Carer’s Leave Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on ensuring that his Bill has gone through its remaining stages and now passes to the other place—I hope to feel the same sense of achievement shortly. I am conscious that some in the Chamber today who are looking to speak will have personal experience of caring for a relative or other dependant, and I am very grateful for their participation in today’s debate. With the leave of the House, I will save my other thanks for later on, but the number of Members who have spoken out about their experiences during the course of the Bill’s progress has brought to life how widespread caring is for so many, both in this House and outwith. It is wonderful that following Second Reading and Committee, we have time to debate this important issue again today.

Statistics from the 2020-21 family resources survey show that approximately 4.2 million people across the UK are providing unpaid care by looking after an elderly or disabled family member or another dependant, and that the majority of those individuals are women aged over 50. In the previous debate, there was much conversation about how we get people back into the workplace; we know that the Government have a particular focus on those aged over 50, so I am very hopeful that they will continue to support my Bill, because I believe it will help towards that goal.

The reality is that becoming a carer is something that can happen to any one of us. Caring is a reality for many millions of people across the UK. It can take many forms: it can be day-to-day physical caring, washing, dressing and feeding for those who cannot care for themselves; it can be making medical appointments or arranging for paid care; it can even just be doing the shopping for a housebound elderly neighbour. Caring or being cared for is something that almost everyone will experience at some point in their life.

However, sadly, Carers UK research found in 2021 that 37% of working carers said that they needed unpaid carer’s leave in order to manage working and caring, and a further one in seven said that without carer’s leave, they would have to reduce their working hours or give up work altogether. Those statistics become even starker when we talk to carers of those with more debilitating conditions, such as multiple sclerosis. The preliminary findings of a recent survey of unpaid carers by the MS Society found that 13% of respondents had given up working and 20% had taken early retirement due to their caring responsibilities. Over two thirds said that their work had been impacted due to the help they provided to their loved one with MS.

My own experience, going out to my constituents to see if I could find people who would benefit from this legislation, brings those statistics to life. So many carers in North East Fife got in touch with me to say that they had already given up work because of their caring responsibilities. I very much hope that the Bill will help encourage some of those people to find a way back to work, and therefore make a contribution to the economy as well as providing that vital care.

The new employment rights in the Bill are vital at a time when the Government are trying to get people, especially the over-50s, back to work. I firmly believe that they will also help businesses, many of which are already under significant financial strain without the costs of staff turnover and continued recruitment. The successful passage of the Bill will be a significant milestone: carer’s leave will provide increased flexibility to unpaid carers who are balancing paid employment with their caring responsibilities. It will enable them to take some time out of work if required, which will support them to stay in work because, vitally, they will not have to choose between caring and working.

The Bill creates a new entitlement for employees to take up to a week of unpaid leave a year in order to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need. I certainly hope that, for example, things such as regular hospital appointments—those planned things that carers know are potentially going to happen—can be made easier by the provisions in the Bill.

All employees who meet the eligibility conditions will be entitled to that unpaid leave, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer. That means that the entitlement will be available to eligible employees from the first day of their employment, which is critical in overcoming the hurdles that carers experience when re-entering the workplace, or even when changing jobs—that was talked about in the previous debate by, I think, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I was a police officer, and when I joined the police at the age of 22, I firmly expected to spend 30 years in the police service, but that is not how it has worked out. Portfolio careers—people moving between jobs—are increasingly becoming a feature of everyday working life. The Bill will help support that, because people will know that they can take its provisions into different jobs.

The leave will be available to take flexibly, in half-day increments. Importantly for employers and employees, there will be no requirement to provide evidence in relation to a request for carer’s leave. That will make it easier for carers to take the leave and also benefit employers, as they will not have to deal with potential data protection issues, such as holding third-party medical details. Having worked in human resources, I know that will also help with the psychological contract, because if employees feel that their employers trust them in relation to taking the leave, that will help build up the good relationships that are so important in the workplace.

Employees taking carer’s leave will have the same employment protections associated with other forms of family-related leave. That includes protection from dismissal or detriment as a result of having taken the leave. Bringing carer’s leave together with those other forms of leave and making employment protections consistent makes it easier for businesses to administer and for employees to understand.

Importantly, the rights will be available to carers who do all types of caring for different sorts of people. The definition is simple: they must be managing the care of a dependent who requires long-term care. The Bill does not use the usual narrow definition of “dependent” and includes anyone who may

“reasonably rely on the employee to provide or arrange care”.

That could be care for a spouse, civil partner, child or parent—my husband is a carer for his own mother—but it could also be care for someone who lives in the same household as the employee, such as a tenant or a lodger, or even a next-door neighbour or an elderly couple down the road. One of the positives of covid—I always hesitate to use the word “positive” about covid—was the community spirit it engendered, and the help people gave to others in their communities; the Bill encourages that spirit. Such a broad definition will ensure that a highly diverse range of caring relationships are in the scope of the leave entitlements.

The definition of “long-term care need” is also broad. It includes disability, but it also encompasses a person with

“an illness or injury (whether physical or mental) that requires, or is likely to require, care for more than three months”.

In addition, it includes a person requiring care for any reason connected with old age, so the definition is all encompassing.

I firmly believe that carer’s leave is a right that has to work for businesses as well as for carers, for employers as well as for employees. While the leave is designed to be flexible and to fit around the day-to-day lives of carers, employees still need to give reasonable notice. The notice requirements broadly follow those for taking annual leave, so again they are easy to understand from both sides.

Carer’s leave is a right to have, rather than a right to request. However, the Bill recognises that there may be circumstances when granting leave will be difficult, so an employer will be able to postpone but not deny the leave. That allows the space for employers and employees to come to arrangements that work best for both parties.

Over recent months, I have had the privilege of meeting some businesses that already have carer’s leave in place, in order to learn how carer’s leave works for them. I have learned that being carer friendly is not only not a detriment to businesses, but actually helps them. Employees who feel supported are more motivated and loyal. The cost savings on recruitment and additional productivity easily counterbalance any minor administration costs. On Twitter this morning, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said it supports the Bill. I am a former associate member of that institute, but it is telling that the main body for HR in the UK recognises that the Bill is good for business and for its members. That tells us that the Bill is taking the right steps.

Many other hon. Members have also met with companies that are in favour of carer’s leave, as I found out at the drop-in I sponsored last week. I thank the representatives of TSB and Centrica, who came to Parliament, for giving up their time to share their experiences with us. Carers UK runs an effective employers group and it is good to hear those positive stories.

Every experience of caring is unique. Without statutory employment rights, everyone’s experience of dealing with their employer will differ. Some employers will be excellent in their support, others indifferent and many more somewhere in between. The Bill will benefit everyone, no matter where they are on that scale.

One key thing that came across in speaking to constituents and others who are carers was the in-built guilt they have as a carer. On the one hand, they feel guilty because they cannot give the care they want to give to their loved one or dependent. On the other hand, they feel guilt dealing with their employer to ask for time off, potentially unpaid, and feeling they are not making a full contribution. Hopefully, the Bill will help to mitigate some of that.

One such constituent was Judith, who I spoke with last week to hear about her experience of caring and what the Bill would mean for her. She is currently working four days a week, hoping to move to three days, and is in positive conversations with her employer. She is responsible for her elderly father who, having had a tumour removed last year, has had more and more frequent hospital trips for treatment arising from that. His most recent visit lasted over a week and has left him very disorientated since he came out of hospital. Judith feels lucky in that she has been able to take unpaid leave from work, but she does feel that guilt I referenced and feels worried that the good will of her employer will not last for ever.

As I mentioned earlier, carer’s leave as a right to have, not a right to request, should help—that is the key thing here. Judith does not yet have it as a right to have. The Bill will give her that, take away the guilt of asking work for time off and remove the worry of what might happen next. The reality is that the situation will only get more difficult for Judith and her family. Indeed, her brother has made the decision to give up work and rely on his pension. That is a very noble thing to do, and within the family they are all sharing the load, but it demonstrates, on trying to keep people in the workplace, that we have much more still to do to help enable people to continue to do both work and caring.

I have heard from employers who believe that this new employment right will be the catalyst for starting conversations about caring. Even within carer- friendly organisations, getting people to talk about their responsibilities, or simply to even recognise themselves as carers, can be a challenge. This new employment right makes caring as ordinary a part of working life as taking a sick day with covid or maternity leave after a baby. It will be a huge shift in how we understand carers. I have previously mentioned that the largest employer in my constituency, the University of St Andrews, has very good policies in place, but it recognised, when looking at the Bill, that it did not necessarily bring them all together properly. What happened was that people were coming to their line manager when they hit a crisis point, as opposed to engaging at an earlier stage to get the support they needed that meant their family did not hit that crisis point.

