Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The package that we are announcing today will be significant. I will not say any more, because the Chancellor will be making that announcement later. I can say, however, that the boldness of the package is a direct consequence of the voices that we have heard from MPs, including from my hon. Friend and others in Stoke—whether losing their voice or not. Those voices have been profoundly important to the scope, scale and boldness of what will be announced today.

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

Hospitality businesses in North East Fife support the Lib Dem call for a VAT cut for hospitality, but the Government do not seem to be moving on it. Will the Minister consult with businesses on a lower national insurance contribution band for part-time workers? Part-time opportunities are so important to hospitality and for getting younger people into work.

[Kate Dearden]

It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member and the hospitality sector in her constituency recently. There are a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, and they need to happen in the usual way. The alleviation that we have already introduced on NIC is making a real difference to young people getting into employment. We will review it in the usual way in due course.

Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister has so far given us two reasons why the statement he has just given at the Dispatch Box is different from the one that was sent, embargoed, an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed? I should also say, dare I say it, that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House.

It has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK special representative for trade and investment, and until today the Government have published only one written statement, which told us very little. The Minister has not previously come to the Dispatch Box at all; I note the difference from the response to the Humble Address, in the name of the official Opposition, relating to Peter Mandelson.

The files that we have seen show that there was no vetting by the Government and that, even then, no questions appear to have been asked. The lack of documentation provided is itself concerning, as is the time taken to get this far. The Minister has said that he is not sure whether there are more documents. When will he be sure, and when will he release any remaining documents? The documents we do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. Why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting, not just at the start but at any stage during Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s tenure as an envoy? The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect more than a year after Ministers said that they were happy for it to happen, and the files also show that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and did nothing. There was time for the warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period?

In his written statement to the House today, the Minister excused the lack of vetting and oversight because Andrew was a royal replacing a royal. Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future such appointments? Can he tell the House whether officials or Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when the appointment was made? Was this connection monitored? Finally, can the Minister confirm, given their absence from this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about the appointment?

[Chris Bryant]

If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.

I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.

We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.

The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.

I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.

Department for Business and Trade

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I will make some brief remarks. I note that the Department’s estimates memorandum made specific reference to spending supporting the objectives to make the UK the best place in the world to do business, the best place to do business from, and to deliver great services to businesses. I will talk about a roundtable I held for hospitality businesses in my constituency last week. The organisations that attended varied hugely in size, turnover and business model—North East Fife is a place that generally people want to visit, and it caters for a number of visitors accordingly—but none of them thought that the Department for Business and Trade was making this the best place in the world to be operating.

Part of the reason for the debate was because the Department has increased its budgets for the British Business Bank and the growth guarantee scheme, which the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned. There are other sectors in North East Fife—we have seen losses in manufacturing, largely due to our departure from the EU, and we have the University of St Andrews doing groundbreaking work and research—but we are largely a rural economy, with farmers across the constituency.

Turning to hospitality, one of the issues raised at my business roundtable was the difficulty in accessing finance. Given that has already been raised by the Chair of the Committee, I hope that the Minister will address that point in particular. As has been already touched on, the feeling is that hospitality is being hammered from every direction at the moment—the question asked was: how much more can businesses take?

Across the board, businesses understood the reasons behind the changes to national insurance contributions, and they were supportive of the national living wage. Part of that is because most leaders in hospitality have worked their way up within the sector, and they know that the hard work of the service industry deserves proper pay. But as business owners they are also acutely aware that their wage bills are going up unsustainably.

A significant amount of hospitality businesses’ costs relate to staffing—some of them quoted 30% to 40%, or even higher. With the lower threshold for contributions dropping to £5,000, employees now pay national insurance on more of their employees’ earnings, which means that many part-time roles have been impacted and part-time recruitment is no longer happening. More full-time roles are being recruited, which stops young people, for example, from finding that first rung on the hospitality ladder.

Business rates are also going up. As a Scottish MP, I appreciate that that problem lies squarely at the feet of the SNP Government in Scotland, who could pause this year’s re-evaluations but are refusing to do so. I am grateful to my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who have secured hospitality reliefs in our budget negotiations with them. Food inflation—especially with the impact of tariffs—is a real concern, and the only real lever to control soaring costs is to cut back on training, hours and staff: those things that the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee said are so critical to delivering some of the change that the Government want to see.

