Businesses in Rural Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech.

Small rural businesses are the heartbeat of the economy in Glastonbury and Somerton, but many are in crisis. The Government’s increase in employer’s national insurance contributions is an aggressive measure that disproportionately burdens the rural economy. Jacqueline, the owner of two businesses in my constituency, has gone from being in profit to laying off four members of staff. The Liberal Democrats have opposed the rise at every turn, knowing the devastating impact that it will have on rural businesses.

The Chancellor’s choice to introduce permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026 will punish significant rural employers at a time when the Government should be supporting them. The Kings Arms in Charlton Horethorne is a thriving rural pub, but the owners contacted me recently to say that the changes to business rates could cause its closure. Overt Locke, a Somerton hardware store, is also experiencing economic collapse. Indeed, it did close—the previous owners had to sell up—but luckily the new owners, Rob and Louise, have resurrected the business; however, it will be profitable only if business rates relief is sustained at 75%.

The Liberal Democrats would scrap the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy that taxes land value, not productive investment. When rural businesses fail, we lose not just livelihoods but the social and economic fabric of our countryside.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate.

The number of English farms has fallen by nearly a quarter in 20 years, with dairy farms, which are highly prominent in Somerset, hit particularly badly. We all know that British farmers have faced a long list of challenges, such as the impact of Brexit, sky-high energy prices, terrible Tory trade deals, botched transitions from the basic payment scheme to the environmental land management scheme, the shattering blow of the family farm tax and the no-notice cancellation of sustainable farming incentive grants. Now the Government seem set to make significant cuts to the nature-friendly farming budget in their upcoming spending review.

On top of all that, farmers earn tiny profits and are regularly exposed to industrial-scale exploitation by supermarkets that are focused on delivering cheap food and meeting their just-in-time supply model. Many households are living in food insecurity as a result of our unbalanced food system, and food poverty is on the rise. Food security is vital for national security, but farmers are increasingly being forced out of business as they cannot afford to make a living growing food for our tables.

I cannot stress enough how important our farmers are to national security. As Professor Tim Lang’s recent report on the UK civil food resilience gap highlights, we must act now to ensure the UK’s food resilience and preparedness. We are living in a volatile and unpredictable world, and we must be ready for international shocks to food supply chains, so I urge the Minister to talk to his DEFRA colleagues, to look carefully at the damage being caused to the UK agricultural sector, and to support a system that empowers and rewards British farmers to produce high-quality food while protecting nature.

Of course, we must also address the power imbalance that farmers face on their route to market. The UK groceries sector is dominated by a handful of supermarkets, with around 95% of food sales controlled by just 10 retailers. That concentration means that supermarkets wield significant power over farmers, leaving them with very little negotiating leverage. Unethical practices from large supermarkets can lead to contracts being altered at the last minute, and supermarkets often use loss leader strategies, selling some products at a loss to attract more customers. That practice squeezes suppliers, which are often forced to accept lower prices, and if they do not meet their quotas, they will be punished.

In large part, that reflects the limited scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which covers too few retailers. Many farmers and suppliers fear retaliation if they report unfair practices, while two thirds of farmers report feeling fearful of being delisted if they speak out of turn about supermarket behaviour. That leaves them underpaid and vulnerable. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a change in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It needs teeth, and it needs to be strengthened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I acknowledge the wider points that have been made. Members have raised today a number of issues that are beyond the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and clearly are within the bailiwick of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which clearly I need to work with on developing a more holistic approach. That is one of the challenges we face, because the code regulates only designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers and currently applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, each with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more.

A number of Members referred to the threshold and questioned whether that is currently appropriate. It is worth pointing out that, according to the marketing data company Kantar, the 10 largest retailers covered by the groceries code amount to 97% of the grocery retail market, although the adjudicator has said that he is happy to hear views on whether the threshold should change and about suppliers’ experiences of dealing with retailers not currently covered by the code. The adjudicator has also said that he will pass on any relevant information to the CMA to inform future decisions on retailer designations under the code. There is therefore an opportunity for Members to feed in if they feel there are particular retailers under the current threshold that should be included.

A number of Members talked about the issue of price. The code does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers. It does, however, require these negotiations to be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA is keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing to prices.

