Carer’s Leave

Ann Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Thank you, Mr Stringer.

I am grateful for the intervention and I think the hon. Lady is absolutely right. In St Andrews in my constituency I met a group called the CRAP Carers—which stood for caring, resilient and positive. There is no doubt that the network of support that unpaid carers can access is really important.

We estimate that the value of the support that unpaid carers give to our economy equates to over £160 billion per year. That is to say that our care force is massive, and it needs valuing and supporting alongside every other industry. We also know, as Members have already touched on, that statistically being an unpaid carer makes someone worse off.

Early this year I hosted a policy breakfast with the Centre for Care at Sheffield University. Although the Minister could not attend, I am grateful that the Department for Business and Trade and the Department of Health and Social Care sent civil service representatives. We heard how the Centre for Care has been doing some important research on the impact of being an unpaid carer on income, which was published last year.

Staggeringly, the research finds an average relative income gap of up to 45% for those informal carers providing the most hours of care. I recommend that the Minister read the research; it is quite heavy on statistical analysis, but I am sure that the Centre for Care would be happy to meet with him, if it has not done so already. The academic research confirms what we already know from the surveys carried out by organisations such as Carers UK: unpaid carers are more likely to live in poverty, and doing something altruistic for the people you love makes you worse off.

The state of caring survey carried out by Carers UK for 2024 found that 40% of respondents had had to give up work, finding the juggle unmanageable, and of those still in employment, 44% had reduced their working hours, while a quarter had moved to a more junior role. That leaves the vast majority of unpaid carers with less money in their pockets every month. That is at a time when they may be living with the person they care for, and we know that there is a significant disability price tag. The personal independence payment down here, and the adult disability payment in Scotland—now a devolved benefit—are vital, but they are not enough to make up that difference.

The issue is not just immediate poverty although that is a very real issue, but about tackling poverty among pensioners, especially women, who are still more likely to be unpaid carers and to subsequently reduce or stop working as a result. We have a gender pension gap because we have a gender pay gap. The latest Government data sets that gender pension gap at 35%, but other organisations put it much higher. We know that caring plays a large part in that.

Responding to Carers UK last year, over two thirds of carers who had given up work said that they were worried about managing in the future, while over half of those who had reduced their hours said that they had cut back on savings for their retirement. All of that matters, not just to the individuals and their families who are struggling or to those who have promising careers that never reach their potential, but to this Government, who need to respond to the rising rates of poverty among older people while trying to reduce the benefits bill.

The struggles that lead to people stepping back from work are entirely understandable. Caring is hard, tiring, stressful, time-consuming and does not neatly fit into our free hours of the day. Flexible working does make up some of that picture, which I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, but there will always be pinch moments when care arrangements need changing, extra hospital appointments need attending or where all the tiny acts of care and admin for a loved one cannot be fitted in and around work.

The risk is that people use up their holiday, which is something that all the evidence tells us is bad for their health—as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referred to in her intervention on respite. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 was aimed at solving that—or at the very least, helping with it. It was the first legal right for carers to take leave from work for caring. It was an acknowledgment of how hard it can be, aimed at prompting a conversation about support in employment.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Last night, an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill introducing paid carer’s leave was debated in the House of Lords, where a Plaid Cymru colleague spoke from the experience of having been a young unpaid carer herself. In that debate, the Government Whip provided an update of the review into the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must, as part of that review, recognise that in order to make a true difference, carer’s leave must be paid leave?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful for that update on the progress of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place last night. My party’s policy is for paid carer’s leave, and I am conscious that my Act only formalised some of the less formal arrangements that many people undertake, but it hopefully prompts conversations with the employer. I hope the Government review will look at paid carer’s leave and introduce it sooner rather than later. I would be more than happy if my Act were superseded.

One year on, the question is whether the policy is working. What do we know so far? It is clearly far too early to see an impact on poverty or even net employment rates, and I do not think the legislation that was passed is significant enough for that. Even if the statistics were available, there are too many moving parts to isolate cause and effect, but by now we should have a feeling of how well the Government are communicating advice about carer’s leave to businesses. Are businesses updating their policies and systems for requesting and recording leave? Are they training their managers? Do their employees know about their rights? Would they feel comfortable using them? Has the dial been moved at all towards more carer-friendly workplaces?