The biggest ask that came from hospitality was to cut VAT from 20% to 15%, which is a move that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for for some time. I know that that is not in the gift of the Minister, but I urge him to make representations to the Treasury if we want this to be the best place in the world to do business. It is also a measure that would support hospitality across the UK, and I say that as a Scottish MP.

Hospitality is important for so many reasons. Last September, there were 2.6 million jobs in the hospitality industry and it is estimated to be worth £70 billion to our economy. It is also part of our community. That came across very strongly in the roundtable. On the day that my son was born, our local pub was across the road from our house and I went there to wet his head, because why should I miss out on all the fun? Since then, it is the place he has worked in and the place where he had his 18th birthday. We need to support these hospitality industries.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am taking your advice, Mr Speaker: I am just ignoring that.

Over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain—on television, on radio and in newspaper articles—citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive £15 million paid for his Sunninghill home and many other issues besides. I am afraid the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again. I was repeatedly told off, both in the Chamber and outside it.

The broadcaster John Humphrys actually told me on the “Today” programme on 7 March 2011—I think Members will be shocked by this—that Jeffrey Epstein was “not quite a paedophile”, drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on 11 March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction between Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it,

“none of the girls was pre-pubescent”,

although he did at least admit that both were “sordid and exploitative”. I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen.

Let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre was published in The Mail on Sunday on 27 February 2011—it is after the allegations, not before.

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

I entirely agree with the Minister on the abhorrence of the comments made in the media back then. Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?

[Chris Bryant]

I agree 100%. I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. Statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape—end of story.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head.

In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

By sketching out that timeline, the hon. Gentleman brings to light the reason why we are calling in our Humble Address for information about the actual creation of the appointment, which, as the Minister rightly pointed out, was a unique role created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that we are right not only to call out the creation of that role, but to ascertain whether Mandelson had any role in it?

[Alex Burghart]

Very much so. As I say, it would have been better if the Government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the House by Opposition parties in order to release the information. I am very glad, though, that the Liberal Democrats have learned from the Conservatives’ Humble Address a few weeks ago. It is always good that once the Conservatives have designed a bandwagon, got it up and running and shown that it can move at high speed, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and get on board—better late than never.

If we go through the sequencing very carefully, we can see that it is possible that there was influence from Epstein, who, we must acknowledge, had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, although there were already rumours and reports about him, and who was, in any case, a highly influential foreign businessman. If it was under his influence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding]

I agree. There is a systematic and joined-up failure that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in my speech.

When there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does that say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Do propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state?

We have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the Palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, Parliament must. I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role of trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it? While he was trade envoy, what concerns were raised and with whom, from what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him. Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can Parliament find out that not one penny of public money was used in that settlement?

I know you will share with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the concern about levels of public confidence in all our institutions and the people who represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I, along with my colleagues, call for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a special envoy and for an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about their concerns and disclose information in the House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the royal family.

I will end, as I must, with thoughts for the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all those who are victims of power, privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds as this furore continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am conscious that she was close to concluding, but her words about the victims are powerful. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. We have just started our work, but Members may have heard a powerful interview on the “World at One” a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the lack of acknowledgement of what had taken place and the fact that the police did not properly understand trafficking. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), described this as a global enterprise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do much more work around this and that it is not just about the victims of Epstein, but other trafficking victims, too?

[Monica Harding]

My hon. Friend is quite right. This is about systemic failure, and we are at the very beginning of this, not the end. For the victims of Epstein, we must do everything we can to ensure that this investigation and inquiry continue. On behalf of those victims and those who are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up, and we must facilitate that.

Jane Austen

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing this debate. I am the Liberal Democrats’ Chief Whip, so I am not given to making speeches as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but I have chosen to speak in this debate because my degree is in English language and literature and—as other Members have already said—I am a Jane Austen fan.

As the MP for North East Fife, I cannot claim that my constituency has any relationship to Jane Austen. If she had come to North East Fife, she might have wanted to bathe in the sea off the East Neuk, but she would have found it rather chilly. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), whose constituency includes Ramsgate, just pointed out, going to the seaside was not necessarily a safe thing for Austen’s characters to do. Many of them came to harm by the sea.

Clearly, the streets and the quirks of neighbours captured in Austen’s writing are one of the reasons why we have had such a varied debate today. Walter Scott, the 250th anniversary of whose birth we celebrated in 2021, was a Jane Austen fan and described her as having

“the exquisite touch, which renders ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting, from the truth of the description and the sentiment”.

