Economic Growth

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

May I reassure my hon. Friend? One of our trailblazer projects in the place-based business cases is with Birmingham, which is obviously the beating heart of the west midlands.

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

The Chancellor promised growth in every postcode, which must include rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton, and not just our cities and towns, yet rural England’s productivity sits at just 69% of the non-rural rate, costing our economy billions in lost revenue every year. That is not just a rural problem but a national one. What is the Chief Secretary doing to create opportunity in the countryside and unleash the full potential of rural Britain?

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Member will know that rural communities are close to my heart, given my previous ministerial role and because I have a semi-rural constituency. There is huge potential in rural communities. The Prime Minister visited rural Cornwall in his first few weeks in the job. We will do more, and we are doing more, to improve local transport and rural connectivity, including the £2 cap on bus fares. She is right to say that there is great potential, which we must realise.

Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this particularly important debate. The decline in face-to-face banking services is evident across the country—just visit any high street—but it is felt most acutely in rural areas. While the Government have taken steps to protect access to cash, protecting cash is not the same as protecting access to banking services. The number of bank and building society branches has declined dramatically, from 21,600 in 1986 to fewer than 6,900 in 2025, with more closures scheduled for 2026 and 2027. In rural areas, only 33% of people live within three miles of a bank branch, compared with 93% in urban areas. When bank branches are closed in rural market towns, it does not just inconvenience people, but can be the difference between a small business thriving and a small business failing.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

One of the problems we have experienced with the Link criteria is that the town is classed as urban by the Office for National Statistics, but is actually servicing a rural community. That mismatch means that some hubs are being missed out.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a very good point, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Small businesses also suffer from bank closures because they are not able to deposit their takings, transfer money between accounts, manage fraud or get simple advice on opening a business account. This has a large impact on small businesses in rural areas. For local charities, closures can mean the difference between banking the proceeds of a coffee morning and not banking them at all.

This also demonstrates the impact of the rural premium that people in rural communities face when living their everyday lives. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton has felt the full consequences of the decline. Many market towns have lost all banking facilities already, and the Lloyds branch in Street is due to close next March. I have collected many signatures from concerned constituents who will be impacted by this change, and I have urged Lloyds—and will continue to do so—to reconsider the decision. I recognise that a community banking hub is expected to begin visiting Street from early 2027, and I welcome that effort to maintain some local presence of banking services, but let us be clear: a fortnightly visit from a community banker is not a substitute for a staffed bank branch. Of course, banking hubs and community bankers do have an important role to play, but they must be integrated as part of the conversation around banking services, rather than being the Government’s answer to it.

In addition, the Coventry Building Society branch in Wincanton will close in nine days’ time, leaving the town without any face-to-face banking services. Coventry Building Society has informed its members that they will be able to deposit their cash at their nearest branch in Frome, but that is a 40-mile round trip, so the closure will undoubtedly affect both rural local residents and local businesses, who will now need to make alternative arrangements.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is something immoral about banks that make such exorbitant profits money closing branches and penalising their customers?

[Sarah Dyke]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. For people wishing to access banking services in Wincanton only the post office remains, despite the town’s continued growth, with more homes being built. Yet research from the Post Office found that 82% of consumers find it important to be able to access at least one in-person banking service, and the many small local and independent businesses that make Wincanton such a lovely market town will undoubtedly be inconvenienced.

In a rural county such as Somerset a significant number of businesses are SMEs: 78% employ fewer than five people. As the Countryside Alliance outlined earlier this year in its submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on access to banking services, cash plays

“an important role across much of the rural economy.”

Business owners in rural areas are forced to travel further to bank their takings, deposit cash and obtain change. That reduces their productivity, increases fuel costs and adds to their administrative burden when they already operate on tight margins. SMEs, on average, deposit cash twice per month, but rural businesses may now postpone cashing in until they have more to deposit in order to avoid additional travel. However, that makes them more vulnerable to a growing rural crime epidemic. The total cost of rural crime in 2025 was estimated by the National Farmers Union Mutual to be £41.5 million, and increasingly sophisticated and organised gangs are operating in rural areas.