My big worry in the first few months after the regulations passed was that the Government were not doing enough to tell businesses about the new rights and what was required of them. I accept that at that time we obviously had a general election and a new Government. For too long, the main advice on gov.uk was on a webpage for new businesses setting up for the first time. I am happy that that seems to have been remedied, and that using the search engine to look for carer’s leave makes the right page pop up, but I am less comforted by the lack of resources on carer’s leave, or on unpaid carers at all, on the Department for Business and Trade’s website.

Yesterday, my team searched for “carer’s leave” and found no results under “guidance and regulation”, no results under “research and statistics”, one result under “policy papers and consultations” and three under “news”, two of which were from when the law was passed two years ago. It appears that the Government’s only interest in carer’s leave is in announcing a review into how it is working. Given that I secured this debate, I am clearly happy to see how things are going and how we can improve them, but I venture to say that the Government risk abandoning their responsibilities to working carers if they do not take an interest in promoting the leave that is available right now. What are they doing to ensure businesses, big and small, know about the rights of their employees and are supported in implementing them? How is this information getting out to business owners and busy managers, who simply do not have the time to look up a right that they might not even know exists? The Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury have more power to reach companies than any other organisation. If the review finds later this year that companies did not know about the leave, and therefore that it has been ineffective, DBT will need to look at its own failings and at the fact that it did not do more.

The enforcement of legal rights is not the only way the Department can encourage carer-friendly workplaces. Businesses could be signposted to a whole range of resources, including guidance from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Employers for Carers network. Carer Positive in Scotland is done with the Scottish Government, and I am pleased to say that my office is a Carer Positive employer. There is no reason why similar initiatives could not at least be encouraged down here.

As to what is happening with businesses, we can get something of a snapshot from an employer survey report published by Carers UK in January. I say “something of a snapshot” for one big reason: the employers answering the surveys are those already tapped into the networks and already alive to the issues facing carers, so low levels of reform could indicate that less reform is needed because policies were already in place, and high improvements could be because the self-selecting group is motivated to go above and beyond. But there are some really promising findings in the responses. Almost 90% of responding organisations reported no challenges in implementing the Act. More than half have a dedicated carer’s leave policy, compared with less than a quarter before the legislation came in. Some 23% of organisations saw an increase in uptake of their internal networks or support groups for employers. Many responded in free text that the law change had prompted greater understanding about what it means to be a carer, and about how people can move in and out of that status.

But there are a number of factors that I am worried about. The Government should be worried about them too, and should be looking at fixing them immediately, as well as in the longer review. Only three quarters of organisations told their employees about the new right—remember that these are the ones more likely to take action. That tallies with other research, which found that only two thirds of working carers know about carer’s leave. Hundreds of people become carers every day, and most people do not pay attention on their intranet or in their work emails to things that are not relevant to them, so unless that information is easily accessible and reiterated regularly, the chances are that salience among working carers will continue to lessen as time passes.

Even for employees who know about the right, there is a reported reluctance to be open about caring responsibilities or to request time off: 15% of respondents to the State of Caring survey said that they were worried about a negative reaction to taking time off for caring. It is deeply worrying that some respondents said that even though their organisations had policies in place, their line managers blocked requests for support. We should never be hearing reports such as:

“I work for a large public sector organisation, how you are treated all depends on that one single manager”,

or,

“My employer offers flexible working but my line manager doesn’t and says carer’s leave is for emergencies only which it isn’t.”

Given the integral need for line managers to implement carer-friendly policies, it is vital that businesses offer internal training and guidance. It is therefore worrying that of the organisations that responded to the survey on carer’s leave, only a quarter had specifically raised awareness or provided training to managers on implementing the right to leave. If the kind of organisations that are already tapped in to Carer Positive networks are not doing that, it is not hard to imagine what is happening in areas where there is low support for carers. There is a role for the Government to make sure that rights for working carers are a reality, not just a piece of paper.

Finally, there is the elephant in the room that is paid carer’s leave, which has already been referred to, and whether people can afford to take time off. I have always said that I want to see the legislation amended and upgraded. Last year, I worked with the Minister for Employment Rights, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), on the Delegated Legislation Committee considering the then draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024. I recall that he, too, wanted it to be paid. He might reflect on his own frustrations with how long it took to see that law through, and ensure that the can is not kicked down the road.