I want to put Jane Austen into her historical context. Many Members have already done that in this debate, but the Napoleonic wars have not been mentioned so far. I recommend Jenny Uglow’s “In These Times: Living in Britain Through Napoleon’s Wars, 1793-1815”, which is available in the House of Commons Library. If we map Austen’s life on to that period of time, we see that the Napoleonic wars started as she turned 18 and concluded only two years before her untimely death.

There has been some criticism of the letters that Austen wrote and of her attitudes towards death. There is a particular letter in which she comments on the stillbirth of a woman known to her by basically suggesting that the stillbirth was caused by the woman being “frighted” at seeing the face of her husband. Consequently, some people have suggested that there is a cruelness to Austen, but I would argue that that was the reality of her times: women died in childbirth; these things happened.

We see Austen’s perspective on war in many ways in her books. We see the Redcoats that Lydia Bennet encounters in Meryton, and naval officers such as Captain Wentworth and his colleagues in “Persuasion”. There were troops everywhere in Britain during that time. War was a fact of life, but it was also a fact of life that, because the war continued for so long, it became part of people’s day-to-day lives so it did not intrude on their consciousness in a way that an event of shorter duration might have done. War is part of Austen’s novels, but it is not at the centre of them. As has been said already, Jane had brothers in the Navy. She was heavily invested in their careers and understood the peril that families felt about a loved one serving overseas.

What is interesting about Austen’s writing is that it not only resonated with her contemporaries but has continued to resonate with many different generations across the ensuing 250 years. In 1918, as part of efforts to boost morale in the trenches, two of her works, “Persuasion” and “Northanger Abbey”, were selected by the War Office for the Forces book club and printed in a size that could fit in a soldier’s pocket. That does not suggest that Austen produced “chick-lit”. Indeed, a hospital worker in 1915 wrote an article in The Times about their efforts to find appropriate reading to calm the nerves of those suffering from shellshock:

“It happened that a tired soldier found her”—

that is, Austen—

“just what he wanted…We found ourselves…wishing that the dear lady had written at greater length…as the last page of ‘sense and sensibility’ came.”

The other thing I will say about war is also about empire. One of the things that we do not necessarily recognise in “Mansfield Park”, for example, is that it is quite clear that the Bertram family are profiting from the slave trade in the Caribbean.

In relation to Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I was at the Topping & Company bookshop in St Andrews in my constituency last week and people there were talking about how popular the celebrations in Bath for Austen’s birthday had been. It is truly remarkable that a woman who in her lifetime earned only £631 from writing—the equivalent of £45,000 today—has gone on to create a multimillion-pound industry.

I want to talk a bit about the literature—how did Austen capture so many hearts and minds? I will suggest a second book to Members: John Mullan’s “What Matters in Jane Austen?” is a set of 20 essays that really track her literary genius. It is a book that I come back to on a regular basis, though not quite as regularly as I come back to the books themselves. John Mullan argues that Austen was a trailblazer in literary ingenuity:

“She did things with fiction…with characterisation, with dialogue…that had never been done before.”

We take free indirect style in English fiction for granted, so we underestimate how revolutionary Austen’s style was. Because she filtered her plots through the consciousness of her characters, we really saw real people. That is one reason that her art has endured.

It was the little things that mattered—the smallest of details. One chapter of Mullan’s book talks about blushing. That seems such a small, inconsequential thing in some ways but Emma Woodhouse—the one Austen character who is very secure in her opinions, her confidence and her sense of self—blushes when she is reprimanded by Mr Knightley for her treatment of Miss Bates on Box Hill. That is the first sign that that woman, Emma, who has been so confident in her opinions until now, has got things wrong and does not truly know herself.

Austen’s plotting of who keeps silent in “Emma” turns the book into a detective novel. That is one reason why so many people can return to her books: you find something new every time. All of that shows how crafted Austen’s work was, and that craft has allowed her work to be remade again and again. I am a woman of a certain age, so 1995 was quite important for me, whether it was “Clueless”, “Persuasion”—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about that production—or the very well known “Pride and Prejudice” adaptation. I have unfortunately been unable to get to the “Austenmania!” exhibition, but that would have been very popular with me. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, the careers of some of our greatest stars, and maybe even our Prime Minister, may have been launched through such things.

What inspires so deep a devotion to Austen’s work, even in the inattentive reader? I would argue it is the way she captures human follies and scruples with genuine affection and humour. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referenced what Mr Bennet said about how we make

“sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn”.

