5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for allowing me to intervene. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is concerned about Wilton, has written to the Minister to request a meeting. I did the same at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I very much look forward to that meeting—
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is easy to resolve? The conundrum we are in is based on the Treasury assessment that he described, which was over-optimistic through nobody’s particular fault, but we can remedy it simply by allowing some flexibility in the precept. That would deal with the issue facing our wonderful fire and rescue service. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those wonderful people, particularly the volunteers, who freely give their time to keep our constituents safe.
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has to say. However, does he agree that the only practical way of getting Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service the funds it needs to prevent the closure of the eight stations, including at Mere in my constituency, is to allow for flexibility around the precept? Otherwise, sadly, they will close. The structural issues he has cited of course need to be addressed, but they will not help in respect of the emergency that is upon us.
I welcome the multi-year settlement, and so does the fire and rescue service. However, does the Minister accept that one problem is that the assumptions on which Government support is based—the growth of council tax—cannot be tweaked up or down, because we are looking at a longer settlement period than was previously the case? That is precisely the problem that we face. The solution being offered is precept flexibility, which would keep our fire stations open. In a sense, what we are talking about is an unintended artefact of the multi-year settlement.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The gateway to my constituency, and indeed Scotland, is the historical village of Gretna Green. For centuries, Gretna Green has been shorthand for the potent idea that love cannot be constrained by needless bureaucracy. That really started in 1754, following the implementation of the Marriage Act 1753 in England and Wales. The Act was intended to prevent secret or impulsive marriages by requiring those under 21 to obtain parental consent, and forcing all weddings into the church with public announcements. However, those strictures did not apply in Scotland, where a couple could legally marry simply by declaring their intention in front of witnesses. That legal difference created an immediate opportunity for young lovers seeking to marry quickly or without the permission of disapproving families. Gretna Green was the first village that these runaway couples reached after crossing the border on the main coaching route to Scotland. In Scottish custom, a blacksmith was seen as someone who could symbolically forge relationships just as they forged metal. As the law in Scotland allowed almost anyone to conduct a ceremony, Gretna Green’s blacksmith became the wedding officiant, marrying couples over the anvil—an object that symbolised the forging of a new life together. By the time the law changed in 1856, to require a 21-day residency period in Scotland, the village’s reputation as a romantic destination was already assured, and remains so today. Couples still come to marry in Gretna Green. Indeed, only recently, Bryn and Sandra flew in from Sydney, Australia to marry there, following in the footsteps of Bryn’s grandparents. Not everyone travels as far as from Sydney, but more than 4,000 couples from across the UK choose Gretna Green each year, with up to 60 weddings every Valentine’s day alone. In fact, one in five of all marriages in Scotland takes place in Dumfries and Galloway. Two adults wishing to marry in the United Kingdom must now wait nearly a month—a full 28-day notice period—simply to formalise their commitment. When we can apply for passports online, secure mortgages and even complete divorces within a matter of days, that legal lag looks like an anachronism, wholly out of sync with technology, norms and modern public expectations.