At the other end of the spectrum, for carers whose employers do not have any policies in place to support them, the new law will be a vital first step, both in the actual leave they can take and in feeling seen and supported in work. The multiple sclerosis survey I referenced earlier found that of carers who are currently employed, only 5.2% had been offered advice or support to help them stay in work. That is simply atrocious, and I hope the Bill will spark those conversations. Importantly, although carer’s leave entering law will feel like an end, it is also a start.

There is still so much more we can do to support unpaid carers. In the long run, I hope most companies will offer paid carer’s leave and that we may even get a statutory entitlement to such. We must fund day centres and reform carer’s allowance, so that carers can potentially earn more before that allowance drops off. As I said to the Prime Minister before Christmas, the caring never stops.

We can also do so much more to help carers into work through training and support. With the Carers Trust, I visited Camden Carers last week to learn about a project called Working for Carers, which is focused specifically on getting carers who have left the workplace because of their caring responsibilities back into the workplace. I met two participants, one of whom, Nicola, as a result of the help she had received, was setting up her own business, while the other, Amanda, was returning to work in education as a classroom assistant. It is proof that in the right conditions carers can work and be highly valuable to our economy.

This is an incredible day to see the Bill through its final Commons stages. I have had lots of “Well done, Wendy”, but I am very conscious that getting this opportunity starts with a number being drawn out of a big glass bowl. So there is a degree of luck, but I firmly believe it is what we do with that luck afterwards that is important. I very much hope the Minister will rise to confirm the Government’s continued support for the Bill. As anyone who has brought a private Member’s Bill will know, there is a certain level of anxiety in seeing your Bill go off to the other place without you, but I am confident that my colleague Lord Fox of Leominster will be an excellent guardian of the Bill and I thank him for taking it on. I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope to speak again later, with the leave of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

With the leave of the House, I want to thank everybody who has taken the time to be here today and to speak. It is worth mentioning that, as a Liberal Democrat, I follow in the path of others in my passion for carers and their rights: the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) is currently doing on kinship care is very important, and our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), has spoken many times in the House about his own caring experiences and has worked hard with organisations such as Carers UK to forward carers’ rights.

It has been a real pleasure working in partnership with Carers UK, which I thank for its amazing support on the Bill; it has made things very straightforward. I also want to mention the Carers Trust and the Scottish Government’s Carer Positive scheme—I have become an employer who supports carers myself, and I think that scheme should be looked at beyond Scotland. I also thank the carers working in North East Fife. They introduced me to the CRAP carers—the compassionate, resilient and patient group in St Andrews. I also thank the MS Society: I am grateful that it gave me sighting of its preliminary findings, which I mentioned in my Third Reading speech, and I hope the Government will take note of those findings when they are published later this year. I also want to acknowledge my senior researcher, Kathryn Sturgeon, who had her work on the Bill recognised by winning the project lead award in the inaugural cross-party staff network awards earlier this year.

I thank the staff in BEIS. We have seen one another regularly, and they have been a fantastic support; I know they did a great amount of work in the background on the Bill before it was introduced, consulting with stakeholders and formulating this policy area. As the Minister mentioned, he is not the only Minister I have been speaking with in relation to the Bill; I also recognise the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt)—who spoke on Second Reading—and the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). Both this Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), came to my drop-in event last week, and I have photographic evidence of their support for the Bill as it goes on to its remaining stages.

I am so grateful to all Members who spoke today. There are too many to mention, but I hope that both the Minister’s responses and what I have said in my speech have described the balance that we are attempting to strike by making carer’s leave a day-one right. I really hope that people can bring their whole selves to work—the skills, knowledge and behaviours that they have as carers—in order to be able to work hard for their employers, and I hope the Bill mitigates some of the concerns about people potentially abusing the system. I do need to mention the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who said very kind words about me—I myself did not serve, but I worked for the Career Transition Partnership. He and I believe that the vast majority of veterans make a very positive contribution to the workplace, but hopefully the Bill will help provide support for those who need it.

The Bill is a huge step in the right direction for carers across the UK who volunteer to help loved ones with their caring needs. There is clearly much still to do in that regard, but I am very grateful to hon. Members for their support, and I look forward to watching the Bill’s progress in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Carer's Leave Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

That the schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank everyone who is here today—those here voluntarily and those I spoke to very nicely. I welcome the Minister to his place. He is the fourth Minister I have worked with on this Bill, and I am grateful for his support and for that of his predecessors, including the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I also thank the officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their excellent work and support over recent months. It is lovely to see them here today.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to carry this Bill through scrutiny in Committee and, I hope, on to its final stages in the Commons. It is wonderful to see so much good work and cross-party co-operation to ensure that this important piece of legislation progresses. I am delighted we are here today to take a step closer to introducing a much-needed new leave entitlement for unpaid carers. We all know the many challenges facing unpaid carers, of which juggling work is just one.

The Carers UK published its “State of Caring 2022” report yesterday, and I will take this opportunity—I take every opportunity—to thank it again for its support. I see one of its representatives in the Gallery. As the most up-to-date evidence that we have about unpaid carers, I will refer to it a few times this morning. I am sure other members of the Committee who have a particular interest will have also seen it, and I encourage those who have not to do so as we all have unpaid carers in our constituencies. It is an impressive piece of work, but it is hard reading because it lays out all the ways in which unpaid carers are still, arguably, being failed.

According to the report, we can currently estimate that one in five adults in the United Kingdom are providing care. That is a huge number. It is hard to estimate how many of those are also in employment—a conservative estimate is 2.3 million. We will need to wait for the publication of the England and Wales census later this year—Scotland’s is next year—to get more accurate estimates, but we know that the numbers are high and ever increasing.

Tempting as it might be, I will not use this morning to provide a summary of the report and all its many recommendations. The Minister knows that I am keen on other recommendations being implemented, especially those that relate to carer’s allowance, but I know we all have places to be, so I will return to the matter in front of us: the Carer’s Leave Bill.

The Bill would put on the statute book for the first time employment rights specifically designed to help unpaid carers with one week of unpaid leave per year for those in full-time employment. That is desperately needed, with 75% of respondents in the Carers UK research worrying about juggling work and care. A significant number of others have either already gone part time or given up work entirely. That was certainly my experience in North East Fife. When I tried to find constituents who would directly benefit from the Bill, a number of people got in touch with me to say that they had given up employment as a result of their caring responsibilities.

We know that employment is a vital lifeline for many people. It is not just about income, although that is clearly a key issue. The majority of carers state that they are also worried about managing their monthly costs, with almost all making spending reductions, including a quarter cutting back on heating and eating. I want to pause here and reiterate that one in four—an estimated 2.5 million unpaid carers who selflessly help others—are having to cut back on their essentials. For most, that means nearing, if not already experiencing, destitution.

In addition to the financial element, this is also about health and wellbeing. On average, carers rate their life satisfaction and happiness distinctly lower than the general population: 4.7 compared with 7.4 and 4.8 compared with 7.4 on a scale of one to 10. Anxiety, stress, loneliness and burnout are common factors. The Bill alone will of course not resolve those issues, but I would argue that a carer being able to use their annual leave for their own rest, being able to take leave from work without feeling at a disadvantage, enjoying their workplace as a regular respite from care rather than work, and having an employer increasingly more likely to recognise and support them in all their roles can only help. I am sure that others present agree.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on getting a Bill to this stage, and welcome the Government’s support for it. I, too, pay tribute to the army of carers out there. I am part of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, and carers tell me that the ideal situation would be to get paid leave for carers in the longer term. The Bill is a good step forward, but will she join me and carers organisations in asking the Government to look seriously at that, and to bring back paid leave for carers?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. My party’s policy is to have paid leave, but the Bill is an important step, putting statutory rights to request leave on the statute book in for the first time. I hope that it is an initial step in doing much more to support carers in all their guises.

Before looking at the text of the Bill, I will briefly mention that it also benefits employers. As I outlined on Second Reading, I have had the pleasure of meeting several businesses that already have carer-friendly employment practices. The evidence that they shared made it clear that having such practices not only is the right thing to do but produces financial benefits through staff motivation and lower turnover. It is a win-win.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I welcome this private Member’s Bill and the Government’s support for it. Does the hon. Member agree that this is a timely Bill, particularly with more women going into the workplace? Women of my generation are very much the sandwich generation: we have elderly parents and children. Also, with medical advancements, more children are surviving disabilities that they might have died from earlier. That means that there is an increased pressure on families to provide care for children as they grow older.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I absolutely agree. There are so many different iterations of carers and who they are providing care to. I have certainly seen that myself. It is really important that the Government support the Bill, because that provides better recognition. We know that one of the UK’s productivity challenges is the number of people who are economically inactive, which has increased post covid. We also know that it tends to be older women, and if the Bill is an opportunity to help them to get them back into the workplace, that can only be positive.