[Sarah Dyke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

I have quite a bit to get through, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will carry on.

The statutory review is focused on the powers and duties of the GCA as set out in the 2013 Act and the 2015 order. These powers include providing arbitration between suppliers and retailers, conducting investigations into retailers suspected of breaching the code, and enforcement powers where the adjudicator is satisfied that a retailer has broken the code. Enforcement can take the form of the adjudicator making recommendations against the retailer, requiring retailers to publish details of the breach, or imposing financial penalties of up to 1% of the retailer’s turnover. The adjudicator also publishes advice, guidance and best practice statements, and can make recommendations to the CMA about suggested changes to the groceries code.

Contrary to a common misconception, which I am afraid has been repeated by a number of Members today, the adjudicator does not need to wait for a complaint to be made before launching an investigation. What the Act requires is that the adjudicator has reasonable grounds to suspect that a retailer designated under the code has broken it or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation. It is for the adjudicator to determine how to use those powers, but it is absolutely possible for it to pursue investigations without a formal complaint being made.

I heard a number of Members making reference to concerns about reprisals—that was also raised in the previous debate. As part of the review, I am keen to hear how we ensure that the system is robust enough, so that people in the chain covered by the code feel confident that they can raise complaints. Clearly, there will always be an element of concern when someone raises their head above the parapet, but it is possible to raise concerns confidentially. Indeed, the survey undertaken by the adjudicator is done on a confidential basis. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), referenced his scepticism about the high level of satisfaction in that. I note his comments, but it is the case that the survey is taken confidentially. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also raised the question of anonymity. I am genuinely interested to hear from Members how we can find a way ahead so as to ensure that people can raise complaints confidentially and with confidence.

In general, the adjudicator has ensured a collaborative approach with suppliers, which has helped to prevent problems from escalating and reduced the need for time-consuming and expensive formal dispute resolution. A number of Members raised the question of resourcing, but it is for the adjudicator to set the level of the levy that is applied. That is always a matter of discussion, but I am sure that if the adjudicator wished to increase the levy, it would be able to do so within the powers it already has.

I am conscious that I need to give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings an opportunity to respond. I have not addressed all the points that Members raised in the debate, but where I am able to provide a further response, I will write to those Members. I would encourage all Members to engage with the review. It is important that a number of the issues that we have heard about today are fed into it.

Business and the Economy

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is right: there is no doubt that the Government have a really difficult job to clear up the mess left by the Conservative Government, but there have been far too many erroneous decisions and policy disasters already. For example, Matthew from North Brewham has run his small business for the last 28 years and is facing difficulties—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. An intervention cannot have examples; it is short and to the point. What is the question?

[Sarah Dyke]

Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of the harmful business rates system so that small businesses in rural areas can survive and succeed?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; there are so many things currently holding our small businesses back. The Conservatives failed to reform business rates. We are now looking to the Labour Government to bring forward measures that make it easier for people to set up businesses in their local communities.

Let me be clear: stripping support from many of the poorest pensioners while energy bills are still sky high was the wrong thing to do. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have listened to our constituents and have heard from countless pensioners who have been affected by the cut. We have heard warning calls from sector representatives including Age UK and Disability Rights UK, and indeed from many pensioners themselves, regarding the huge damage that the cuts have done. Some pensioners have been put in the position of having to choose between heating and eating.

Back in December last year, the Government admitted that their changes to the winter fuel payments will result in an additional 100,000 pensioners being pushed into poverty.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have engaged the Minister directly on this point and shown him examples of how the cuts have directly impacted on pensioners in my constituency very harshly.

The Liberal Democrats voted against the removal of the winter fuel payment to prevent millions of the most vulnerable in our society from losing out on vital support. Following the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today, we continue to call on the Government to reverse the cut in full, to guarantee that it will not be in place by next winter and to ensure that all pensioners who need support will receive it. I ask the Minister for full details of the proposed changes as soon as he is able to give them.

It is not just in their cuts that we hope to see a change of direction from the Government. After the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has made things even harder for businesses and their workers. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget are an unfair jobs tax that will hit small businesses, social care providers and GPs. SMEs are the beating heart of our economy. They are at the centre of our local communities and create the jobs that we all rely on. Raising the employment allowance will shield only the very smallest employers, while thousands of local businesses will still feel the damaging impact of the changes. The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures.

