Health Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I give my enthusiastic support to the amendments on unpaid carers in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. As she clearly said, one of the great difficulties about the carers’ movement is that people do not identify themselves as carers. That is partly because you become a carer in different ways: sometimes it creeps up on you, and you start by doing your dad’s shopping and then gradually do more for him until you are in a caring situation; or your mum has a stroke and there you are, suddenly in the carer role. Either way, you do not prepare for it, you do not discuss it with anybody, and you certainly do not identify yourself as a carer. That is why having somebody else identify you is of huge importance, and the only way that you are going to identify yourself as a carer and therefore have access to any kind of services at all.

Ironically, although carers have rights with local authorities under various other Acts in the past, they have no rights as far as health services are concerned, and yet it will probably be with their GP that they make initial contact. We did at one point have a duty on GPs to identify carers, but, sadly, that fell by the wayside during a different Government.

Identifying carers should be a duty, to help them and to support that huge workforce. Similarly, that applies to promoting the health and well-being of carers, because, as we have heard, 72% of carers report a long-term condition compared with 60% of people who are not carers. They do not take care of and neglect their own health because they are too busy caring.

As ever with unpaid carers, there is an economic as well as a moral case for supporting them. Here we have this huge workforce of 5 million people providing care worth, as the noble Baroness reminded us, the equivalent of another health service. It is in everybody’s interest to keep them well and doing what they want to do—they do so lovingly and willingly, usually—and to support them as much as possible.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I have little to add to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Pitkeathley, have said, except to say that, for young carers, regular respite is essential. That might be going to a club once a week, to get out of the house and maintain other connections outside of school, for example. We know how important that is in preventing mental health problems.

There is huge inequality. For three years, I was a carer for my mother, who had Alzheimer’s disease. When I had had enough, I could afford to pay, along with her, to put her into a really nice nursing home for two weeks—which is in fact where she ended up for the last eight months of her life. It is not difficult if you have the money to plan it, but there are lots of people who do not. I cannot emphasise that enough. It kept me well and, in her moments of lucidity, made my mother feel independent, since she was paying to give me a break. We need to think about how difficult it is for people who cannot do that.

Particularly for people with dementia, admiral nurses should be able to identify those carers who are in need of respite. For many people, two weeks may not be what they need; what they need is 24 hours, once a week. Again, the care home that my mother was in is now offering that, and managing to have three people twice a week. That enables other people to go off. I am pleased to say that some of the beds in that nursing home are now paid for by the local authority, so things may be a bit more equitable than they were then.

There is clear evidence that, if you give respite to foster carers, foster carers can go on. Let us learn from that and see how we can apply that to carers right across the country, but with a particular emphasis on those who cannot fund anything to help themselves.