mind when you are bobbing, intervening, and so on.

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper]

Clause 86 increases the rate of alcohol duty in line with RPI inflation. On paper, that measure might look like a normal, simple uprating policy, but it must be seen for what it really is: in the broader context, it is yet another tax on struggling hospitality businesses and financially stretched customers.

Hospitality is being hammered over and over again with sky-high rents and soaring energy bills, the Government’s unfair jobs tax, and now this business rates bombshell buried in the fine print of the Budget. It matters, and hospitality really matters. It is the only element of pre-pandemic spending that has not recovered. The sector employs huge numbers of young people and part-time workers, often giving people their very first job and their way into longer-term employment.

This is one of the sectors that make life worth living. We all remember the place where we fell in love, or had our first date. I remember the music venue where I found my favourite band. I remember the pub where I sat with my girlfriends and one told me that she was not going to survive her stage 4 cancer—and I remember the spa day that we had when she did. Hospitality is part of who we are as human beings. It is unique in what it contributes to our economy, and we must do everything to support it.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

If this debate had taken place before Christmas, I would have had to declare an interest, but my father has now sold his majority share in our local pub in our home town, which I think goes to the core of today’s debate: publicans are leaving the sector. My hon. Friend has been talking about the importance of hospitality. My father’s pub used to host bingo nights on Thursdays and bingo on Sunday afternoons, and on those occasions we would see people there who would never go at other times of the week. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sense of community that pubs build is crucial, and is under threat from this Labour Government?

[Daisy Cooper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pubs are irreplaceable, and when a pub goes a community falls apart. Pubs are vital as part of the social fabric: they are the glue that holds our communities together, and we must protect them. We tabled new clause 9 because we want the Government to look at and

“report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures”

alongside all the other “wider fiscal changes”, including the higher national insurance contributions and the business rates changes. This really matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

It is a pleasure to follow my county colleagues, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire as a county are rich in the heritage of brewing. Burton is a prime example of that, but in Stoke-on-Trent we too have some wonderful small brewers, such as Titanic, which has sadly shared with me the business rate increases that it faces, with a 450% increase in some of its venues.

That is a challenge that those venues have to face, and I hope the Government will look seriously at finding a realistic workable solution. The value of pubs in our communities is not just about the pints that they sell, but about the people they look after, such as the old gent nursing a pint for a couple of hours and being looked after by the bar staff. We lose that at our peril.

I will restrict my comments to the differential between cider rates and beer rates. One of the things that the Treasury has done for many years, including under the Conservative Government, is to keep an unfair differential between the rate of duty applied to cider and that applied to beer. That came in during the coalition Government and I can only presume that it had something to do with the number of Lib Dem seats in the south-west. The point remains, however, that a small beer producer—a small brewery—in the UK will pay more in duty on the pints it produces than a global cider manufacturer, because of the differential points at which the relief comes in.

[Mr Dillon]

Under this Government, we also have the situation whereby champagne in France is taxed at 40% less than sparkling wine is taxed in this country. If we are levelling the playing field, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government should also level the playing field for English sparkling wine so that it can compete with champagne?

[Gareth Snell]

There is a danger here of getting into the inevitable jokes about champagne socialism, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is right: there needs to be fair play. If we even out the taxation across the sector, that means that we can have targeted support in other areas where we know that there should be an unfair advantage for certain things. For instance, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire said, we should encourage and support making greater use of the draught relief for those selling alcohol in a pub.

Currently, 61% of cider producers produce less than five hectolitres of alcohol, which means they get a 100% reduction in the duty they pay. That is why we could increase or level out the rate of alcohol duty on cider and beer producers without impacting the small cider producers in this country. It would only impact the global manufacturers which, frankly, are taking a profit and making, I would argue, a substandard product, or trying to hide a mass-produced product behind a local label, which is often the case.

Under the Government’s proposal, the duty will be £10.39 per litre for cider and £22.58 for beer, and that differential grows every year. Because it is uprated by an inflation percentage, over the past few years the rate between the two in cash terms has just got bigger and bigger. It is a disadvantage to small brewers, who produce good quality beer, that they pay a rate of alcohol duty equivalent to the global cider manufacturers. SIBA estimates that the levelling of that figure could generate £360 million per year. That money could either go towards reducing the rate overall for all levels of duty, or it could further reduce the draught relief so that there is a clear and meaningful differential between those selling alcohol in pubs and those selling it in supermarkets.

There are some brilliant pubs in my constituency, the Greyhound in Hartshill being the one that I frequent the most. It is a community venue, and if it has to pay greater levels of duty on alcohol as a result of this Budget, I am sure it will find a way of doing so, but if there was a way of encouraging more people to go to that pub because the rate of duty on that pint was lower and it was subsidised by the big cider producers selling to the supermarkets, it seems to me that that would be a fair thing to do.

There is also a non-tax measure that the Government could introduce to support small brewers across the country, and it would cost the Government nothing. The market access review is currently sitting on a desk in the Department for Business and Trade, and it would guarantee that small brewers could have access to pubs in their locality to guarantee guest ales. I believe that Scotland already has this mechanism and that it is working well—unless someone can tell me otherwise. If we could replicate that in England and Wales, it would mean that those small independent brewers would have an opportunity to sell more beer in pubs, where a lower rate of duty would be applied to the product. That would help them with their business. It would give publicans an opportunity to increase the range of beers they sell, which would then help to attract more people into those pubs. It would mean that we would have more small independent brewers in this country selling more pints of beer, which supports them as employers and as good companies, such as Titanic in my own city.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will always fight for the interests of British businesses and British farmers in the deals we strike with countries across the world.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the last 14 months, constituents in Newbury, which I am proud to represent, have really felt the burden of the unfair family farm tax. I have hosted farmers here in Parliament and invited all parliamentarians to come and meet them, and I am proud that Members—predominantly from the Opposition Benches—have made that effort, and the Government have started to listen. But I have family farms in my constituency that will still have to pay £600,000, and they will have to sell off their farms to pay those tax bills. When the Government table their amendment, will they publish an assessment of those remaining farms and whether it is likely that they will need to be sold off to fit Labour’s tax bills?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The amendment, which has already been laid before the House, sets out the changes that the Government are making. In the letter that all hon. Members will have received, we set out our estimate that the number of estates we think will be affected will halve, and that about 85% of farming estates claiming APR—sometimes with BPR—will not pay any additional inheritance tax at all as a result of these changes.