I will leave it to colleagues to look to the future, but today, I urge the Government to take steps so that the current law—the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—can reach its potential, is known about, talked about and accepted in our workplaces, and that it sparks conversations on what it means to be a carer and how work can be made to work for the unpaid carers that we all rely on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies]

The value of the 310,000 carers we have in Wales is £10 billion, so they are saving the Welsh economy—or the DWP here—£10 billion. Surely, we must have a system whereby carers, through the leave that they can receive, are empowered to apply for jobs that will give them the opportunity to work and care at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having such a system is vital for the DWP’s money to be used wisely?

[David Chadwick]

I absolutely agree. We have already heard in this debate some of the personal stories of people involved in caring and the challenges that they are taking on. The hon. Lady was quite right to point to the financial figures and the impact that this situation is having on our economy. For example, Powys Teaching Health Board has a deficit of just over £16 million a year, and it is paying another £16 million a year to other health boards to provide social care in our area. That highlights the contribution that unpaid carers make: if the gap were not being plugged by unpaid carers, the cost would be even higher.

Wales struggles more with the issue of unpaid carers than other UK nations because we have an ageing population, poorer health outcomes and rising levels of complex care needs. Our carers are stepping up where our social care system is stretched, but they do so at great personal cost, as has already been highlighted. They are disproportionately affected by poverty—unpaid carers in Wales are nearly twice as likely as other people to live in poverty and one in five of them are among the most deprived people in our society. For many of them, taking unpaid leave to care for a loved one simply is not an option; it is a financial risk that they simply cannot afford to take.

That is why the Carer’s Leave Act matters, because it gives carers across the UK the legal right to five days of unpaid leave. However, that right is only meaningful if people can afford to use it and know about it. Recent data from Carers Wales shows that 55% of carers have not taken unpaid leave—not because they do not need it, but because they cannot afford to lose that income. A year on from the law taking effect, a third of carers in Wales still do not know their full rights.

This is not just about fairness—it is about economic reality. Both the UK and Welsh Governments have spoken about the importance of getting more people into work and driving economic growth. The work of unpaid carers saves the Welsh Government over £10 billion a year. Paid carer’s leave is not a luxury but a necessity. It is a matter of dignity, equality and basic economic justice. I urge the Government to build on the ambition shown by the Liberal Democrats and commit to introducing paid carer’s leave by the end of this Parliament. Carers should not be punished for their compassion. They should be supported, respected and recognised as the backbone of our caring system.

British Steel

Ann Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ann Davies.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I would like to follow up on a question from the hon. Member for Brycheiniog, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), because unlike at Scunthorpe, jobs at Port Talbot are not being saved. The Government say that instead, they will retrain workers through the employment and skills flexible fund. Seven months later, can the Secretary of State say exactly how that money has been spent, and how many of the 2,800 laid-off steelworkers at Port Talbot have been retrained or re-employed?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for promoting me to Secretary of State—I am actually just a junior Minister. She is right to raise the issue of Port Talbot. The transition board has papers that we can send her, which set out exactly how many people have gone through training processes. The number of people who have taken compulsory redundancy is very small; I might be wrong—I am speculating slightly—but I think it is in the region of 190. Those people have had a package of support, and a lot of detail is available through the transition board about how that support will be provided. Of course, about 5,000 jobs will be secure in Port Talbot, but the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue; it is a significant and important one that I would not want to downplay. The situation in Port Talbot was different, and we had to have a different response, but I am very happy to provide the information that she wants in more detail.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Ann Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right to highlight the power imbalance between the producers and the retailers. It is quite right that she also focuses on the important research that has been done on this topic by organisations like Riverford. The evidence they have provided has been crucial in helping us push forward the campaign for fairer prices for producers.

It is my belief, and that of many farmers and producers I represent, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be strengthened, better resourced, and its remit expanded if we are to ensure fairness in our supply chain.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

As the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) mentioned, Welsh Government figures show that income fell for Welsh farmers by 34% between April 2023 and March 2024 and the dairy income by 59%. Does he believe we should safeguard all future food production in Wales? Welsh farmers should be able to rely on a fair deal for the products and, as Elfyn Llwyd called for 10 years ago, the regulatory bodies should be made to support that.