The text of the Bill sets out in detail the legal framework for the entitlement. Large parts of it are very similar to other leave entitlements that are already in operation. That avoids adding complexity, both for employers and employees who will make use of carer’s leave. The main aspects of the entitlement are as follows: the Bill requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to entitle an employee to be absent from work in order to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need. There will be no qualifying period, meaning that eligible employees will be able to make a request to take carer’s leave from the first day of their employment. A broad approach has been taken to defining the key terms of eligibility, a dependant and a long-term care need in order to ensure that eligibility is as open as possible, and can encompass the many different circumstances in which a dependant might need care.

I will pause on that element to highlight its importance, because a significant issue is simply getting carers to recognise themselves as such and, therefore, as entitled to support. As I said on Second Reading, my husband is a carer to his mother but would not recognise himself as a carer. Over half of carers take more than a year, and 36% take three years, to recognise themselves as such. As those are the proportions of carers who now see themselves as such, there is potentially an unsurveyed cohort that we do not know about. Making the definition as broad as possible is vital to start conversations, and to show people the different forms that care can take and, vitally, that support is available.

The Bill’s overall objective is to ensure that carer’s leave is available to those caring for someone with a significant and long-term care need, but flexibility and a light-touch administrative burden are fundamental features of the new entitlement. It will allow for a proportionate process to be put in place through regulations to enable employers to plan and manage absences arising from carer’s leave.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Lady on her work, and the Government on their support for this important Bill. She will not be surprised to learn that more than one in 10 residents in my constituency are a carer for a loved one or near neighbour. My understanding from my constituents and the business community is that they are supportive of the Bill, and that employers may fear nothing from it. Those with caring responsibilities do not even tend to take the allowance given to them, but the flexibility and recognition is what makes it so incredibly valuable.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. When we engage with employers on such things, they recognise the importance of retaining and motivating their staff. They invest in their training and development and want them to stay with them. I think the Bill will really help employers on that front, and as a result will help their employees as well.

No amendments have been tabled to the Bill, so I will now discuss the clauses and schedule in greater detail. Clause 1 is uncontroversial and is simply the route to provide for the substance of the Bill through the schedule. For the legislation to achieve its policy aims, it may be necessary to amend existing legislation, and clause 2 allows for that to happen. Clause 3 addresses a procedural point, setting out the extent of the Bill, making provision for commencement and providing the short title. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

The substance of the Bill is contained in the schedule. This is the most important part of the Bill. Part 1 of the schedule creates carer’s leave as a concept by inserting proposed new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996. First, this part of the schedule covers who is entitled to carer’s leave. The key definitions of a dependant and a long-term care need are set out in the Bill. The schedule then goes on to address the length of the entitlement, which shall be a minimum of one week.

A cap on the length of leave that employers will be required to offer is not set out in the Bill but will be included in regulations. As set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on carer’s leave, I understand that it will be one week. Of course, there is no cap on the amount of leave that employers can offer if they wish. I am sure that we all know from speaking to employers and others in our constituencies that there are employers who go far above what is set out in the Bill. Regulations may also provide for how the leave can be taken, which includes providing that the leave is available to be taken non-continuously. Regulations can provide that particular activities are, or are not, to be treated as providing or arranging care, but I understand that the Government’s intention is not to further define those activities.

Part 1 goes on to set out the protections offered to employees while they are on carer’s leave. In particular, it provides that regulations must create an entitlement for employees to return from carer’s leave to a type of work prescribed by those regulations. That sounds technical, but basically it covers remuneration, bonuses, redundancies and when the leave is taken immediately after other types of leave, such as maternity. This part of the schedule also allows for regulations to be made to address notice, evidence and procedural requirements. A framework will be created through regulations that will be clear and simple for employers and employees to follow. Importantly, the Bill makes it particularly clear that the regulations can provide that an employer cannot require an employee to supply evidence in relation to their request for leave. Finally, part 1 of the schedule sets out when an employee may make a complaint to an employment tribunal. I commend it to the Committee.

Part 2 of the schedule contains further amendments to primary legislation affected by carer’s leave. It sets out the consequential amendments that will be required to ensure that the measure is effective and does not have an adverse impact on existing legislation. I do not propose to explain each in turn; I will simply commend part 2 as a whole. I thank Members for their time, interest and presence this morning.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a delight to be a member of this Bill Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife on bringing the Bill, and I am absolutely delighted that the Government are supporting it.

Unusually, we find ourselves in violent agreement on the reasons behind the Bill. Prior to the pandemic, it was calculated that about 4.9 million people across the country were juggling some kind of unpaid care with paid work. As the hon. Lady said, it is almost impossible to quantify that work because so many carers do not identify themselves as such and often go without the support and help they need. We know that such caring work has an almost unquantifiable impact on their lives and causes undue stress. As a result, those people may find that they have to leave the workforce.

Many of us never consider that we might become unpaid carers, but Carers UK has calculated that two thirds of us will end up fulfilling that role at some stage in our lives. I saw that for myself when my mum was an unpaid carer for my nan. At the time, we were running our family business, and as I had just had my first child, my mum was part of that sandwich generation that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster spoke about. Of course, the responsibility for caring so often falls to women, which is why so many fall out of the workforce. I saw the impact that those caring responsibilities had on my mum, on her professional life and on every aspect of her own health and wellbeing.

Staying in work while providing such care can be incredibly challenging. That is why the Bill is so important. I am honoured to chair the all-party parliamentary group on carers, which is proud to support the Bill. We know that, in prioritising someone else’s health and care needs, carers up and down the country are not prioritising their own, which can have a massive impact. People do it not for reimbursement or money, but almost entirely out of love and responsibility, and we must recognise that.

As our population ages and changes, and as the way we work changes, we need to ensure that we change with them, because the number of people juggling work and care will only ever increase. We already lag behind other countries when it comes to workplace rights for carers. Many advanced and further ageing economies—including Japan, Canada, the US, Germany, Ireland and France—have some form of carer’s leave in place.

Leave entitlement for carers was a Conservative manifesto commitment for the 2019 general election, so it is disappointing that it has not been introduced by a Conservative Government, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife for doing so. I am pleased, however, that the Conservative Government recognise that the right for unpaid carers take up to a week of leave could make a real difference between somebody staying or leaving the workforce.

It would be a good thing for employers, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said. We always talk about the productivity gap, the skills gap and retaining excellent and experienced staff, but people’s caring responsibilities often kick in during the second half of their working lives, when they are at their most experienced and have the most expertise. Businesses face the enormous financial burden not only of losing them and their expertise at that stage, but of the ensuing recruitment costs. I am pleased that the key definitions and parameters that are built into the Bill align with existing provisions for other family leave, making them easier for employers to implement. That is important because we want to minimise the burden on employers and make arrangements easier for employees to understand.

I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. Carers have done so much for our country—they save the NHS and our social care system so much money—so this is the best thing we can do to give something back. That is why I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you, Minister. I call Wendy Chamberlain.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Thank you, Mr Paisley, for your excellent chairing of the Committee this morning. I also thank the Minister and Government Members for supporting the Bill. I thank all Members for serving on the Committee. An early morning slot on a Wednesday is not the most popular time—I have helped everyone get their prayer cards in for Prime Ministers’ questions. I am grateful to all members of the Committee for being here.

I just want to touch on some of the comments made in interventions and speeches. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton North that the Bill needs to be a first step and we should look at paid care. When we think about the other leave entitlements that are paid, this needs to be a first step. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned that we increasingly have sandwich generations, so we need to think about how we better support them. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne: it is important to know that there is support in our constituencies. It is great that we are in violent agreement here, but also important that we know we reflect the wishes of our constituents.

I know how much the hon. Member for Gosport, the chair of the APPG on carers, cares about the subject, and I know about the work she has done. She commented on the love and responsibility of carers, which struck me as so many carers do it because it is a loved one that they are looking after. That responsibility and the management of the caring admin can be a real burden for people.

The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned carers who had had no breaks in two years. It is very telling that so many carers take annual leave, or even sick leave, for caring responsibilities, and they do not self-care as a result. We need to think about how we better support them.

My friend the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye spoke of her personal experiences of palliative care, which we should all think about. We want to provide care for our loved ones, particularly at end of life, and I hope the Government will look favourably on her comments.