On Mr Bennet, I have to say that the 1995 production fooled us all. Mr Bennet is a pretty neglectful dad, isn’t he? How did he end up with five daughters and be unable to provide for them on £2,000 a year? I think he has a bit to answer for.

Towards the end of that story, Elizabeth reflects that Darcy

“had yet to learn to be laughed at”.

We, the readers, understand that under her tutelage he will learn that. We also learn to laugh at Darcy a little ourselves. Austen’s ironies attract us still, but her balance and poise often elude imitators. But while laughing at foolishness is a good way to get by, it is not ultimately the salve that brought comfort to the soldier in the trenches or to an admiral’s family. To quote Beatrice Scudeler,

“if her novels prove that moral corruption is ubiquitous, they also make the case that, despite our corrupted nature, we’re not unsalvageable: forgiveness and redemption are always within reach of humankind.”

From Emma to Anne Elliot to Mr Darcy, confronting their mistakes is a powerful factor in how Austen’s characters grow. Fanny Price is one of the least popular of Austen’s characters because she is always good and always right, and although that is a very nice way for someone to live, it sometimes makes them slightly insufferable to live with. I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle—Anne Elliot is my favourite character and her failing is that she has not been headstrong enough, which is not often a problem for the other heroines of Austen.

Austen’s most powerful innovation was to realise that a lack of self-knowledge is the very voice of narration. Her dialogue is king of her works. The comic characters are monologists whereas our heroes—such as Emma and Mr Knightley—are supreme in their dialogue. We should also look out for the significant characters who we never hear from—they do not actually speak—because they are interesting too.

To conclude, in an age where it is less and less common to call on our neighbours and know their follies and scruples, and where the ridiculousness of Miss Bates would have potentially meant that Emma’s hot takes went viral on social media, it does us good as politicians to be reminded that community requires compassion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Far be it from me to agree with a Lib Dem but, broadly speaking, I do. The truth is, as the Leader of the Opposition has now admitted, Brexit was a self-inflicted shock—and not just a small shock. It is as if the Conservatives decided to throw the three-bar electric fire into the bath while it was plugged in and they were sitting in it. The hon. Lady is right: it is a 4% drop in productivity, a 15% drop in trade and a £100 billion hit to our GDP, and there are 16,000 fewer businesses now exporting into Europe. I am sorry but they are not Cinderella—instead, we are having to clear up the mess left by the ugly sisters.

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

I always appreciate the Minister’s optimism, but I was with my local chamber of commerce a few weeks ago and it did not have the same views on how the Government are doing with growing the economy. I heard from a hospitality business in my constituency that costs for next year will go up by £150,000. They will not make it through next year. I understand and can perhaps predict what the Minister will say, but surely we need to consider some key measures, because we are hearing from across this House that hospitality is in crisis.

[Chris Bryant]

We are looking at all those issues in the round. We need to ensure that there is the support that people need in a variety of different ways. Some of that is about ensuring that bills get paid on time and some is making sure that those businesses have the access to finance that they have historically found difficult. We need to build on the successes and enable people to diversify more. That is precisely what our Department is there to help with. If the hon. Lady has people who want to meet me, I am happy to do that, but I can assure her that we are determined to drive economic growth.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I spoke to Unite representatives today and heard directly from the workforce of their experiences. ExxonMobil tried, prior to announcing its closure, to effect a sale of the plant, but it was not able to find any interest. I have been informed this afternoon that, as a result of the announcement of the closure, there may be some interest in the plant. Of course, we will explore every possible avenue for that and to ensure that the employees receive support, but if there are interested companies, we would be very happy to explore that, in working with the Scottish Government and the local council.

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward): this is devastating news for Fife. Although the Mossmorran plant is not in my constituency, I know that I will have constituents who are affected. I note what the Minister said about this decision not being due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government, but his statement was pretty silent on the economic circumstances referred to in ExxonMobil’s public statement—in what I saw when this closure was announced, there was certainly an attribution to the UK Government’s failures in that regard.