[David Chadwick]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the plight of Welsh farmers. Their livelihoods are under threat. That is why it is so important that we ensure greater fairness in the supply chain for them, to ensure that they get a fair price for what they produce, and that the Government are fully aware of the impact the tax changes they wish to make will have on the rural communities we represent.

Rural communities are really suffering at the moment. We know that constituencies like my own are losing thousands of young people every year because there are fewer and fewer jobs to go around. The long-term consequences of that are terminal. That is why it is so important that we ensure that farming, the engine of the rural economy, continues to generate profit and jobs throughout the rural economy.

The GCA has improved the rights of farmers, but producers still report bullying behaviour by major suppliers. Just a few examples of the ongoing mistreatment of producers: a delay in payments—sometimes farmers and producers are not paid for up to and sometimes exceeding 45 days; no compensation for forecasting errors; de-listing; changes to orders placed and orders eventually accepted. It is a story of David versus Goliath.

With six major buyers and 14 retailers covered by the GCA, the supermarkets have often been accused of using their collective buying power to force thousands of farmers and producers to plough on with prices that have fallen below the cost of production. Supermarkets helped themselves to a 97% surge in profits in the last year alone. They passed on higher prices to customers during the inflationary crisis, yet they are not handing on a fair share of that to producers.

I am raising this issue after a local farmer told me how a supermarket went back on its pledge to buy animals he had spent years rearing, leaving him at a loss. That is not a small loss for a local farmer. The costs involved in raising livestock to maturity are immense, and the losses when supermarkets change their mind are damaging to local producers. A recent survey on behalf of Riverford found that 45% of farmers feared going out of business, with 75% of those asked saying that treatment by supermarket buyers was one of their top concerns. Research from Sustain has found that only 5% of farmers want to sell to supermarkets due to having little say over prices and not enough connection to shoppers.

The consequences of unfair practices extend far beyond individual farms. The UK’s food security is at risk when farmers are unable to make a living from their work. As more farmers are forced out of business, we become increasingly reliant on imported food, which can be subject to price fluctuations and supply chain disruptions. This brings me to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. While the GCA and the groceries supply code of practice—I will refer to this as the code—are highly regarded among farmers and the rest of the industry, I often hear from local producers in my constituency that they feel that the GCA does not have all the powers it needs to fully level the playing field between farmers, producers and retailers.

Beyond powers, there remains work to be done on increasing awareness of the GCA among farmers. Although awareness of the GCA and its roles has increased since 2014, it has stalled recently, and a significant number of producers still do not fully understand its role. More worryingly, many farmers still feel reprisals for reporting breaches of the code. A staggering 67% of farmers have reported fearing being de-listed should they speak out about unfair practice by supermarkets. That means that there is almost certainly an under-reporting of incidents to the GCA, which undermines its effectiveness.

More needs to be done to improve confidence in the system for producers and to enable the GCA to instil understanding and trust in its role. That also extends to the requirement for the GCA to have received a complaint to launch a report. People I speak to in the industry would like the GCA to have the ability to launch its own investigations without having to wait for a farmer to report malpractice first. An example of using that power in practice could be launching an investigation into the recent issues with Amazon or concerns over the chicken meat supply chain.

The parameters of the GCA and the code are insufficient in an ever-changing food market. The inclusion of Amazon into the 14 suppliers covered by the GCA was a welcome move, but given Amazon’s low level of compliance with the code, it raises serious questions about whether other significant retailers who make less than £1 billion in revenue from the food system are falling through the gap. Likewise, there are serious concerns that food processors, packagers and manufacturers who act as the middle people between farmers and retailers are also falling through the gaps when it comes to regulation, despite collectively supplying over half of Britain’s food.

The GCA’s seven golden rules have been widely welcomed by the sector. To protect suppliers, the rules should be fully incorporated into the code, rather than only being guidelines. This needs to happen quickly, because suppliers are continuing to experience difficulties in cost price increase negotiations as a result of the ongoing inflation crisis we find ourselves in the middle of. The supermarkets are willing to use energy and fertiliser price inflation as justification for increasing prices for customers, but are seemingly unwilling to pay farmers a fair price that recognises those changes and the increased input costs for farmers.