I agree. The hon. Lady will be aware that many humanists come to Scotland, and indeed to Gretna Green, to get married for that very reason. That issue needs to be addressed in the context of modernising marriage regulations. Dumfries and Galloway council, one of the three councils in my Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency, has indicated that it could complete all the necessary checks within five days, yet the law mandates a wait that effectively stretches to 29 days in real terms. In the United States, Minnesota and Massachusetts require a similar three to five days for checks, while New York and Las Vegas allow for marriages within minutes or 24 hours. The British overseas territory of Gibraltar requires only 24 hours, and Denmark, sometimes competing with Gretna Green to be the Las Vegas of Europe, requires just five days. In Denmark, a jurisdiction that the Home Secretary seems very keen to promote, the system protects against abuse and fraud while allowing couples to marry within days rather than weeks. Why can the UK not do the same? This debate is not about weakening safeguards or making marriage easy in a way that invites fraud; it is about asking whether our system reflects the realities of modern life. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the UK Home Office already has the power to extend the standard marriage notice period to 70 days. If the UK Government already have the power to identify, investigate and disrupt sham marriages, why does every couple need to have their wedding delayed? The public are clear. They want a system that is simpler, fairer and more flexible. A recent YouGov poll found that 88% of UK adults support the ability to fast-track the marriage process. With fewer than half of UK adults now married, we are witnessing an historic shift in the structure of our families. While shifting social ideas play a part, 61% of adults cite the rising cost and complexity of weddings as a key reason for the decision to decline the opportunity. Inaction also has an economic cost. The UK wedding sector is estimated to be worth £10 billion to £15 billion annually, supporting countless jobs and venues across the UK, as in Gretna Green. Such venues are spread across the breadth of the country, and I am sure Members present have venues in their own constituencies that come to mind. By maintaining a needlessly slow process, more flexible jurisdictions will come to benefit more than Britain from spending on weddings. Many visitors from the United States now come to Scotland to get married, having seen “Highlander”, “Outlander” and other such programmes on international television channels and realised the beauty of the country. I of course appreciate that the Government in Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for some of these issues in Scotland, and I would also be delighted to see the Scottish Government take forward proposals at the first opportunity, but in the absence of them doing so, the UK Government have the capacity to demonstrate a different way of doing things. I do not wish to pre-empt what the Minister may have to say, but she may reference the Law Commission’s 2022 report, “Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law”, and the announcement in October last year that the UK Government would reform wedding law. Although the Law Commission’s report was extensive and thoughtful, its focus was largely on where weddings can take place and who can conduct them. It suggested moving towards a system focused on authorised officiants, rather than on licensed buildings, which would allow for more outdoor and home ceremonies—reforms that I wholeheartedly support. The administrative notice period, however, received far less attention in that review. With the Government already having accepted that marriage law needs modernisation, why not tackle the waiting time, too? To be clear, this is not about deregulating marriage law, but about making it fit for the modern day through digital notice systems and more flexible waiting periods, the recognition of independent celebrants to allow personalised, but legally binding ceremonies—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) has already referred to the opportunity for humanist weddings—and simplified documentation that reflects modern administrative capability. One suggestion has been the appointment of a marriage tsar to move forward the aforementioned modernisation. However, I am sure that if it is driven from within Government, it can take place. Administrative delays are not merely bureaucratic inconveniences; they carry a profound human and financial toll. For many, particularly in our armed forces, these administrative hurdles are not merely inconvenient; they can be fundamentally incompatible with the realities of service life. In recent days, we have all seen service personnel deployed at short notice. That is part of being in the services, as are unpredictable posting cycles that do not align with a rigid, 28-day delay, and the marriage system’s opaque exceptions are difficult to navigate at a time of high stress. Moreover, with the average UK wedding now costing more than £20,000, delays can lead to the loss of substantial venue deposits and the risk of escalating catering and other fees, which have also risen by about 24% due to inflation. This “cost of worry” creates uncertainty, where heartbreaking last-minute cancellations become a reality for those caught in an antiquated system. These hurdles, and the costs associated with them, effectively put marriage on the back burner for many who would otherwise want to marry. The history of Gretna Green shows that love cannot wait, love should not wait, and neither should we. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that she will agree that the time has come to review the administrative hurdles that stand in the way of love today.