Even more damaging for our small businesses is our broken trading relationship with Europe. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal picture of the financial impact of their terrible Brexit trade deal is becoming increasingly clear. While the Conservative party’s motion notes that

“over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office”,

it was under its Administration, in the years 2020 to 2024, that the rate of small business closures in this country started to outpace the rate of new businesses starting up. Since 2019, there has been an average business closure rate of over 12%, outstripping the rate of businesses opening.

A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced

“extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period”.

Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. Another recent study found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

I welcome the actions taken by the Government at Monday’s UK-EU summit—particularly the impact they will have on our seed potato trade—but I urge the Government to recognise that the deal should only be a first step toward negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, which would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole.

More broadly, we continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. Business rates are harmful for the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment rather than profits or the fixed stock of land. Liberal Democrats would abolish the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy. We believe that we need to see a fundamental overhaul—not just tinkering around the edges or sticking-plaster solutions. We are disappointed that, yet again, serious reform of the system has been kicked down the road. We need fundamental reform of business rates if we wish to boost small businesses and high streets and to stop penalising productive investment.

The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape, compounded by the challenges posed by an aggressive Russia and an unreliable US Administration, but that cannot be an excuse for the mistakes they are making. People are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, just as small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business, as energy prices soar, food costs keep going up and mortgage bills remain sky high. The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to U-turn on the winter fuel payment cut, scrap the national insurance jobs tax and row back on removing support for disabled people, many of whom need that support to stay in work.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend talks about U-turns. Does she agree that the Government should also reverse the family farm tax?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—her constituency is more rural than mine, I admit. She is right that we would also like to see the Government urgently U-turn on the family farm tax, because it is creating such difficulty in our rural communities.

We are calling for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures. We want the Government to replace business rates with a fair new system to boost high streets and town centres, and to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small business and boost our economy as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to join this lively debate. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy in my constituency. In fact, 99.9% of businesses in East Hampshire are small or medium-sized enterprises. We over-index in professional services, retail, information and communications, and, of course, agriculture. [Interruption.] I thought there were few Labour Members present before I stood to speak! The biggest sectors for employment are retail, health and care, and manufacturing. [Interruption.] I am starting to get a complex!

I have heard from all those sectors, which are worried about the prospects for their businesses and the economy under this Government. We must always remember two things about business. First, contrary to what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said—he is no longer in his place but I know he will return—only business can create the wealth and jobs, make the livelihoods and generate the tax that, in turn, makes the high-quality and brilliant public services that we all so value and on which we rely.

There is a second thing that we should always remember about business, and I encourage Ministers to remember it. Accountants talk about the entity principle and describe a business as an entity that is separate from the people who run it. That might be true in an accounting sense, but in a broader sense, businesses are people. They are collections of people coming together to achieve something. The joint stock company was created to share risk among different people, and the way that organisations work within companies is a way of increasing efficiency and productivity, compared with everybody doing their own thing as a sole trader. So, because businesses are ultimately people, there is ultimately no such thing as a tax on a business. Taxes can only ever fall on people. A so-called business tax falls on one or more of three groups of people: the business’s customers, the business’s employees or the business’s owners.

[Sarah Dyke]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the impact on people. A small business in Fifehead in my constituency has recently had to reduce its staff by four—small business, real impact. Small businesses create so much for our rural economy. Does he agree that the Government should scrap the national insurance contributions rise and replace the broken business rates with a new, fairer funding system to boost our rural economies and jobs in our rural areas?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about small businesses, particularly rural small businesses, and I will talk about national insurance contributions and business rates, but let me come back to how taxes on businesses are ultimately taxes on people.

Some Labour Members might say that they do not mind a tax on business owners, because they are the capitalists and they can afford it, but we need to remember that the owners of businesses are a mixture of institutional owners—which, by the way, includes your mum’s pension fund—small business owners, who are quite often sole traders, and family businesses. If the owners are not affected, either the customers or the employees will be affected, and I am afraid the effect of the national insurance contributions rise will ultimately be felt by those two groups of people, and particularly by employees, through a mixture of wage suppression over time and possibly some job losses. The bigger effect will not be about job losses; it will be about jobs that are never created in the first place, particularly among the youngest people and those furthest from the labour market.