I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that, having met Fife Young Carers, I am very conscious of the burden that is placed on young carers, and of how that caring burden can prevent them from realising their own future potential in the workplace and so on. How do we help with that?

The Bill is a vital piece of legislation that will support unpaid carers. From the conversations today and on Second Reading, it is clear that there is much more to be done, but I believe that this is an important first step towards easing some of the burden, and I look forward to continuing to work with everybody present.

I am grateful to Members for their congratulations. I am very conscious of the fact that getting a private Member’s Bill to this stage requires working with the Government to find areas of consensus and look at the scope of the Bill, but I got a white ball with my number on it pulled out of a glass jar. That is how we started this private Member’s Bill journey, so luck always comes into it to some extent.

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Member for those kind comments about this historic Bill Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)]

Yes.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T4. We know that businesses need certainty on energy, and that is even more important for those working in essential services such as social care. A care home in my constituency cannot even source a broker to be able to look at future deals. What assessment have the Government made of the brokerage industry so that it can provide that vital support?

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right that some employers are missing a trick here. As I said, I did not expect to get into a debate about Germany, but he makes an interesting point. There are so many amazing examples of extraordinary women who can excel at what they do—of course there are—so it seems incredibly strange that employers would want to discriminate against women in such a way.

I am sure the hon. Member will agree that that says something about the nature of our society. All of us recognise the importance of children and families—they are the bedrock and foundation of our society—so it cannot be right that women are treated in such a way and on this scale. That must be consigned to the past. We must move forward, and the Bill provides a really good opportunity to do that. I would be the first to admit that the Bill is not a panacea, but it is a good step in the right direction and I am grateful for the support offered for it.

Having made some remarks about the example that I referenced and the enforcement mechanism used in Germany, I am sure the Minister agrees that there is merit in us continuing to work closely together through the Bill’s passage to look at how, on a cross-party basis, we can seek to address some of the current safeguards’ shortcomings, namely around the confusion and compliance that I referred to.

On the former, now is the time to end the inconsistency of when and how regulation 10 of the MAPLE regulations is applied. For instance, when a firm is reducing its number of roles, many employers see their obligations to women on maternity leave as a two-stage process, initially by forcing them to compete for their job against colleagues and only then seeking to find them suitable alternative vacancies if they are unsuccessful in retaining their role. That is deeply unfair. Women on maternity leave are at a massive disadvantage, as they might have been out of the workplace for months—obviously, they have been focused on caring for their newborn child. It is also highly irrational. If a new mum has been selected for redundancy, there is little or no chance of their being offered a suitable alternative vacancy, because they will have been filled. As it stands, many workers do not know their rights under the existing regulations, businesses apply them in different ways, and even case law is conflicting.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I have been reflecting on what the hon. Member has been saying about his very good Bill, which may fill some of the gaps that we have been talking about. I also heard what he said about the evolution of society, and hopefully that—as well as his Bill—will go some way towards helping. My employer before I was elected introduced parental leave allowing both parents to take six months of paid leave. I accept that not every employer can do that, but when we get to the place where, regardless of a person’s gender and their parenting role, they are entitled to rights, employers may stop looking at women as the first place to go when making people redundant. It would no longer be an easy choice for them.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Lady raises a really helpful point, following the one made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). The nature of the Bill, and what we seek to achieve through its passage, speaks to the decency that I think we all want to see in our society. In the Bill, we have something in front of the House that is good for pregnant mums, good for new mums and good for families. It is also good for business, as it is in businesses’ own interest to be responsible employers and to make the most of their employees.

I very much hope that the Bill will get support from across the House. I sense that it will, and I am encouraged by that. I have spent a lot of time thinking about what the critique of the Bill would be and whether any right hon. or hon. Members would have issues or problems with it. I have tried as much as I possibly can to get around as many hon. Members as possible and have those conversations, but nobody has been able to say that they think there is anything wrong with the Bill. The only debate is around the extent of its ambition and whether the protections could be greater and longer. That is potentially a point of debate, but I hope that we now have the basis of a Bill that all decent right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support—fingers crossed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here today, and to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). As I am sure everyone will agree, private Members’ Bills are very much sought after, especially by Opposition Members, who do not have much opportunity to change the law—and I think the reason all of us came into politics was our wish to make a difference. My hon. Friend could have chosen any topic for his private Member’s Bill, and I was particularly pleased to note that he had picked this topic, although, cynically, I thought, “Is he going to benefit from this in some way?” I actually texted him last night to say, “Are you planning to have another child?” He was very quick to reassure me, saying that three was enough. He said that he was planning to get another dog, but, no, he was not planning to have another child, so there is no vested interest. I am very proud that a male Member of Parliament is bringing forward a Bill that will protect so many thousands of women who face maternity discrimination. He has earned the right to wear a T-shirt that says, “This is what a feminist looks like”, and I shall be sending him one in the post.

Although I am proud that my hon. Friend has brought this Bill to the House, I also feel a bit disappointed that this important legislation had to come through a private Member’s Bill. There have been many missed opportunities. It could have been brought to the House earlier and made into legislation. It could have been included in an employment Bill, which was mentioned in 2019 in the Queen’s Speech. Hopefully, this private Member’s Bill today will rectify an injustice that has survived for a very long time in our country.

I am passionate about this topic because I witnessed at first hand what maternity discrimination can do to people. After I had my children, I formed a close friendship with eight women locally whose children were around the same age as mine. Out of the eight women, four faced maternity discrimination, which, ultimately, ended up in redundancy when they went back to work. I watched what it did to their lives. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) mentioned that this was a family matter—that it was not just about the women. I saw that the effect was not just the financial hit to the family, but the mental health implications for the woman herself, for the husband and for the child. One of the babies started losing weight and not feeding properly because of all the stress that his mother was having to go through trying to deal with lawyers, trying to deal with the courts and trying to deal with, frankly speaking, a horrible employer.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member is speaking very powerfully. What she says about how this affects the family is so true. Part of that stems from the outdated idea that women are the supplementary breadwinner from a family perspective. I refer back to what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said about women being older now before they have their children, which means that they have progressed further in their career. Actually, in many families, the women in the partnership—obviously we have same-sex partnerships as well—are earning the most money, so the financial impact of redundancy discrimination can be even greater for the family.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The cost of living in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn is extremely high, and those families were very worried about what would impact them financially. Moreover, parents are meant to enjoy the time after they have a baby, but instead, these four women were fighting court cases and going to their employers. What really shocked me, as I was helping them and supporting them through it, was that it felt like the onus was on the women to prove maternity discrimination, whereas the employer did not seem to have much of an obligation to prove genuine redundancy. That worried me. I felt that there was more and more pressure on new mothers to say, “Actually, this is maternity discrimination. This is what happened when I left, and then when I came back, my job wasn’t there. You are not offering me another job.” That is why I feel so passionate about this Bill. If it shifts the onus on to employers to prove that they are not indulging in maternity discrimination, that would be a huge win for the country.

I wish to mention briefly the godmother of my children. She had a child and took only four months off—she had shared parental leave because she loved her job so much. Four days after going back to work, she was told that she was fired. Members of this House sit on the board of the organisation in which she worked. I went with the godmother of my child to her hearing. I felt frustrated that I could not stand up for her and prove maternity discrimination, because I did not have the law on my side. I felt like I failed her. The case was swept under the carpet. When I spoke to her later, she told me that when she eventually found a new job, she discovered that she was pregnant with her second child—this goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. She said that her first feeling when she found out was “total panic”—those were the words she used. She thought, “What’s going to happen? Am I going to be fired again? Should I tell my employer that I am having another child?” She said that she was so traumatised by what had gone before—dealing with lawyers, having to go back to her employer and fighting with her friends in the workplace—that she would not even take a lunch break in her new job, because she felt like they might discriminate against her when she told them she was pregnant.

Carer’s Leave Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Let me first echo the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and say that it would be remiss of me not to comment on the fact that the Bill was scheduled to have its Second Reading on 9 September. Very sadly, the death of the late Queen Elizabeth prevented that. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to present the Bill today. Again like the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, I want to recognise the work of previous Ministers, in this case the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), who is in the Chamber, and thank them for their support for the Bill so far. I also thank the civil servants at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who have been a constant thread in the time that has elapsed since I took up this cause.

In many respects, carers are the backbone of our country. We think of caring for our loved ones as often a small and personal thing; we do it behind closed doors. It can be full-time personal care—washing, dressing or feeding; things that we instinctively think of as private—or it can be, for instance, making appointments or taking someone to a hospital appointment. Those are the small things that we do for people we love, or know, without questioning it. Taken together, however, all those individual acts of caring are huge. In 2016 the Office for National Statistics estimated that the gross value of unpaid care in the UK was almost £60 billion, and we know that that figure will only have gone up in the last six years. This country would collapse without its unpaid carers, and their importance must not be underestimated.