I thank all participants for their engagement in this debate. I particularly welcome the Minister’s remarks and the tone of those remarks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, it is important to reflect on the experience of the people carrying out weddings at this time, and few people are more experienced than those in Gretna Green. I am glad that the Minister said she would look at other jurisdictions. As I said in my remarks, our Home Secretary has highlighted Denmark as a country with robust rules and regulations on immigration and illegal immigration, yet Denmark is able to consider whether a marriage is a sham or one of true commitment within five days. It is important to look at the systems that allow that to happen. The length of time is not, in itself, necessarily a way of ensuring an outcome if the systems behind it cannot detect the issues that we are trying to detect by creating a waiting period. We also touched on the fact that people should not be put off getting married by the bureaucracy or cost. That is at the heart of this. A couple’s commitment to each other and wish to get married should prevail, and bureaucracy and cost should not be impediments. On the digital issues, it should not be easier to complete divorce proceedings than to complete the forms required for marriage. The digitalisation of many of these processes should certainly be a priority. Having served in government myself, I am familiar with the time periods involved, and I know that “early in the year” might well progress to September—we always regarded the winter as going through to March or April. However, I hope that the proposals will be introduced soon, and that this discussion, debate and dialogue can continue. As I said in opening, bureaucracy should not be an impediment to love. We should encourage people who want to get married to do so in the way they wish, while protecting the integrity of marriage. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I look forward to its continuation. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.
7. What steps his Department is taking to support the hospitality sector.
Energy costs are obviously a huge issue for hospitality businesses in a large rural constituency such as Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, but they are also an issue for hospitality business customers, because generally people travel to those businesses using their cars. Will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department lobby the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to ensure that the proposed rise in fuel duty does not go ahead in September?
I would like to associate myself with the earlier remarks about the Dunblane tragedy. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on Government support for egg production in the UK, which is a vital part of the food chain? My constituency has some of the UK’s largest egg producers, such as Glenrath Farms, which is very concerned about a consultation on the phasing out of enriched colony cages. They point out that current UK trade policy allows the tariff-free import of eggs and egg products from lower-welfare systems, including conventional cages, which are still legal in many non-EU countries. A unilateral UK ban on cage egg production without equivalent import restrictions would accelerate imports of shell eggs and egg products from systems that would be illegal domestically and would undermine UK producers and processors who have invested heavily in enriched cages.
There was a new private sector investor in the Royal Mail last year. As we heard yesterday in the House, the regulator has let the universal service obligation slip, so will the Minister update the House on how his colleague’s meeting with the regulator went yesterday?
Of course, there are lots of well-paid jobs in the steel sector. In fact, the taxpayer is now subsidising every job at British Steel to the tune of £110,000. Can the Secretary of State update the House on how his negotiations are going with Jingye, and on when he will finally publish his long-awaited steel strategy?
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but as there is one live civil case, may I encourage him to exercise caution in what he says? It is perfectly okay to say anything about Mr al-Fayed, who is dead.
I expect to call the Front Benchers at about 4.30 pm, or maybe a little later, and I have either six or seven Members waiting to speak. Perhaps Members who are still waiting could confine their remarks to six or seven minutes, so that everyone can get in.
The Government do not create jobs; business does. With unemployment rising, this is the last chance to ask the Secretary of State a question ahead of the start of April when a tsunami of business rate rises will hit. Shops and restaurants will see a 50% increase on average and the business rates of hotels will double. He and I both represent wonderful Sussex constituencies full of hospitality, high street and tourism businesses, but young people need those jobs. For their sake and for others, will he finally postpone his business rate rise?
The Secretary of State forgets that I have not even been here for 14 years. Some days it feels like that, but I can assure him that it is not the case. There was no answer to that question, so let me try another. Does he agree that there is something pretty badly wrong with employment law in this country when Peter Mandelson, the friend of a convicted paedophile and leaker of classified Government documents, walks away with a £75,000 pay-off? The permanent secretary thinks that is good value for money. Will the Secretary of State review Labour’s policy of uncapping employment tribunal payouts for the highest earners?
The situation at Zachary Merton hospital in my constituency is causing deep concern locally. Services there were closed on what residents were told was a temporary basis, but that closure has now been made permanent. The evidence behind that decision has not been clearly set out. Communities rightly expect candour when decisions are taken about the future of local healthcare provision. Does the Leader of the House agree that there is a wider issue here about transparency and accountability for NHS service decisions, and will he consider granting a debate in Government time on the future of community healthcare provision?