Carer’s Leave

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. I occasionally use my husband as an example in this debate. He cares for his elderly mother who is in her 90s, but he would not call himself a carer; it is just part of what he does as a son.

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

A constituent of mine who lives in Glastonbury told me that she cares for her 95-year-old mum who needs constant assistance. She is concerned because not only is she having to spend more time with her as time goes on, but she has lost her winter fuel allowance and respite care is out of her reach. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we introduce paid carer’s leave to ensure that carers get the relief that they need while caring for their loved ones?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my speech. There is no doubt that many unpaid carers want to care for their loved ones, but when they need respite or when the caring responsibility becomes too much, they need a social care service to support them. That is one of the challenges that many of them face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. It is also a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this debate, given that it has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I thank her not only for securing the debate, but for all the work that she has done on this issue over a number of years. We are all grateful to her.

Listening to hon. Members’ contributions, I was struck by the thought that we have represented all the countries of the United Kingdom—from Scotland to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That makes it clear that this issue is of national importance, but it is also a very personal and specific problem, which many millions of individuals are dealing with in every constituency throughout the country.

I think of my Mid Sussex constituent Fe, whom I met a few weeks ago. She is probably about my age, and has basically been a carer for the past 20 years—first for her mother, who sadly passed away, and now for her father, who has recently gone into a care home. Because of that 20 years of caring she has often been unable to work, and has at times been in employment that does not reflect her qualifications or the complexity of the work that she can do.

Effectively, Fe has been impoverished by caring for her mother, and now her father. Now that her father is in a care home, the family home—her home—has had to be put on the market. When it is sold, Fe will find herself homeless. The hope is that there might be some money left over from the care home fees, but that may not be the case. Fe is looking at a bleak future: she has not paid into a pension and has been unable to build up a nest egg to look after her future after a lifetime of caring for others.

Despite the enormous contribution that they make, unpaid carers like Fe live in financial hardship. As other hon. Members have said, the carer’s allowance, which is the main form of Government support, is just £81.90 a week—the lowest level for a benefit of its kind. That is not just unfair; it is also unsustainable. As our population ages and more people live longer with more complex needs, demand is only going to grow. How can we expect people like Fe to keep caring if they are pushed to the brink financially, emotionally and professionally? I do not see how we can. Worst of all, many carers have been punished for simply trying to make ends meet. As everyone here is probably aware, if a carer earns just £1 over the threshold of £150 a week they lose their entire carer’s allowance.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend was probably going on to say that most carers have no idea that they have accidentally been overpaid carer’s allowance. Unpaid carers are doing such a remarkable job. I have been contacted by many in Glastonbury and Somerton who deserve our support. They are facing extreme financial hardship. Does she agree that we need to stop pursuing carers for old overpayments of carer’s allowance?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I absolutely agree that there should be an amnesty on those overpayments. They were accrued through no fault on the part of the people who received carer’s allowance. It came about through a failure of the Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to communicate with each other, convey information and follow up on debts as they accrued.

This is a scandal. Many of those carers had no idea they were being overpaid. That is why I and Lib Dem colleagues are fighting for a better deal. In our manifesto, we pledged to increase the carer’s allowance by £20 a week, which would have raised it to £101.90—an extra £1,040 a year. We would also raise the earnings threshold to £183 a week, in line with 16 hours on the minimum wage. Crucially, we would taper the allowance gradually, instead of cutting it off entirely. That is fair, and means that carers will not be penalised for working a few extra hours to support themselves.

Our vision for carers goes beyond financial support. We would introduce a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, because everyone needs time to rest, including carers. Many local councils already offer a respite service, but they have been stretched and pushed to the brink. Those councils do not have the resources to meet the demand for something so vital. We would make it a legal right to support respite care by introducing free personal care and pushing for long-term sustainable funding for social care, which is something I would like to see the Government act much faster on.