The Government must strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the groceries code to ensure that we have true fairness across supply chains. First, the Government can improve the visibility of the GCA and awareness of its work. The GCA must give farmers the confidence to report issues and to know that they will be handled confidentially, especially as many farmers feel that they may be punished or blacklisted for making complaints. Secondly, the GCA only has seven members of staff, including the adjudicator himself, yet is responsible for regulating an industry worth billions of pounds.

The GCA’s reliance on temporary and seconded staff hinders its ability to enforce the code. Giving the GCA a dedicated staff team would allow it to respond effectively at all times and to build and retain specialist knowledge. Likewise, the GCA should not have to wait for a producer to report malpractice. If it suspects that retailers are not complying with the code, let it launch its own independent investigations.

We should also move to expand the remit, as over half of the food being supplied by packagers, processors, distributors and manufacturers and in several other key areas of the food supply chain still falls outside of the regulation. The seven golden rules have been rightly welcomed across the industry, but many concerns remain that those are only guidelines set by the GCA, rather than forming part of the code itself. Legally incorporating them into the code would help to ensure that producers are fully covered when it comes to reports of unfair cost-price negotiations.

Overall, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is improving the relationship between farmers and large retailers, but as our food market evolves, so too must the GCA. By expanding its remit, providing additional resources and enhancing its enforcement powers, the Government can ensure that the GCA truly works for farmers and producers, and ensures fairness in the food supply chain. Let’s give our food system the fair market it needs, let’s give our rural communities the support they need, and let’s make sure that the GCA remains a strong and effective safeguard for the future of our food system. I look forward to other hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Ann Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

That point is exceptionally well made. From little acorns, mighty oaks grow, and in the old days a good bank manager would specialise in spotting a potential business that was going to grow, which in turn benefited the bank. We all know of examples over the last 30 or 40 years where that happened.

Banking hubs are not a universal solution, however. In my constituency, the last bank branch in the county of Sutherland, Bank of Scotland in Golspie, is about to close. When it was looked at for a banking hub, it was deemed too small. There is not going to be a banking hub because it did not fit the stats. That means that the whole county of Sutherland—a vast county in the UK—will not have one single bank branch. As I say, access to cash is not the paramount function of banking services; cash access is just the tip of the iceberg in solving the problem of closed branches. It is the other functions I mention, such as face-to-face services, that provide the local community with an invaluable service. The economic impact of these closures cannot be overstated.

High streets are more than just retail hubs; they are engines of the local economy. Returning to my constituency, in the two large towns of Wick and Thurso, which are the largest population centres, high street businesses provide jobs. My two daughters have worked in shops in my hometown of Tain—one in a chemist, the other in a fruit and vegetable shop. The high street attracts visitors who contribute to the local economy—one thinks of Monmouth in that respect.

When these services disappear, so the jobs go. The threat of having to move south when the tourists leave at the end of the tourist season affects the highlands. I know of people who had a summer job; when the tourists go, away they go too, and they may not come back again. That casts that dark old shadow of highland and island depopulation, which the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will know well. It haunts all of us in the more remote areas of Scotland.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Carmarthenshire county council secured half a million pounds through the UK shared prosperity fund in August 2024 to carry out improvement works in Carmarthen town centre, along with match funding improvements in ten of our rural market towns. That money is being used to repair pavements, improve car park entrances and improve the attractiveness of the town centre—improvements that we hope will improve the footfall and tourism within these towns. As we know, however, SPF is due to end at the end of 2026. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should set out their plans for the replacement of the shared prosperity fund, to ensure that our high streets and town centres continue to receive the investment they need to improve and increase footfall?

[Jamie Stone]

That is a wise point, and I have no reason to doubt that there will be sympathetic ears on the Government Benches—at least, I very much hope so; I do not see why there would not be.

The closures I talk about and the jobs going discourage investment in our towns and regions. Why would a new business choose to set up shop in a town where the high street no longer has high levels of footfall? Why would they open a shop in that street if nobody is going to be there? Those ripple effects extend beyond immediate job losses; they discourage investment in the future.

With fewer businesses operating locally, supply chains are disrupted. This affects farmers, tradesmen and other small businesses who might well rely on high street outlets to sell their goods, and creates a vicious circle that is very hard to break. Money spent in the local economy stays in that local economy. A recent Visa study says that for every £10 spent at independently owned local businesses in the UK, around d £3.80 is retained within the local area. That means local banks, local solicitors and other people supplying that business.