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking and celebrating the fantastic women of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who do exactly what she has just described in businesses, in our local democracy, in our third sector and in shaping the futures of our girls in community groups and schools?
Just recently, Royal Mail in Tonbridge introduced a new working model that has been, quite frankly, an abject failure. I welcome the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asking this urgent question, because this is quite clearly a matter for not just one constituency or community, but the whole country. I am grateful to the Minister, who is assiduous in his role, for taking it up. Will he raise with management that while we all recognise that this is about not just privatisation or ownership, but the change in the way that people use the post, and our use of emails and so on, the problems have a very real effect on people’s lives, particularly in communities like mine in Tonbridge? I am not the only one who has missed an appointment because the letter arrived weeks, or even months, after I was supposed to attend.
Two Global Counsel clients benefited from direct Government defence awards and Global Counsel staff flew to Washington parties to join Peter Mandelson. Will the Minister confirm that, either in this bundle or in future documents, there will be a rigorous report to Parliament of the background to those awards and to all the parties, with guest lists, so that Parliament can see what happened and how we improve things and make sure it never happens again?
The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really must not take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics. The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He is saying, “Well, the Prime Minister did not know the depth of this relationship.” Does he really expect us to believe that a shallow relationship with a convicted paedophile is okay?
I want to speak about three things in this debate, which was helpfully secured by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). The first has already been dealt with but requires some amplification: the system is not working as well as it should. The figures that we heard quoted about access to wheelchairs, for example, are stark and surprising. In researching for the debate, I was surprised that, according to figures from NHS England—and we heard it again from the hon. Member—70% of wheelchair users wait more than three months for their chair, 30% wait more than six months, and 15% more than 12 months. Those are pretty astounding figures. I say to the Minister: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If those people could be provided with some help—perhaps not the chair ideally suited to their needs but something that assisted them—through a recycling scheme, I am sure that they would feel that the authorities were at least making an effort. If someone is sitting at home, hearing nothing and getting nothing, they must get increasingly frustrated. Let us be more creative in how we improve those numbers. Recycling equipment has to be at the heart of that. It is not a perfect solution, because equipment often has to be tailored to the specific requirements of the individual concerned, but it might help. The second point I want to raise is about housing. There are real problems with adapted housing, with the obligation on developers to build enough adapted houses, and with local authorities facing up to their responsibilities. I know that you are a great expert in this field, Mr Betts—a greater expert than me—but I would like to go back to the days when adapted housing was built for the elderly, the infirm and the disabled, perhaps with a resident warden who would take personal care in their interests and be available night and day for their needs. I am talking not about a distant individual obtained by means of a telephone or—heaven forbid—online, but about someone with hands-on knowledge of local residents. That existed in our lifetimes, and it does not exist now in any significant shape or form. Let us think again about best practice from past times in respect of housing, and create some obligations on local authorities and private developers to build a sufficient number of adapted homes. It is not just me; various reports have indicated the need. Analysis published in January 2026 by the Office for Equality and Opportunity, “Disabled people’s lived experience of housing in the UK: an evidence review”, stated that there are specific requirements or financial provision to provide suitable housing, but that the physical design of adaptations needs more understanding of individual needs, and that too often adaptations were not focused on the quality of life, wellbeing or independence of the person living there. Let us do more, and better, in respect of housing. My final point—I said I was only going to make three—is perhaps something that others will not raise, or certainly have not so far: the way that the provision of all kinds of other services can support disabled people. For example, various organisations that represent the blind and partially sighted have reported that flat bank cards have been a huge disadvantage to partially sighted people. Access to cash is actually quite important, because coins, which can be felt and are tactile, are important for small transactions. These small things make a huge difference to people’s lives. We need to think more laterally, and give considerably more thought to such small ways in which we as a Parliament, and the Minister as part of a Government, can make a huge difference to disabled people in all our constituencies.