We must support carers because they are frankly being let down. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would introduce paid carer’s leave, building on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. The coming into force of that landmark law means that 2 million carers have the right to take unpaid leave. Our next step is to make that paid leave, because caring for a loved one should not come at the cost of someone losing their job or income. All of that is rooted in one simple belief: no one should have to choose between caring for a loved one and having a decent life of their own.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the closure of high street services in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am extremely grateful to have been granted the time to shed light on the impact that the closure of high street services continues to have on our rural communities. In recent years, exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic, more and more shops on our high streets have closed their doors, leading to less vibrant town centres, reduced footfall to other businesses, job losses and, sadly, a diminished sense of community.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. The Overt Locke is an independent family-run retailer that has been trading in Somerton for more than 100 years but has recently announced that it will close. That heartbreaking decision was accelerated by the Chancellor’s decision in the autumn Budget to freeze the small business multiplier and reduce retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40%, which, with the addition of the national insurance contributions increase, has made the business financially unsustainable. Does my hon. Friend agree that fundamental reform of business rates is needed to boost small businesses and high streets in rural areas, to avoid penalising productive investment?

[Jamie Stone]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on that matter later in my contribution.

I want to go back to when I was a boy—some time ago, I might say. My hometown of Tain in the highlands was a vibrant and bustling place. It was a short walk up Shore Road from where I lived, where my father had a small farm, to the high street, where we got everything we needed, from lavatory paper in piles and pyramids in Ross the chemists, via Lesley the grocer, where we could buy broken biscuits in brown paper bags, to Hamilton Cormack, the local solicitor, who played the piano beautifully but, happily, never seemed to send out a bill. We had everything. Tain was a totally self-contained, prosperous community—but, oh my goodness, how very different today.

My constituency in the far north has long faced unique challenges. We have higher living costs, limited transport options and poor broadband connectivity. Rural areas such as mine have to contend with significant disadvantages compared with urban centres. We are all here today to talk about not just the loss of shops, banks and post offices, but the erosion of a way of life and a sense of connection, and a loss of public services and access to essential services that rural communities rely on.

Over recent years, our rural communities have faced unprecedented challenges. Once bustling with activity, like my hometown, they are now marked by shuttered windows and “for sale” signs. The causes are many. We know that they include the rise of online shopping, changing consumer habits, economic pressures and, of course, the rise of large out-of-town centre supermarkets. In my home in the highlands, those trends are compounded by rural isolation and limited access to alternative services. The closure of shops, banks, post offices and other essential services has left many residents in town centres feeling abandoned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate. I have enjoyed every one of my visits to Scotland, but none more so than to the very north of Scotland.

Many rural areas, such as my own South West Norfolk constituency, have seen services decrease over the past 14 years, often forcing people to travel very long distances to access some of the most basic services. That is difficult enough, particularly if someone is elderly or disabled, but is even more challenging given the lack of public transport options in these communities. Just last week, I was informed of another local convenience store closing in a rural village in my constituency—another blow to our community.

I was pleased to attend a meeting of the Association of Convenience Stores last week, where we spoke about how crucial these stores are to their communities. Fortunately, I can still think of a number of brilliant local examples bucking the trend in South West Norfolk: Yallops, for example, in Mundford—a post office, a shop and a butcher’s. The successful ones seem to be multi-purpose.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Butleigh village shop in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton will shut its doors for the final time and the post office alongside it will go, leaving the constituents without two essential services. Does the hon. Member agree that we must invest in small, rural shops so that they can maintain essential services such as a post office?

[Terry Jermy]

Absolutely; I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. That was very much the conversation we had last week about how we can support rural stores and bring more services together to make them multi-purpose. I recently visited the community-owned Blue Bell pub in Stoke Ferry. The last pub in the village, it now delivers a whole range of vital services over and above the traditional pint. I pay tribute to Jim and Sandra McNeill, two of the driving forces behind that ambitious project.

I have a strong passion for delivering services closer to where people are, particularly in our rural communities, rather than, for example, forcing even greater numbers into giant hospitals that are often long distances away. I love the idea of popping down to the local boozer to get a blood pressure check or a flu jab. The old cottage hospital model and outreach services have all gone, pushing people into giant hospitals. We have got to get people out into the community. I remember going to get my blood pressure checked or my blood taken; I would pop into the town centre or the village to buy stuff while I was there. We have been forcing people out of villages and into towns and cities.