I am a bit disappointed that the first mention of the Scottish Government was at the very end of the statement, in looking forward. The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs, and taking an approach that does not involve the Scottish Government allows the SNP Government to blame the UK Government when such things happen. Although today’s announcement is not a surprise to the Government, will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government in advance of this decision?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Lady points out that the plant is not in her constituency, but clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency concerned, particularly for a plant of this size, and we need to think carefully about the impact on the supply chain. I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government are mentioned towards the end of the statement. That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government have not been or are not involved. There have been meetings at the highest level in the Scottish Government. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been involved in discussions with ExxonMobil, as we have tried to find any possible measure to avoid this decision. Ultimately, it was a decision for the business, and our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife. As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity to bring new investment to that site in the future, and that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see.

Carer’s Leave

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered carer’s leave.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer. I declare my interest as both an honorary vice-president of Carers UK and a board member of the Fife Carers Centre, which celebrated its 30th anniversary last week.

It is now just shy of two years since my private Member’s Bill, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, received Royal Assent, and a little over a year since the necessary regulations were passed to enact the legislation. It came after years of work by dedicated campaigners both within and outside Parliament, and I had the pleasure of meeting some of them at an event to celebrate the law passing. I said then what I say now, which is that by passing the Act, I stood on the shoulders of many who came before.

But the job is not done just because the law is passed. Employment rights are useful only if they are known about and enforceable, and if they solve the policy issue that they intend to. I want to use this debate to look at how the law has been working for unpaid carers over the past year. The myriad problems and hurdles faced by unpaid carers, or indeed anyone, are not solved by the magic of one private Member’s Bill, as much as I wish they were—as politicians, I think we all wish they were. According to the latest census data from all four nations, there are at least 5.8 million people in the UK providing unpaid care for an ill, older or disabled family member or friend. Of those people, 2.8 million were recorded as balancing that caring responsibility with work.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The hon. Lady is making an important speech and I thank her for her work on this issue. She will know about my passion to support unpaid carers, particularly young carers. She is giving some very important and high figures. However, is it likely that those figures are actually higher, because certainly many young carers, and I suspect it is the same with adult carers, do not recognise that they are carers?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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

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

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

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Thank you for securing the debate. It is an important topic and it is a privilege to be here. I used to do a lot of work with carers and young carers in my job in the NHS, and I used to visit some of the Ayrshire carers centres. One thing that people told me was important to them was getting a break, whether it be a day out or a few days away, and another was getting peer support from other carers. Respite has already been mentioned. Do you agree that it is important for carers to get a break and opportunities for peer support?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that I am not part of the debate. Can we revert to normal parliamentary language? I do not like correcting people. We have just been through the previous debate and I did not, but I think it is necessary.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Thank you, Mr Stringer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

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

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or,

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I start by thanking all the Members who have taken time to participate in the debate. There are several Liberal Democrats present, which says a lot about the position my party takes on carers and the recognition it gives to unpaid carers, for which I am grateful. I also thank the Department for Business and Trade and the civil servants who supported me during the passage of my private Member’s Bill, now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, in the last Parliament—they did excellent work. The real purpose of this debate is to ensure that excellent work is not lost and is seen by the people who need the help and support.

I am encouraged by the response from His Majesty’s Opposition and their approach to paid carer’s leave, and by what the Government are saying. However, I am very conscious that if we are moving forward on paid carer’s leave, we need to make sure that the current carer’s leave legislation is available to as many people as possible. I am also encouraged to hear from the Minister that there is a ministerial working group on unpaid carers. The last time I discussed carers on the Floor of the House it was to ask for a carer’s strategy; it sounds like the working group might be the beginning of one, which I am pleased to hear. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), our carers spokesperson, will be following up on that with the Minister and the Government.

We all recognise what unpaid carers do, and we all recognise how much they do. What we are saying is that, if we really want to see growth—which is what the Government say they want, and everyone in the Chamber would agree—then we need to allow those carers who can work, to work. There will always be circumstances where unpaid carers cannot work because of the severity of the condition that their loved one is experiencing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) brought one of those cases to light. But where carers can work, they should be given the opportunity and support to do so, because economic inactivity is causing real issues in our economy. That is why carer’s leave is an issue that all MPs should care about.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered carer’s leave.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. No parent should have to go through the upset and anguish of seeing their child diagnosed or suffering with a serious illness. Sadly, it is not within our power to prevent these terrible situations, but what is within our power as legislators is to provide support and reassurance to parents who end up in those traumatic situations. We can help ease not only the process, but the parents’ return to work at the end of their child’s treatment, or throughout the child’s treatment, should the individual circumstances permit.