The Liberal Democrats have long championed unpaid carers, and never more so than under the leadership of my friend and carer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey)—I do not mean that he cares for me, but he has spoken in this House and other places about the care he gives to his family. At the height of the pandemic, the Liberal Democrats campaigned to have unpaid carers recognised as a priority group for vaccinations, and we have long been calling for employment rights for carers, including the type of leave that the Bill will introduce. Indeed, all Bills that will hopefully achieve Second Reading today are about improving employment rights for all.

Although I knew that the Bill had the backing of my party, I have been overwhelmed by the amount of cross-party support it has received. I have received support from Members from every party in the House, and I am pleased to see Members here today. Sadly, I know there would have been others, but for the rescheduling of the Bill. Indeed, I was even more ahead than the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, because I managed to secure members of the Committee before I got here. For example, I know that, among others, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group on carers, and the hon. Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), and for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), wanted to be here today, but they were unable to due to the rescheduling. I have been tapping them for Committee membership as a result.

I have had conversations with the Government, who I hope will support the Bill. It is disappointing that we have not had the opportunity to have an employment Bill, as proposed in the Queen’s Speech in 2019. That was long-promised, but sadly never delivered, and although that has given me, and others, the opportunity to bring forward employment legislation, we must ensure that other gaps are filled by the Government.

Members are here today because this is a good Bill, and if the House will bear with me, I will set out in more detail some of what it proposes. It will mean that for the first time ever, all employees from their first day of employment will be entitled to take time off to help manage caring responsibilities. That fills a gap in the current law whereby although employees can take limited time off for emergencies, and parents can take time off to care for their children, there is no provision for the day-to-day planned caring of adults.

The idea of a caring responsibility has been drafted widely to include as much as possible. As I said at the outset, a lot of things count as caring. Caring can include day-to-day physical support, taking someone to appointments or doing the shopping, liaising with medical staff, or sitting with someone as they struggle through a diagnosis. It could be helping elderly parents move into sheltered accommodation, or the time spent arranging for social carers to visit daily. It includes support for someone with a long-term physical or mental illness, and anything to do with old age.

The Bill has also been drafted widely to include as many caring relationships as possible. We would obviously expect it to cover immediate family, but the Bill goes further and includes not only cohabitees, tenants and lodgers, but anyone who reasonably relies on an employee to provide or arrange care. This summer I spoke to one of my constituents in relation to the Bill. In addition to caring for his wife, he does the shopping for an elderly neighbour. That small act of kindness is also caring, and the Bill recognises that.

The leave is flexible and incredibly light touch. It can be taken in half-day chunks, and it works through self-certification. The notice period is expected to be short, at twice the length of time to be taken plus one day. For most people, if they want a half day on Wednesday afternoon that means letting their employer know by Monday lunchtime. As flexible not emergency care, I believe that to be reasonable, and in line with current regulations for annual leave so easy for everybody to understand. Most importantly, employers cannot refuse a request for leave. They can ask for it to be postponed, but only in a manner that is reasonable.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I want to emphasise some of the points that the hon. Lady is making, which illustrate that having that flexibility built in with the notice provisions, and a Bill that affects anyone who is involved in providing care, is crucial. I commend her for her work in bringing forward this Bill.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. Yes, we need to be flexible—that is important —because there is such a range of caring. It is also important, however, that we align that with other existing legislation, as that will make this easier and less burdensome for employers and employees to understand. I do not want the Bill to become law but then people do not utilise it, because they are not aware of it.

I met the Minister and officials to discuss the Bill and to ensure that it is the best we can get it before becoming law. That means that, in some areas, it does not potentially do everything that I would want it to do, if it were down to just me. For a start, my instincts would be to want the rights to be implemented immediately through primary legislation. That is not possible, which means I am trusting the Government to act in good faith in supporting the Bill, and I expect them to bring in the proposed regulations at the earliest possible opportunity. I will be here to make sure that they do.

The Bill does not go as far as Liberal Democrat policy would go. We would like there to be more time and for that to be paid, but I accept that this is a journey and that this is a vital first step in getting these rights on to the statute book now. There is nothing on the statute book that recognises leave for caring.

It is estimated that 2.3 million carers—that is a conservative estimate—cannot wait for the perfect policy to be put in place. They need these rights as soon as possible. According to the 2011 census, there are at least 3,000 carers in my North East Fife constituency. I spent summer recess meeting many of them. I have been told time and again that, although the Bill will not make their lives easy, because caring is challenging, it will help just a little bit to keep some of the plates spinning.

I learned a lot this summer about the vast variety of caring experiences that people have. Karen cares for her 91-year-old mother. She drives from Cupar in North East Fife to Annan every weekend to be with her mother—I assure the House that that is a long way; hon. Members should look it up on a map following the debate—to make sure that she is stocked up and to deal with any household tasks that need doing. Her mum is fiercely independent and wants to remain in her own home. She makes and manages her appointments and, despite the 125-mile distance between her and her mother, she is a carer and needs her employer’s support to make things work.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not true that family members often do what they do out of love and that, in many ways, they find it difficult to come forward and claim the financial support they need for the hours they put in looking after their loved ones?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree. During my conversations I find that carers are using annual leave and emergency unpaid leave, when they need to, in order to undertake caring responsibilities, and that sadly—as I will mention later—they are forced out of the workplace because they cannot manage to balance their responsibilities.

I also met the Fife carers support group in St Andrews, a group who call themselves, and I hope the House will forgive my language, the CRAP carers—that stands for compassionate, resourceful and patient. One lady was caring for her grown-up son, who is coping with severe mental health challenges, two were caring for terminally ill parents, and parents and partners with dementia were being cared for. All were doing so with huge amounts of grit and compassion, and indeed humour—as the name they have chosen shows.

I came away from meeting that group feeling not only uplifted by their love for their family members, but angry because a number of them expressed guilt—guilt that so much of their time is spent dealing with the administration of caring, rather than feeling that they can give their loved ones the care that they need. That care admin includes negotiating with their employers.

I will bring to the House’s attention the experience of one of my constituents in particular. Amanda works full time as well as providing increasing care to her mum and dad. Her dad has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and her mum, having been forgetful for a few years, is showing clear signs of dementia. Many of us will recognise that path: forgetfulness followed by confusion; denial followed by anger; and frustration as managing day-to-day life slips away. For Amanda, that means setting up appointments and speaking to carers and medical professionals. It means popping in as often as she can to do the shopping, to keep her dad company, to make sure her mum is okay and to be there after nurses leave to manage her mum’s confusion and sometimes even distress.

That is all relatively new and, so far, Amanda’s employer has been supportive. She has taken some last-minute holidays and she has been able to take the odd day off, but she is worried about what comes next. Her mum is not going to get any better. Will her employer stay supportive? What happens if she gets a new manager? Something that struck me in the earlier debate today is that sometimes it is not just about employers, but about managers and line managers, and ensuring that they have the correct information to take the correct decisions.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this is just one of many changes that we will need to make as a society to reflect the fact that we are growing older and there are more and more of us who need care on a daily basis, much of which is thankfully provided by those heroes, unpaid carers and carers within families? I hope this is the start of a wider process where we reflect on what we can do to support carers in the incredibly important work they do.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Absolutely; we have seen a lot of family legislation come in to support that, but the reality is that many people are not only looking after children and dependants, but looking after older generations as well. That is an increasing challenge for people, for employers and for society at large.

If I could, I would want to make it all better for Amanda, but I cannot. Ageing and illness are a part of life, and we care for family members because we love them and it is what we do. However, I know from research by Carers UK, which has given me and my researchers so much support in bringing this Bill forward, that there is a significant risk that someone like Amanda will burn out and end up cutting back on work or having to leave work altogether. My goal is to help, and with this Bill we can make things a little bit easier, with the guarantee of time off when she needs it—to be there when the nurse comes, to make those appointments and to have the breathing space to manage.

There is of course much more we could do to help unpaid carers, both those in work and those who find it impossible to cope and have given up their jobs to care full time. I met many carers over the summer whom this Bill will not help, because for them it is too late and they have given up on the world of work.

The experiences of those carers and the loved ones they care for are best expressed by my constituent Amy. She has multiple sclerosis and is the chair of the Fife MS Forum, and her husband now cares for her full time. That is not unusual; research by the MS Society found that 34% of carers give up work when caring for someone with MS.