We need to talk about connectivity—roads, trains, broadband and mobile phone signals—because the growth potential in rural communities is significant. I am pleased with what the Government have done so far, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Future of the Post Office

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

We expect the appeals process that we announced for the Horizon shortfall scheme to be up and running soon—realistically, probably early in the new year. I say gently to my hon. Friend that I share his deep concern that there are so many sub-postmasters who are victims of the Horizon scandal, and who are still to receive their compensation and full and fair redress. We have seen an increase in the numbers getting redress, but there is more work to do; it is a challenge that we are very much focused on as a Government.

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

Street in my constituency will lose its main high street post office in early 2025. There is a new listing for another post office, but questions around its viability will now obviously arise. Can the Minister tell me how he will ensure that the Post Office is secured on a long-term, sustainable footing, to reassure my communities and rural communities like them that the vital high street services that they rely on will be retained?

[Gareth Thomas]

There are a number of elements to securing the future of the Post Office. First, we must look at its commercial operation, which is why an improvement in the banking offer available through post offices, and the commitment of the banks to working with the Post Office to roll out banking hubs, is so important. Secondly, we must look at how we can increase sub-postmaster pay, so that more people are willing to come forward to run post office branches. Thirdly, we must look at the Post Office’s costs, and how they can be better managed.

Pubs Code: Guest Beers

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Minns]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have visited and spoken to brewers in my constituency, and they tell me that they just want the chance to compete on a fair basis.

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

The Society of Independent Brewers shows that 75% of beer drinkers believe it important that pubs offer a range of craft beers from small breweries, such as Glastonbury Ales and Fine Tuned Brewery in my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that small breweries should be included in the new lower hospitality rate, so that they no longer need to pay 40 times more a pint in business rates than large breweries?

[Ms Minns]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I will come later in my speech to other points that the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates is campaigning on. I will make a little more progress.

Recently in Cumbria, the Carlsberg Marston’s Brewing Company closed Cumbria’s principal brewery, Jennings in Cockermouth, and brought to an end 200 years of local brewing. The need to create opportunities for local breweries to sell their local beer to local drinkers in Carlisle is, therefore, more pressing than ever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Small businesses in the south-west have a huge role to play in growing the economy. However, the latest south-west small business index score, which measures the confidence of small businesses, has declined by 23%—there has been a fall of 30 points since the last quarter. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can support small businesses across the south-west?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Business confidence was strengthened considerably across the United Kingdom as a whole following the general election and the return to some political stability, which businesses of every size have sorely missed over recent years. However, I hear the hon. Lady’s point about her area and region, which is an important priority for me. I will ensure she gets the meeting she needs, so we can have a conversation about how we can work together to give people in her area a platform for success.

Aerospace Industry: Northern Ireland

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I am always happy when my right hon. Friend intervenes, and that exactly underlines why Northern Ireland is so important. It plays above its status, with its population and the skills force that I have referred to.

I should have said, and I apologise for not doing so, how pleased I am to see the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), in her place. I very much look forward to engaging with her over the next period of time. I am also pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), in her place. She was in my constituency approximately six or seven weeks ago. She came as a shadow Minister and I told her that the next time she came, instead of asking the questions, she would have to answer them, so I look forward to the next time she comes to Northern Ireland. I am really pleased to see both ladies in their place, and to see the shadow Minister here as well.

To reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, there is an existing talent pool, with more than 34% of Northern Ireland’s workforce having a third-level qualification, and costs are significantly lower than EU, US and UK averages. Operating costs are up to 30% lower than on the UK mainland or in the EU. I say with great respect and humbleness that Northern Ireland candidates consistently outperform those from other UK regions at GCSE and A-level examinations, and with a strong partnership between academia, industry and Government driving skills development in the region, it is little wonder that we are thriving. I want to say how pleased I am at that.

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

In a segue from Northern Ireland to Somerset, Leonardo is an aerospace manufacturer located just outside my constituency. Last month it held its AeroWomen event to highlight the diversity of careers for women in the sector. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government can play a role in encouraging more girls and women to study science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM subjects—and to work in this field, which would help to close up the skills shortages that the industry faces?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I agree. I am glad to say that, in Northern Ireland, Spirit AeroSystems and the aerospace sector are already trying to achieve some of those goals by giving introductions to ladies in engineering. I am very encouraged by that, and the hon. Lady is right. We have heard a woman Chancellor speak in the House today, which is an example of what we all wish to see. It is wonderful to have ladies elevated to different positions, and we have that in engineering, at Spirit and across the aviation sector.