We should remember that the workplace and being in work is often about more than just money, although of course money is very important. Work gives us a sense of purpose, belonging and normality. It can therefore be a terrible situation for a parent if they rather unexpectedly find themselves in the position of not only losing their job, but fearing for their child’s health. Sometimes, with care treatment plans being longer than expected, additional complexities may arise if the child is particularly unwell. Depending on the child’s illness, they may need to attend regular appointments at the hospital, sometimes more often than was originally envisaged, or there may be a dedicated treatment centre that is further than one may have initially realised. Therefore, the treatment and care that has to be provided by the parent is sometimes not known at the outset and can be particularly onerous.

Some children may need around-the-clock care and attention, with no other family member or friend to provide that additional care, or the parent may simply be the only person the child has to care for them. At the end of the treatment, whether it is successful or not, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult for the parent to return to the workplace. Indeed, the job may not be waiting for them at the end, ready for them to return to. The parent may struggle to get back into the jobs market at a cost to them, their children and the state.

Let us take the situation of Christina Harris, who started this petition and who, I am honoured to say, is with us in the Public Gallery. Indeed, I was honoured to meet Christina before the debate, and it is great to see her, her friends and her child, Skye, here. Skye was diagnosed during a Christmas period, and on the first day back to work, Christina was told that she would not be paid and was shocked to discover that she had no statutory protection to fall back on. Skye’s treatment, once diagnosed, was to take approximately two years. Although Christina’s employer could not provide her wages during the time that Christina was caring for Skye, her employer at least kept the role open to Christina while she was initially absent from work.

Six months in, Christina was asked to attend a meeting with her employer in which she felt that she was put in a very difficult position, and her employer was completely unwilling at the start to discuss the flexible working options. After another six months, Christina’s employment contract was terminated, despite her having provided 19 years’ of service to the same company, and obviously she still had to deal with Skye’s care. It is great to see that Skye is on the mend and returning to a good state of health. After a year of uncertainty, Christina was left taking part-time work to make ends meet while struggling with providing the care for Skye.

This situation is unlike any other regarding parenthood and work. Let us take the example of a parent having an accident; parents have access to bereavement leave. One of the better parts of the Employment Rights Bill that is going through this House includes a right to neonatal leave and pay, easing this exact issue for newborns, but not for older children. Even in the classic case of unplanned pregnancy affecting a career, parents still have nine months to prepare, but a child can become ill at a moment’s notice and through no fault of the parents or the child. Despite that, however, the options for support are incredibly limited, which is why the petition is before the House.

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

The hon. Member pointed out some of the increased employment rights that we should see under the Employment Rights Bill. In the previous Parliament, there was no employment rights Bill, but private Members’ Bills did improve the situation in part: the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 on flexible, working promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my Carer’s Leave Act 2023. That suggests we need more support for parents—paid carer’s leave—so that people like Christina do not suffer in the way that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has outlined.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. That absolutely highlights the importance of why the petition needs to be considered by the Government and the Minister of the day. The Employment Rights Bill that is working its way through the House includes some positive measures. Potentially, this petition is an additional thought that the Minister should consider, given the strength of feeling shown through the number of people who have signed it.

In the vast majority of cases, these situations are completely unexpected. As I said, who knows when a child is going to become seriously ill? A diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue and a parent has to deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member’s intervention gets to the nub of the why this petition is so important: not all employers are doing the right thing by their employees. That parent may be a single parent or have no support around them, and they can end up in a very difficult situation, having to deal quite immediately with the challenge that they face. A lack of reassurance in the workplace can add to their anxiety.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. It is right that we acknowledge employers who are doing this well. I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of Carers UK. That organisation runs an important network that shares good practice among employers, and I urge any constituents who have signed the petition to get their employers linked in with it.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member must have read my speech, because I will come later to the importance of all employers and employees being aware of the rights that already exist. There are a number of protection measures out there. The challenge is that employers and employees do not necessarily know what support is available.

Through the survey conducted by the Petitions Committee, we can see, as in Christina’s case, that when an employer is less flexible—or outright unhelpful, as we have seen in certain circumstances—things quickly get worse. Some 99% of respondents believed that employers should be required to provide career breaks for parents of terminally ill children. What Christina and thousands of other people are calling out for is statutory reassurance that, as soon as they are able to go back to work, the job will be available for them, at least for a limited period.