I must tell the House that Amy is a force of nature. In her working life she was a behavioural scientist specifically working with young offenders. So successful was she at engaging those young people that at one point the local police force started to hear positively about a potential new gang called “Amy’s lads”—young people who were rehabilitating their lives and proud to be associated with Amy and the work she did.

However, for Amy and her husband it all boils down now to making sure that carers are valued—and not just through words, which I know we can all be guilty of. I started this speech with the time-honoured cliché that carers are the backbone of our society, but we in this House need to show that we value them through our actions.

First and foremost, that should mean uprating carer’s allowance for those who receive it and reviewing the policy under which carer’s allowance counts as income for other benefits such as universal credit. It should also mean reviewing the amount of work carers can do before they lose their allowance. That is particularly important for young carers, because those young people are caring even before they get into the world of work and will potentially be prevented from ever entering it if we do not help them.

Being a carer is hard work even when we do it for loved ones, but if we really want carers to know they are valued and if we want them to have some dignity, we must ensure that we help them. Amy told me from her experience with the MS Forum that many carers feel they are failures—failures for not being able to balance their home and professional lives, failures for not being the perfect partners, failures for not being able to get everything right. Amy was not the only person who told me that; sisters Alex and Claudia told me the same thing. They need caring for a loved one to be seen as equally valuable to paid employment. I thank the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is not here today, for his support to both sisters when they were his constituents. The work of the right hon. Gentleman and his team has been invaluable. I want every carer to know that they are not a failure—far from it—and we need policies to put that into action. I hope that all hon. Members agree.

To turn back to the details of carer’s leave, I will set out how the Bill will work for businesses. I am delighted that this is a policy where doing the right thing for people is also doing the right thing for businesses. Thanks to Carers UK, I have had several opportunities to speak with businesses that already have support policies in place for carers. A carer from one of those companies is in the Gallery. Those businesses include Centrica, TSB Bank, Nationwide Building Society, the Phoenix Group, CMS, and not forgetting the University of St Andrews, which is the largest employer in my constituency. From those meetings, I happily offer the House three key observations.

First, offering carer’s leave, even paid carer’s leave, makes financial sense for businesses in the long run. Centrica, which has been at the forefront of the move among businesses to be carer-friendly, offers 10 days’ paid leave. With 20,000 employees, it estimates that it is saving £3.1 million a year by avoiding unplanned absences and improving employee retention. It and other businesses also report increased loyalty and higher motivation. People who feel supported in difficult times are simply more likely to put in that extra effort in the good times. That was borne out by what I have heard from carers. They want to keep working and are grateful for the support from their employers that means that they can.

Secondly, I have heard about the importance of formal leave policies that are well communicated and widely used throughout organisations. There are many different businesses and organisations in this country, and within those companies, there are lots of people doing lots of different types of roles. I have heard that, even within organisations that are ahead of the game on such policies, it can be a challenge to get people to make use of the time that they are allowed. That sometimes makes people feel that the policies are not for them, because they work in a frontline or customer-facing role. That is why this law would help employees even in companies that are already on this journey. The Bill will make it a legal right, which will feel very different from just a perk of working for a good employer.

Thirdly, I was struck by the strength of feeling among businesses that there was a role for employers in helping their staff to recognise that they are carers and to feel supported and dignified in accessing the help they need. My husband is in the Gallery and he cares for his mother. He does not think of himself as a carer—many carers do not. Those businesses felt that introducing carer’s leave and other support, and reaching out to build a network, had been a catalyst that had kick-started an open conversation about what being a carer looks like. It helped people to realise the many forms that caring can take and that support is available to them. Again, the Bill plays a part in that by bringing the conversation into the open and into businesses up and down the country.

I also want to highlight the Scottish Government’s carer positive scheme. I am pleased to say that my office has just been accredited as a carer positive organisation. That is a way to identify and share good practice, and to show that an organisation is proud to support carers. If someone is in Scotland, I recommend finding out more about that.

Before I conclude, I will reflect on why this Bill works for the Government. Sitting on the Opposition Benches, I am not usually in the business of helping those on the Government Benches, but I assume that despite a tumultuous week, the Government are still broadly in favour of wanting to get more people, especially the over-50s, back into work—as set out in the growth plan of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). I agree with the Government on that, although I oppose any plans that force people into unsuitable work through the threat of sanctions or benefit cuts.

The good news for the Government is that the primary demographic that will benefit from the Bill and will be supported to stay in work is the over-50s, particularly women, who have a 50:50 chance of providing care by the age of 46—I am just about there—and are more likely to work part time as a result. If the Government want people who have a 50% chance of caring to be in employment, having employment rights for carers is a really good first step. As I previously said, this Bill will also help to get young carers into the workplace and support them as they come in.

I appreciate that I have touched on this already, and it is outwith the Minister’s portfolio, but it would definitely help if we lifted the number of hours that someone can work before they lose their carer’s allowance. At the moment, carers can earn only £132 per week before it is taken away. That is less than 14 hours on the minimum wage. Increasing that to 25 hours, ideally on the slightly higher living wage, would go so far towards helping carers to keep their jobs and support themselves. Put simply, if the Government want people to work, they should let them.

I know that many of my colleagues want to speak in favour of the Bill, for which I am grateful, so I would like to conclude my remarks by returning to Amanda—caring for her parents, now more a parent than a child, trying to hold everything together. We all in this place, through our constituency casework, our family and friends, know someone like Amanda; it may even be us in the future. Our constituents, too, will either be in this situation or know someone who is being stretched in every direction. We are passing this Bill’s Second Reading today for them. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

With the leave of the House, I will be brief, because I know that time is running short. I thank the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who does so much to make Fridays work. Her advice and guidance to me have been invaluable.

My researcher Kathryn Sturgeon has done fantastic work with Carers UK. Carers UK, you are absolute legends in what you do for carers and for unpaid carers—thanks for your support with the Bill. I have worked closely with Fife Carers and with Fife Young Carers; it has been great to speak to so many constituents. I thank all hon. Members for their speeches and interventions: it is important that people out there know how much this House appreciates carers and their work.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) said that not all heroes wear capes. So many carers feel quite the opposite because of the burden that they face in their caring responsibilities. I am delighted to hear that the Government will support my Bill. I hope that we can send a message to carers that we do think of them as heroes, and we do appreciate what they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Most energy is used during the winter. We have plans ready for the winter.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

In response to an earlier question, the Secretary of State acknowledged the importance of farming, but factories and those involved in food production are also important for food supply, as is certainly the case in North East Fife. Further food inflation will affect struggling families more. Although this short-term energy support is welcome, there are other issues for the sector, such as the cost of fertiliser, labour supply and so on. Will he commit to a cross-Government strategy involving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure our food supply for the future?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to raise what is going on with the cost of living more generally. Energy is an important part of that, and helping to deal with the energy problem will have an effect on price rises throughout the economy. The Bank of England will say something later today, which is another part of dealing with inflation. I accept her analysis that inflation is a very difficult problem for an economy to face.

Net Zero Strategy: High Court Ruling

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Climate Change Committee has warned that the Government are on track to cut only 40% of the emissions required to reach the 2050 net zero target. The reality is that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is not sufficiently senior to co-ordinate the Government’s net zero response. Does the Minister agree that, perhaps as part of the evolving strategy he has described, we should have a Department and a Secretary of State for climate change, as there used to be, so they can be held accountable for delivering on that net zero target?

[Greg Hands]

That is a slightly curious question. The hon. Lady said the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was insufficiently senior to take the decisions, but she then appeared to propose halving the size of his Department, which would probably make him less senior.

On the hon. Lady’s central point about the net zero strategy, this country remains on course to deliver net zero by 2050. Nobody ever said it would be straightforward or easy. The strategy set a 29-year path at the time of publication, and we are on good course. I have every confidence that the strategy will be the blueprint as we move forward.

Long Covid: Impact on the Workforce

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this important debate, and I must thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for bringing to life the reality of many of our constituents and what they experience day to day. No one wants to be in the position of experiencing long covid, the variety of symptoms that it presents with and its timescale. With people having experienced long covid symptoms since the very first wave, it is clearly a difficult and debilitating issue for the country to deal with.

A little over a month ago, I raised the issue of long covid and employment in an Adjournment debate answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Although I was grateful for his responses then, I would like to raise some issues again—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has raised some of them—because there is very much more that we could be doing.