This has undoubtedly been a holistic effort, with Invest NI involvement and Government support. It is clear that this has paid dividends, with the Northern Ireland aerospace, defence, security and space sectors on track to achieve revenue of £2 billion a year by 2024. The sectors had a turnover of £1.9 billion and contributed almost £1 billion in value added to Northern Ireland’s economy in 2022.

Funding for Youth Services

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I wanted to have this debate so that we could press that point, particularly for constituencies similar to mine of Luton South.

After 14 years of the Conservatives cutting funding, local authorities are struggling under the substantial weight of funding pressures. Youth services are often one of the first services to be cut. Councils and councillors want to deliver high-quality youth services for young people, but the Conservatives have given them no choice. My local council, Luton, is a case in point: it has had £170 million cut from its budget since 2010.

The Local Government Association has stated that councils in England face a funding gap of £4 billion over the next two years just to keep services standing still. Significant budget pressures mean that there are few options available to maintain high-quality youth services. Children’s social care puts significant pressure on local authority finances, so general, more universal services for young people are compromised as the limited resources are targeted at ensuring that the young people most in need are kept safe and supported. It is a difficult decision that councillors of all party colours must make, but the Government are ultimately responsible, due to their swingeing cuts to local government finances.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. My experience as a serving Somerset councillor is that investing in youth services is often seen as a preventive measure to address future social and economic issues. Somerset has seen an 80% reduction in real-terms spending on youth services over the past 12 years. Does the hon. Lady agree that cutting such services leads to higher costs associated with problems that could have been mitigated through early intervention and support for young people, and that local government needs to be adequately funded?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for making an excellent point. I absolutely agree, and I will address that later in my speech.

During the Conservatives’ time in office, youth organisations have fought to keep delivering great youth work, amid a £1.1 billion real-terms cut to local authority spending on youth services. I thank the YMCA and the National Youth Agency for their support in preparation for this debate. The YMCA’s “On the ropes” report found that drastic underfunding means that spending per head on youth services in England has suffered a real-terms cut of 75% since 2010-11, which means that it sits at £48 per five to 17-year-old. Although cuts have been significant across the board, there are clear regional funding inequalities. In 2022-23, the lowest spend per young person was in the west midlands, at £24, followed by the east of England and the south-east, at £38. In contrast, in London it is £69 and in Yorkshire and the Humber it is £71.

I am also concerned about the funding cuts to my constituency of Luton South since the Conservatives took power. The YMCA found that real-terms spending on youth services in Luton has been cut by 73%, with spend per young person sitting at £34.60. In the central Bedfordshire part of my constituency, spending per head for young people is £25.17—a 53% cut. Although passionate youth workers continue to battle to deliver high-quality support, many have had to leave the profession: there has been a 35% reduction in full-time equivalent youth workers employed by local authorities in England over the same period.

This should not have to be said, but all children, irrespective of background or geography, deserve high-quality youth services to support their development. After 14 years of the Conservatives, youth services are at breaking point, and too many young people have no access to youth services at all. Our voluntary and community sector has brilliantly stepped up to fill the gap left by the Conservative Government cuts, but that is not a long-term solution.

The physical and mental health support previously offered by youth services has been shifted on to schools and overworked, under-resourced teachers. Schools have their own pressures. According to National Education Union research, in Luton South per-pupil funding has been cut by £751 since the Conservatives took power—that is more than £14 million stripped from our school system. The case for greater resources for youth services is compelling. Youth work has proven, positive impacts on improving young people’s mental health and wellbeing, behaviour, engagement with education and attainment. Youth workers achieve life-changing outcomes for young people through intervention and prevention, building voluntary, trusted and educative relationships with the young people they support.