On that specific point, the Government have said that that additional money for the grant will provide about 5,000 additional home adaptations. It would be really useful if the Minister, when he responds, could describe how local authorities will access that funding, how those 5,000 adaptations will be distributed across the kingdom and what kind of adaptations we are talking about. Are we talking about adaptations to new build houses or long-standing traditional houses in the private or public sectors? A bit more detail on that would be very welcome.
Have the Government made any assessment of the return and reuse of equipment? That is not always possible, as I said earlier, but it would be an incredibly powerful message to send to many of those people who have waited so long, and, I think, a very straightforward thing to do. If that assessment has not been made, will the Minister commit today to making such an assessment? That would be a positive outcome from this debate.
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?
I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?
Does the Minister acknowledge that debt reduction is taking place only because the Government have increased taxes by £66 billion? That contrasts with the tax rise of £7 billion that the Labour party promised in its manifesto. Could he explain the huge discrepancy between that manifesto promise and what the Government are imposing on our constituents?
It sounds as if the Minister is adding many, many extra pages to our tax code. What provisions will he be bringing forward to shorten and simplify the tax code?
Has my hon. Friend noticed a common thread through the Budget, which is that everyone who works hard, saves hard, invests and creates jobs is being penalised, and all that money is being used to benefit Benefits Street? It is no wonder that the growth rate is going down. [Interruption.]
Would the Minister concede that if that was offset by £12 billion less welfare spending, there would not be any threat to the sustainability of the finances?
The postal delivery landscape is a fast-moving one, as the Minister will recognise. That is evidenced by the fact that Denmark very recently ended its postal service entirely—everybody now has to use a private courier. What weight does he put on the words of Royal Mail when it says that it recognises the problems and is working hard—does he take that in good faith? A critique from Royal Mail, which clearly recognises that there are problems, is that Ofcom’s slow responses to Royal Mail suggestions are disjointed from a fast-moving landscape in a very competitive sphere. When he meets Ofcom this afternoon, will he urge it to respond speedily and progress issues as they manifest themselves?
The Home Secretary may know that I and other Opposition Members have signed at least two letters to the Prime Minister in recent months calling for recognition of the state of Palestine, but I also support the decision the Home Secretary has taken today. I think she has demonstrated seriousness of purpose in taking a very important decision, which clearly commands huge national support. One can be in favour of the decision she has taken and also in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people; the two are not alien to each other. The Home Secretary mentioned that a static protest could take place in lieu of the march. Does she or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have the power to limit the time of that specific event, to ensure that ordinary people going about their business are not disrupted and that huge blockages do not take place in the capital in lieu of a moving march?
I acknowledge what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said with regards to my role as Chair of the Committee looking at documents pro tem on behalf of the House. As he knows, that will be done properly. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is right that under the civil service rules, Mandelson could have made a claim to a tribunal, but the hon. Gentleman is also right that anybody doing so who has secured a position by deception would find themselves on the thinnest of thin ice; they would have no chance at all. Mandelson’s original claim just underscores the shamelessness of the individual in question. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has admitted that the Prime Minister was lied to—that is deception—was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought by Mandelson? If it was, what was that advice? If it was not, why not?
I rise to speak about the changes that have been made in relation to inheritance tax, which is impacting many of our family farming businesses and also those family businesses that operate in many of our constituencies. I rise specifically to speak to amendments 89 and 90, which, if agreed, would remove the liability for inheritance tax on the share of a tenancy at arm’s length that transfers on death. This Government’s ill-handling of the family farm tax has left our farmers in limbo and their confidence in tatters. Thanks to Labour’s disastrous family farm tax and family business tax, our farmers and many hard-working businesses have spent over a year navigating an already challenging time for the sector, with added anxiety and uncertainty hanging over their heads. Despite the warnings from the entire farming community, this Government pushed ahead with the tax, creating chaos, fear and real damage.
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Despite the minimal, partial Government U-turn by increasing that threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, the changes are still impacting many of our farming businesses and therefore the wider supply chain. This not only has a negative impact on the level of investment that a family is willing to put into their family business, but has a hugely detrimental impact on the wider supply chain, including on investment in agricultural machinery and the willingness to purchase stock. This is therefore having a massive detrimental impact on the real rural economy right now.