When I was here a few weeks ago, I quoted the Office for National Statistics figures, which said that in the four weeks to 2 January, 1.3 million people across the UK were suffering from long covid. That number is now estimated to be 1.5 million, and that is an incredibly fast uptick. Like others, I have recently had covid myself. I was in my bed for four days. Like the hon. Member for City of Chester said, I had a good day and I did too much, and I ended up back in my bed again. Although thankfully for me it was mild and I seem to be very much back on my feet, there is no doubt that regardless of the strain or variant, long covid can still be the result. Even if symptoms are mild for many, the reality is that mild symptoms can still result in long covid. That number shows an incredibly fast uptick, and I stand with colleagues across the House when we say that clearly this condition will not go away, and the Government cannot close their eyes to it.

Indeed, this morning I met RESULTS UK to talk about work we have done on equitable covid access. There is no doubt that unless we do more to help developing countries and other parts of the world in managing this pandemic, we will see future variants, so the risk of long covid does not go away.

Scottish National party colleagues are always talking about Scotland’s doing a lot better compared with elsewhere, but I think the Scottish Government are letting down long covid sufferers in Scotland. As my friend the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh West has shown, of the 119,000 long covid sufferers in Scotland, only 1,000 had been referred to the long covid support services announced by Chest, Heart & Stroke Scotland by the end of February. A recent Freedom of Information request showed that of the much-needed £10 million long covid support fund announced by the Scottish Government last September, not a single penny has been allocated or spent. I am an absolute believer in devolving decision making to the place where it can be most effective for our constituents, but the Scottish Government are failing in delivering this support, whether through inefficiencies, errors or something else. My constituents in North East Fife and my SNP colleagues’ constituents deserve better, and I hope to see better in future.

Turning to the impact of long covid on the workforce, I want to focus specifically on those who would otherwise be working, but cannot as a result of their medical condition. I thank those Members who have already highlighted where employers are trying and helping people to work. We have to acknowledge, though, that there are employers out there not doing right by constituents and members of staff, and we must work hard to ensure that they do what is required.

I do not want to repeat my entire speech from a month ago, but I will turn back to a few key points that I do not feel were properly addressed then. Will the Government commit to extending the period that claimants for benefits have to complete their application forms? For someone with a debilitating condition, particularly relapsing remitting ones, which long covid often presents itself as, four weeks is just not enough time to complete a 30-page form, including the collection of evidence. Particularly when experiencing some of those symptoms, they simply cannot concentrate for the length of time required. It takes up more time and resources to apply for a two-week extension. As I raised in the last debate, why do we not just automatically apply that extension to give people more time, rather than taking up DWP time and resources, as well as those of the person, to request that extension? It would be a cheap and straightforward step to give enough time in the first place.

Will the Government commit to consulting with disabled people, including those with long covid or other relapsing remitting conditions, such as ME, about the design of those application forms to ensure that they are properly able to explain the impact of their conditions? I appreciate that the Minister is from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but we have had a cross-Government approach to covid, and we need a cross-Government approach to long covid, too.

Will the Government accept that the evidence of doctors and specialists who truly understand complex conditions, such as long covid, is relevant to the assessment of how people’s day-to-day lives are affected? Are they afraid that hard evidence will make it more difficult to minimise payments to those in need? Sometimes we are left to wonder just that.

Will the Government publish their decision making matrix for assessors and submit it to independent scrutiny to ensure that it allows for suitable decisions to be made relating to complex conditions such as long covid? That will also have the additional benefit of considerably increasing trust in DWP. We hear about that a lot in this Chamber, and we know it is incredibly low. Finally, will the Government provide proper training to staff in DWP centres—both front and back office—relating to assessments and work coaching? We want to ensure that they are equipped to work with claimants suffering from this new and complex condition. We have heard the variety of symptoms that it creates, but I am pretty sure that increasing people’s anxiety and stress will do nothing to help them.

Those who cannot work because of a health condition are the other side of the workforce coin. Everyone must be supported, and those who are less visible must be given the support they require.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which brings back many memories, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said. There will be no one in the Chamber today who is not reflecting on those who have been lost over the past two years. As of last week, we have lost 3,200 people in Northern Ireland and 157,000 across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that every family and every person has been touched by the loss of someone to covid. We cannot help but think of those numbers in this debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on setting the scene and on her hard work with others on the APPG to bring this matter to a head and to highlight and better understand these issues.

I was first elected as a councillor in 1985, and I sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 consecutive years. When I first became a Member of the Legislative Assembly in 1998, one of the biggest issues in my office was benefits, and it continues to be the biggest issue—benefits, housing and planning, in that order.

The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about ME, and others will recognise this story. When I was an MLA, people with ME would come to me when they had to fill in benefits forms. They said, “My doctor says there is nothing wrong with me.” And I said, “Are there any other doctors in the practice you could speak to?” I am not disrespecting doctors, as they are excellent people, but there was no understanding of ME then. We had to fight incredible battles to get the evidence to prove these people had ME. They said they had chronic fatigue, and they did. It was called ME, and it was a disease. That supports what the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and others have said.

I am not saying anyone here is special, but I commend the hon. Member for City of Chester for his very personal story, which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) also mentioned. His personal story resonates, and he knows that I missed him. I said to him, “We missed you. Where have you been?” He did not tell me everything he had been through, but he told me some of it—he told it all today. Others in the House have been affected, too, so we thank him for his story.

Although I have been double-jabbed and boosted, I was informed by a test after getting home from the House on an early Saturday morning that I had covid. I could not understand it, because I had no symptoms. A lady from the NHS back home phoned me on the Saturday morning and said, “Mr Shannon, how do you feel?” And I said, “Would you be shocked to know that I feel great?” She said, “Well, do you have any symptoms?” And I said, “I have no symptoms. As a matter of fact, I do not think I have felt this well in the past two weeks.” The lady could not understand it, and she told me that I was asymptomatic. I am not sure what that means—

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It means you are special.

[Jim Shannon]

My wife says I am special. I thank the hon. Lady for being most complimentary.

I did not have any symptoms, but I isolated as instructed, because I follow the rules—that is the way to do it. Although I was fortunate and blessed to be asymptomatic and not ill with covid, that is not the case for the many people who did not come through covid unscathed. We have all mentioned that 1.5 million people, 2.4% of the population of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have self-reported ongoing covid symptoms that have persisted for more than four weeks, as of 31 January 2022. Forty-five per cent of them, 685,000 people, first had or suspect they first had covid-19 at least one year previously.

I think of the wall outside St Thomas’s Hospital, where some ladies from Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere met us two or three months ago. I was walking to the hotel one night, many months ago, and passed the wall. It is a wonderful memorial to those who have passed on, and it is good that those ladies and others organised the wall to give people an outlet for their feelings.

Two years after the first lockdown, the long-term effects of covid are becoming clear. We need to put protection in place for employees with this long-term illness that doctors cannot pinpoint. These people struggle daily to live with it, but they are not protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

This Government should urgently produce guidelines for employers in both the private sector and the public sector on managing the impact of long covid among their workforce. We should also launch a compensation scheme, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned, for all frontline key workers living with long covid. I agree with the APPG that the scheme should mirror the armed forces compensation scheme, which we discussed on Monday night, recognising the relapsing nature of long covid and going beyond the existing pay scheme.

Long covid is a debilitating illness. There is a gentlemen I have known ever since he came to Ards. He is the pastor of a church in my constituency, and he almost lost his life to covid. He is 6 feet 4 inches, and this big, strapping man was brought to his knees. He walked up the hill to Stormont in the “Voice for the Voiceless” protest, and I thought he would have to lie down. Long covid has hit him incredibly hard. He has one day of good and then three days of bad. He has headaches, stomach upsets, blood clots, reduced lung function and chronic fatigue. His church is happy to allow him to rest as he needs. Had he worked for another employer—I will not mention them—he would not have that protection. We must improve the current care pathways for long covid, with a view to ensuring the healthcare system is capable of meeting current and future demand.

In a Westminster Hall debate, I mentioned a constituent who had brain fog. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), has lived that. It is important to say that one of our friends and colleagues in this House has lived with long covid and has found it incredibly difficult, as have others, to deal with. You are not far from our thoughts—

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about staff being disciplined because they have long covid. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) gave a personal testimony and explained much more about how it affects families in their entirety. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about application forms, which are the bane of all our existence. If someone is not well, they become far more difficult. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised the idea of employer guidelines. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave his unique take on it, mentioned his wife and family, and brought a personal touch to the debate.

The scale of long covid cannot be underestimated, as we have heard, and has a significant impact on the UK workforce, especially key workers. The ONS’s latest monthly estimates show that over the four-week period ending 31 January, an estimated 1.5 million people across the UK—2.4% of the population—self-reported experiencing long covid. That included 119,000 folk in Scotland.