If rural economies are to thrive it is vital that rural businesses are not put at a disadvantage simply due to their location. That is why Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would require the Treasury to assess alternative frameworks, including the post office banking framework, for providing access to banking and cash services.

In many rural areas the post office network has become a lifeline. It is often the only local place to make cash withdrawals, deposits, and everyday banking transactions. During the summer recess I was delighted to support the reopening of two post offices in my constituency. Henstridge post office recently opened after local residents Lesley and Andy Scard and their neighbours Barry and Helen Howlett worked tirelessly to reopen the much-missed and much-needed community shop and post office. In Somerton the long-awaited post office has also returned, based inside the Stationery House, after Malcolm Adams stepped up and refurbished part of his shop to accommodate it. However, many local post offices are still under threat and we have seen closures recently in Butleigh and Charlton Adam.

Following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must commit to rural-proofing the post office and look at ways in which the post office can drive wider access to banking as part of the Treasury’s ongoing access to banking services review. Without adequate investment post offices cannot replace bank branches. Will the Minister commit to properly rural-proof the post office network so that postmasters are adequately resourced to take on the increased demand for local banking, rather than forced to absorb the cost when they are providing such a vital service?

The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a fair banking Act to tackle financial exclusion. We have committed to the introduction of a national financial inclusion strategy that would require both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard for financial inclusion, such as by protecting access to cash in remote areas and supporting banking hubs.

Of course, the impact of bank closures is compounded by a deeper problem of digital exclusion. Across the country 1.7 million households have no broadband or mobile internet at home, around 2.4 million people cannot complete a single basic online task such as opening an internet browser, and over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital tasks at work. Basic digital skills are set to become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. With the cost of living still biting, up to 1 million people have cut back or cancelled their internet packages altogether in the past year, while banks push them to access services online. In rural Somerset, patchy mobile signal and frustratingly slow broadband are not just an inconvenience; they are the difference between banking and not banking at all. Older and disabled residents, and those with visual impairments, are too often advised to download an app as if that were an appropriate solution; instead, it simply causes a further barrier.

Rural communities are not asking for special treatment or to be treated differently. They ask for a fair formula so that they are not left behind. Face-to-face banking, a functioning post office network and reliable connectivity are not luxuries; they are part of the basic infrastructure of rural life. Will the Minister commit to rural-proof banking policy and to bring forward without further delay a national financial inclusion strategy that genuinely supports rural communities? Unreliable access to face-to-face banking stymies economic growth and drives people and businesses out of rural communities. Somerset cannot wait, and neither can rural Britain.

Middle East: Economic Update

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

As I set out in my statement, we put £15 billion into the warm homes plan at the spending review last year, to better insulate people’s homes and help them to move to cheaper forms of energy. However, I recognise the immediate problems relating to heating oil, which is why I have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to consider price gouging, and why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will meet MPs on Wednesday. I hope that my hon. Friend will be there on behalf of his Bishop Auckland constituents.

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

Since the outbreak of the conflict in the middle east, heating oil prices have increased by over 100%. That is a harsh reminder that relying on volatile fossil fuel markets leaves households financially vulnerable. Many rural households are off the gas grid, so constituents such as Julian from East Lambrook are not protected by the energy price cap. Does the Chancellor agree that that is unfair on rural communities, and will she take steps to develop a mechanism to protect those householders from damaging global fossil fuel price shocks?

[Rachel Reeves]

Almost every household uses electricity to turn on the lights. They will benefit from some of the changes that will come in on 1 April. Some 4% of households in Great Britain, and more than 60% in Northern Ireland, rely on heating oil. We recognise the unique situation here. The increase in the price in the past few days does not reflect market conditions, which is why we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look urgently at extortionate prices. We are also ensuring that supply remains stable. Enough heating oil is available, and we do not want people to be priced out of it.

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.