If the Minister needs to hear an economic case for youth services, for every pound the Government invest in youth work, the benefit to the taxpayer is between £3.20 and £6.40. Youth work saves £500 million annually by preventing incidents of antisocial behaviour, knife crime and other associated criminal justice costs, according to UK Youth and Frontier Economics. To pre-empt what the Minister might say in response about Government funding directed at specific youth club buildings: as welcome as any capital funding is, there is a pressing need for additional support for training and sustaining well-qualified youth workers. There is an absence of a co-ordinated strategy across Government Departments, leading to fragmented and insufficient funding for targeted youth services.

The YMCA has set out the following recommendations to support youth services. It mentions:

“sustained and long-term revenue funding to bolster universal and open-access youth services, catering to all young people throughout the year”,

a cross-departmental strategy for youth services,

“fostering a long-term vision for nationwide provision”,

and enforcing

“a duty on local authorities to ensure that all young people can access youth services in their respective areas, with necessary government support and resourcing.”

Will the Minister respond to each of those recommendations in his closing remarks?

I want the impact of this debate to be that the Minister, his officials and other Government Departments reflect on the true value of our youth services. I do not doubt that the Government recognise the good those services do in our community, but I ask that additional actions be taken to ensure that they receive the support they desperately need. Will the Minister outline what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Department for Education and the Home Department about long-term resources for youth services? Will he also outline what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of full-time equivalent youth workers across the UK to ensure that all young people receive the support they deserve?

Labour recognises the need for a long-term, co-ordinated approach to revitalise the delivery of youth services. At our last party conference, we announced a 10-year programme to bring together services and communities to support young people, providing new youth mentors and mental health hubs in every community, and youth workers and pupil referral units in A&E, along with a programme of public sector reform to help to deliver that. Communities will come together to transform the lives of children, giving them the best possible start in life. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not implemented such a scheme during their 14-year tenure?

I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members from across the House. Together, we must continue to call for Government action to ensure that young people in our constituencies get the best possible start in life. That means supporting our local youth services and youth workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on introducing this absolutely fantastic and timely debate. I endorse her comments and those that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) just made, including the figures and statistics that he provided about the challenges that we have with our youth services and with what is happening to young people, especially from working-class and poorer communities. He described a picture very similar to what is happening in my constituency of Bolton South East, which, in the indices of social deprivation, is 38th in the country, so I genuinely thank him for the facts and figures that he highlighted. I will not repeat them, but I agree with everything that my two colleagues said.

Many other Members will touch on this later. We know that youth centres and places like them provide support to young people as safe places to socialise, develop and learn new skills and gain new experiences. In Bolton, we are blessed with many fantastic youth services that do amazing work, but they are all voluntary. I have seen at first hand how these groups allow children in Bolton to go on trips that they might not normally go on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, or to gain access to sports facilities, music and art equipment—an experience that they would not otherwise get.

We have national groups such as the YMCA and the Scouts, which are doing fantastic work in Bolton. The YMCA has just invested £6.1 million in its new Y-Pad building, which is providing community space and housing for young people leaving foster care. They are another group of young people whom we ignore massively; we do not have full and proper provision for them when they leave foster care. Those groups are filling gaps left by the cuts to local authority and Government budgets. We have also seen brilliant local services such as the Bolton Lads & Girls Club, Be The Change, in Farnworth, and Zac’s Youth Bar, in Kearsley. These services are driven by local need and run by dedicated volunteers.

These organisations and their volunteers help in combating antisocial behaviour and improving young people’s mental and physical health. Why, then, have we seen a stark reduction in their funding? The benefits of youth services are very clear. It is also clear that they are undervalued and have not been funded properly since 2010. In addition, as a result of covid, the levels of stress and mental health problems for young people have increased massively. Along with the elderly, they were one of the groups that in some respects suffered the most.

We need a sea change in the Government’s approach to youth services. Young people are a very easy target. We often hear that they are lazy, are glued to their Xbox, are social media addicts and other expressions of that nature, when we know that that is not correct. We need there to be safe outdoor and indoor spaces to enable young people to play sports, socialise and engage with the real world.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing my intervention. Volunteer-led Somerton library has recently been highlighted as excellent in a review of public libraries. It plays, as the hon. Member was suggesting, a crucial role in engaging young people. However, the national crisis in local authorities’ finances will threaten the future provision of libraries in places around the country, such as Somerton. Does she agree that this is a vital service, and that we need to ensure that our local authorities are adequately funded to provide those crucial services for young people and wider communities?