That data shows that long covid symptoms that persist for longer than four weeks appear to have a higher prevalence in adults between the ages of 35 and 49. A survey last month by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which has already been referred to, found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness absence among staff. These are things that we are having to deal with. Key workers appear to be more at risk of long covid, which must be looked at.

We are still learning about the true impact of long covid on an individual’s physical and mental health. We know what the most common symptoms are, but we still do not understand the long-term issues. The CIPD report points out that, as it is a new condition, people sometimes do not know that they have it and it takes a long time for them to be given a diagnosis. There is a double burden of uncertainty regarding how best people with long covid can navigate their work, which affects sickness absence and their return to work.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Briefly, on that point, the fact that first wavers with long covid did not necessarily have a covid test is a key issue. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Government should look at that. When GPs are looking at a list of symptoms that can only be long covid, there should be an acceptance that that is what people are suffering from.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. Hon. Members have already spoken about ME, which is non-specific and can sometimes be difficult to diagnose. The main issue that I would raise in that regard is that people should be believed.

Support is already being delivered across Scotland for those suffering from long covid and the Scottish Government are committed to doing more. They recognise and acknowledge the impact that long covid can have on the health and wellbeing of those affected and have encouraged all employers to apply fair work principles and a flexible approach to dealing with the impacts of covid-19 to protect the health and wellbeing of the workforce.

In the event that NHS Scotland staff are absent due to covid, current temporary measures ensure that they are paid as if they are at work and that they are not subject to corresponding sickness absence triggers. The Scottish Government continue to support NHS colleagues with the provision of those temporary sickness absence measures in the event that they contract covid-19.

Again, the Scottish Government have a long covid strategic network that helps to bring together clinical experts, NHS boards and lived experience. For any disease or issue, lived experience can give those who are trying to help a real experience of what needs to be done. Following analysis and planning by the strategic network to identify where additional resource is needed, the first tranche of funding to NHS boards will be given early in the next financial year, which starts tomorrow. The fund will provide additional resource to support NHS boards to develop and deliver the best models of care appropriate for their populations.

This debate is about the effect on the workforce. It is important that the workforce know what may be wrong with them and that employers know what long covid is about. The Scottish Government carried out a marketing campaign in October and November last year to raise awareness of long covid and to signpost people to the appropriate support. The campaign supported the production of posters for display in community pharmacies and GP surgeries across Scotland in different languages, social media posts and a campaign toolkit that was sent to 250 direct partner contacts, with an additional distribution of approximately 3,000-plus places.

I mention the APPG and its good work. It recommended that the UK Government commit £100 million per annum to funding research into diagnostic and treatment pathways for long covid patients. The Scottish chief scientist office is funding patient-led and Scottish-led projects with a total commitment to funding. Again, that work is being done and disseminated widely.

I cannot finish without talking about statutory sick pay and its effect on people with long covid. It has a disproportionate impact on groups that are already disadvantaged in terms of work and health. To limit further health and inequality, the UK Government must ensure a liveable sick pay for all. The SNP is clear that we must have a system fit for the 21st century and we need to look at the people who are earning the least, because someone cannot even get statutory sick pay if they are earning less than £120 a week, which is the case for many.

The fact that the Government have moved away from having statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness has a huge impact on people. The Prime Minister claimed we should be more like the Germans and not go to work when we are sick, which is quite ironic considering that Germany has one of the best sick pay systems in Europe, with laws requiring employers to pay staff 100% of wages for the first six weeks of sickness. By contrast, the UK has one of the lowest. I remember being in this Chamber and listening to a Conservative Member saying that £96.35 a day in statutory sick pay was quite a good benefit. When she was told that it was £96.35 a week, she was quite shocked, and I was quite shocked that she did not know that. It is absolutely appalling. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and people cannot afford to stay off sick. It is just disgraceful, and the fact that people now have to qualify and wait—is it two weeks?—before they can even access it is just absolutely ridiculous.

The Government did not bring in an employment Bill in the last Queen’s Speech, but they should in the next. Flexible working would also help people with long covid, as it would help them on the days when they are better able to work and perhaps do not need to trail into work. Again, there was a BEIS consultation, which ended over three months ago. Can we find out what has happened to that?

In conclusion, while employment law remains reserved to Westminster, the SNP Scottish Government are using their fair work policy to promote fairer working practices across the labour market in Scotland. I really urge the Minister to look at what is happening with low statutory sick pay, and to look at helping such people—and not just people with long covid, but as they are the subject of this debate, that would really be a huge improvement in the lives of those unfortunate enough to have this terrible condition.

Gas and Electricity Costs

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

My highland colleague makes a sage and wise point. [Interruption.]—with all due reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).

The figure that I have outlined compares with 24% of households living in poverty in the rest of Scotland, which is still a high figure. I believe that fuel poverty is a clear priority issue for remote rural constituencies but, overall, I would suggest that is an unacceptable blight across society.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has talked eloquently about the hardship of fuel poverty experienced in rural Scotland, and particularly in the highlands. I want to talk about disabled people, who are also disproportionately suffering as a result of the energy crisis. They have higher energy costs because of the equipment that they often need for assisted living. Just living from day to day is simply more expensive for them, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be putting in place additional support—similar to the warm home discount—for families of disabled children and for disabled people of working age?

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend must be clairvoyant, because she has anticipated a point that I shall make in due course. I thank her for her intervention.

There are two major contributory factors to fuel poverty in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: the absence of mains gas supply to many properties, and the comparative price of electricity, which costs four to five times more than mains gas and domestic oil per unit. Both of these power sources are often used to heat things that we rely on—for instance, water. Rural and remote households are more exposed to rising household costs due to paying an extra premium.

I suggest that energy policy in the UK is fundamentally broken. Consider this: the highlands and islands, to which the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) referred, produce more than 300% of their electricity demand from renewable sources—we produce three times more than we use. We export the rest to other parts of the UK, but as the hon. Member pointed out, a highland or island household pays more per unit of electricity due to the transmission charging regime, which pushes up energy bills even further. This is fundamentally wrong. Root and branch reform is required to design a UK energy policy that is fit for the 21st century, and that, most importantly, puts consumers at its heart.

Turning to business, energy price hikes are having a serious impact on the viability of businesses in the far north and, indeed, across the UK. I will quote two examples. Sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, I witness today Mr Andrew Mackay, my constituent. He and his brother own three hotels in Caithness known as the Caithness Collection—excellent hotels. They are facing an annual increase in electricity costs from almost £77,000 to—can Members believe?—nearly £130,000, which is a 70% rise.

Also in Caithness, we have a local engineering company, JGC Engineering, which is owned by the Campbell family and makes excellent pieces of stainless steel for the nuclear and other industries. The company’s annual electricity bill runs into six figures. The owners have been forced—they had no choice; it was the best deal they could get—to sign a deal that, believe it or not, means an 80% increase in costs starting in March 2022. To enable sustainable economic growth and—to borrow an expression from Her Majesty’s Government—to level up the United Kingdom, it is imperative that measures are put in place to protect consumers and businesses from crippling energy costs.

Looking ahead at the UK’s future energy mix, it is crucial that investment in renewables is kept up to pace. However, I believe that the Government can also look seriously at novel solutions to age-old problems. In terms of nuclear power, small modular reactors, such as those being designed by Rolls-Royce, could provide districts with heating and electricity in areas where it is costly to receive utilities on the national grid.

This kind of out-of-the-box thinking could reduce the cost of gas and electricity, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and ensure the economic future of areas that consider themselves left behind, such as Caithness.

Post Office Closures

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Yes, I think that it could. Although the Post Office was almost coerced into taking on banking, it is something that we need to seriously look at. There are models in other countries’ post office networks, and there have been studies. That is an excellent suggestion.

As we all know, the UK Government are the owners of the post office network; they cannot sit idly by, allowing closures and the impact that they have on local communities and economies. The public expects the Government to play a proactive and direct role in preserving and growing the network. Post offices may not be the first things that spring to mind when thinking of public services, but whenever a post office closes it is always missed. Post offices are, without a doubt, valued public assets and must remain so. Closures not only create an inconvenience but harm local businesses and the welfare of local people, given that the most vulnerable people rely on post offices for access to cash.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for her work with the APPG on post offices. In my constituency, which is facing four closures, the answer in the short term seems to be mobile services. Does she agree that those are simply insufficient for communities and that we should be urging the UK Government and the Post Office to look for longer-term solutions?

[Marion Fellows]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady for intervening. Her constituency was one of the most affected by the SPAR closures in Scotland, to which I will refer later, as well as outreach services.

It is devastating for everyone when a branch is closed, especially when it happens in a rural community where the post office may be not only the last shop in the village but also the last bank.