That reassurance—that as soon as treatment is complete, life can go back to normal—is hugely important for the parents’ mental health and to help them plan their future financial situation. Many families can afford to take a short-term hit to care for their child, although not all can, and they cannot do so without a guaranteed time period within which they can get back into the workplace at the end of that employment break. That is why I reiterate the importance of the petition.

The key point about reassurance was raised with me by It’s Never You, a charity run by two individuals who care deeply about the issue because they suffered the tragic loss of their own child from the terrible illness of cancer in 2021. When I met them, they passionately explained that getting support in place from day one is a major issue. For the first 90 days after a child has been diagnosed with a terrible illness, parents have to go through an incredible amount of restructuring in their life, so having their employer’s support from day one is vital. As employers themselves, those individuals are all too aware of the burden that a statutory requirement for a career break would have on smaller businesses, but they correctly highlighted to me that the lack of any Government-directed standard or benchmark is a recipe for chaos—and, as has already been indicated, many employers and employees do not necessarily know what level of support is available when a child is diagnosed with a serious illness.

Pub and Hospitality Sector

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bedford]

If the hon. Gentleman could give me a few moments, I will carry on. The success of UK plc is intrinsically linked to the success of the leisure and hospitality sector. The hospitality sector is a key employer throughout the UK, employing 3.5 million people, many with flexible working arrangements. It is vital for our younger people. As of this year, 51% of 16 to 24-year-olds are employed in the sector, and that plays a crucial role in developing their careers.

In my maiden speech, I stated that social mobility, particularly through apprenticeships, is key to creating a fairer and more just society. Many businesses in this sector offer apprenticeship schemes. Is it not great that someone can start as a trainee, a pot washer, and end up running an entire business? I think that should be applauded.

The sector also provides many social benefits. Hospitality businesses play a crucial role in encouraging socialising. In a country where many, particularly the elderly, often feel isolated and alone, community pubs often provide a place for people to come and feel part of broader society.

I have spoken with local independent brewers in Leicestershire, in particular Everards, and we should also recognise the significant charitable contributions of community pubs. In Leicestershire, 153 independently-run pubs raise more than £1.5 million locally for local charities, which is reinvested in local communities to make them even greater places to live and work. That is invariably why 72% of British adults believe that pubs have a positive impact on the communities that they serve. I take the opportunity to celebrate the positive impact that the hospitality sector has in my constituency. In Mid Leicestershire, our 41 pubs cumulatively support more than 2,000 jobs and contribute £19 million to the Treasury.

However, as we are all aware, the industry has faced many challenges over recent years. What makes the sector so successful is its incredible resilience. There have been many challenges: the covid-19 pandemic, the conflict in Ukraine and various geopolitical challenges have sent input costs spiralling high. The pandemic saw the hospitality industry suffer the biggest economic decline of all sectors. Economic output in the sector between 2019 and 2020 decreased by 42%, and we lost 10% of hospitality businesses during the pandemic. However, industry experts recognise the support that the last Conservative Government offered the industry through the eat out to help out scheme, a temporary cut to VAT and furloughing more than 2.1 million jobs, which limited the impact of the pandemic.

There have also been significant global challenges. The sector’s resilience has been displayed throughout the ongoing cost of living crisis brought on by world events.

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

The hon. Gentleman talked about the war in Ukraine and the cost of living. Dean Banks, who runs the Haar restaurant in St Andrews, told me that energy costs are a challenge. One of the problems is that energy companies use direct debits to keep hold of companies’ money, so they cannot manage their cash flow. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a real issue?

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That applies to domestic consumers and to businesses that have to manage their cash flow, so I absolutely support her comments on energy providers.

The war on Ukraine, which brought about the increase in energy prices, has caused hospitality profit margins to continue to decline. Office for National Statistics data shows that hospitality businesses are more likely to shut their doors for at least two days a week than any other industry. However, once again the industry has expressed its gratitude to the previous Government for their support, particularly through the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief scheme, which saved the average hospitality business £12,000 and prevented many small and medium-sized businesses from going bust. The sector is not immune from the effects of over-regulation, which of course stifles creativity and businesses’ ability to grow.

So where are we heading? I will move on to what may happen under the new Government’s plans. With the Budget just around the corner, I implore the Chancellor to do all she can to support, not hinder, the hospitality sector. The sector is clear that it desperately needs a continued reduction in business rates. Many in the sector have stated that they face a cliff edge on 1 April next year if the Government do not extend business rate relief to them. Two pubs shut every day in the UK, and that number will only increase if the relief is not extended.