We absolutely do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, because we all know that the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is proportionately higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and therefore a huge proportion of Northern Ireland farmers—4,500 of them—who are working incredibly hard are still going to be impacted by the rate relief change that this Labour Government have implemented. They are going to be detrimentally impacted, and that has a wider negative impact on the rural economy. Despite this partial U-turn, by increasing the level of the agricultural and business property relief thresholds from £1 million to £2.5 million for inheritance tax, the Government will risk once again showing their disregard for the farming community should they neglect to support amendments 89 and 90, which seek to address yet another measure seemingly designed to punish our farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association is a dedicated organisation that represents the interests of all those within our farming community who do not own land, and it is heavily involved in supporting the tenanted sector. I spoke with members of the TFA just this morning and the chief executive, George Dunn, who has excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, the tenanted sector and has provided many a briefing to many Members of this House. It is deeply disappointing that Government Members do not seem to support amendments 89 and 90 to schedule 12. Should the House fail to agree to the changes in these amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and me, those who inherit a share of a joint tenancy will have no means to capitalise on that share while also having no way to liquidate the asset in the context of continuing business to allow them to pay the tax liability. To date, the value of any inherited portion of a business or agricultural tenancy held jointly following the death of one of the joint tenants has been fully relievable either through agricultural property relief or business property relief. Given that in most cases it will be impossible for the surviving joint tenant or tenants to realise the value of any inherited share of the tenancy on death, it is completely unfair that this tax, proposed by the Labour Government, should be levied. The unfairness is underlined by the fact that an input value for the share of the joint tenancy would have to be calculated on the profit rent basis, which is the best at theoretical value in any case, which just blows out of context the real damage that is being implemented by this Labour Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to learn from their previous mistake, listen to our farmers and protect the value of joint tenancies by supporting these amendments. Amendment 88 seeks to delay the triggering of the instalments that are going to be brought forward by the payment of inheritance tax from the current period of six months by 12 months to a full 18-month period. This is so important—the Government fail to realise this—because of how complex it is to value the assets that are likely to be subjected to an IHT liability. When looking at farming businesses, we are not only valuing the farmland. There may be a farmhouse and a cottage or two, and the livestock, the machinery, the growing crops and the crops in store will all have a value associated with them. It is therefore complex to ascertain the value within the six-month period that the Government have outlined. And it gets more complicated still. We find ourselves in the bizarre scenario where two assets on death with a value of £5 million could be subjected to different IHT liabilities depending on the ownership structure and whether the spousal allowance is being utilised—therefore exposing any tax liability on death to challenge, quite rightly, by those with whom the tax liability sits. To have a deadline of six months for that tax liability to be triggered, and for an instalment to be paid, will simply not be sustainable. I therefore urge the Government to support amendment 89 in my name and that of the official Opposition.
It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities. This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government. Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million. We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates. I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.
I endorse what the hon. Member says. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many family businesses, beyond the agricultural sector, that will be impacted by the business property relief threshold at £2.5 million. They include manufacturing businesses and those in the hospitality sector, and many of them will be in the constituencies of Labour MPs. I cannot understand why, during the course of this Bill, many Labour MPs have been silent on the issue of business property relief, and why they are not standing up for family businesses. I endorse what the hon. Member says about fire sales happening as a result of an increased inheritance tax liability.
I note that that is the Government’s position, but what level of assessment have they done of the negative implications of having just a six-month period as opposed to extending that to 18 months? From the engagement that Opposition Members have had with many stakeholders, we have found that the consequences are huge. What assessments have the Government done in relation to this specific issue?
One in 10 women have endometriosis, seriously impacting their ability to work. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that employers have clear guidance about the reasonable adjustments that they should be offering, not just for endometriosis but for all gynaecological issues that impact women’s work?