Unpaid Carers

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for unpaid carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. This is an important debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for taking time to attend it. I thank Carers UK, Carers Trust and the many other fantastic organisations working in this space. I also thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of the debate: the words, wisdom and experience of those contributors, from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid Sussex, are gold dust if we in this place are going to make the right changes. Even in the short window the survey was open, hundreds of people shared stories and ideas for change. I am sorry I cannot read them all out, but plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for.

That is having horrendous consequences. Last night a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, and I will share it as it brings to light what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum, who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would look after her at home. Despite this, neither boy was ever identified as a young carer. Eventually, in February 2025, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home and had to call emergency services. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services.

Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey talked about carer’s allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy. Some said they had never heard of it. I would like to share a short extract from the contribution of a former human rights lawyer who gave that up for her caring responsibilities. She wrote in to the Petitions Committee survey with a poem that ends:

“You have the privilege of debating important things every year,

But when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heart breaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life.

That’s when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck,

And say ‘Mum, why are you sad, I love you, it’s going to be all right.’

Carer’s Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers,

So, we ask our employers—and it’s maybe fair to say this is the state

In the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties,

Why do up to 16.2% of the population get just 19% of the national minimum wage—and how is this still even up for debate?”

Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone. They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK. Some 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year.

Those people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope. Carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 who are in deep poverty. Its 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials.

No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available. This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House.

We are right to keep saying these things: that unpaid carers do extraordinary work, that without them our entire health system would collapse and that, too often, they go unsupported. However, we also have to make tangible changes that move us on from a status quo that is not good enough—words and actions, not words and inaction.

There have been some welcome developments in recent months. The Government’s carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated Government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers’ employment rights and the work to reform carer’s allowance all offer opportunities for meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in the lives of carers and those they care for.

We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey commission and the development of a national care service. A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have a genuine say about what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help to shape the design of services and the decisions made about them and the people they support.

When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices, such as the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months, which is a woefully slow pace. I would like to hear from the Minister about the Department’s plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress.

As we approach Carers Rights Day next month, this debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the Government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope it will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree: carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so.

I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament can hold the Government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

There will be a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches.

Vaccination Rates: England

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I need to impose a time limit of three minutes.

Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank all hon. Members who came to speak in the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who gave very interesting Back-Bench contributions. I also thank the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople—the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers)—for their contributions. It is quite true that the shadow Minister and I grew up on the same street—probably about 10 houses apart, but many more than 10 years apart.

This has been an interesting debate, whose purpose was to highlight the plight of foundation doctors. As we have said, if we can fix the foundations, we will be able to fix the problems we have with our young doctors. I definitely think that this industrial dispute, which has been rolling and rumbling on for several years, is solvable. It sounds as though we were close to solving it and particularly to attending to the conditions of young doctors.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a chance for a second speech; it is just a winding-up speech.

[Peter Prinsley]

I will wind up, then. I thank everyone very much, and I look forward to seeing success in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Foundation Programme and its role in supporting and retaining resident doctors.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I welcome that intervention. I spoke extensively about the Bill’s impact on anorexic people, and I am not satisfied that those concerns have been addressed.

I am pleased to support amendment 21 tabled by my good friend, colleague and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), which has attracted support from across the House. It would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact that the Act has had on the healthcare available to those with palliative and end-of-life care needs. I am really pleased that the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has agreed to accept the amendment.

I am also pleased to support amendments 103 and 104 in the name of my other constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). They seek to make all statutory instruments made under the Act subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. As it stands, the Act will come into force in four years’ time with no further scrutiny by MPs, yet a whole host of issues that have been delegated to the Secretary of State or have not even been considered will need to be legislated for after Royal Assent. As the Bill stands, the only way for Parliament to scrutinise those powers will be to call for a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended and will be voted on only if the Leader of the Opposition calls for a vote. Making statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure would mean that the Secretary of State, whoever that is, can exercise the powers delegated to them only with the approval of Parliament. For an issue as sensitive and profound as assisted dying, I believe that to be an appropriate level of scrutiny.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I am sorry, but I will make some progress.

In a similar vein, I plan to support the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), which seek to remove all Henry VIII powers from the Bill and from the amendments introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I will support the right hon. Member’s amendments if they are selected for a vote, as I do not believe that the use of Henry VIII powers is appropriate or necessary.

I want to speak against amendment 94 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. It appears to be innocuous, but in reality it would reverse the effect of an amendment that I had accepted in Committee. The Bill as originally drafted would create an enormous constitutional minefield. It seeks to amend the criminal law of England and Wales, which is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, and simultaneously to make provision for healthcare, which is a matter devolved to the Senedd in Wales. The Senedd debated a motion calling on the Welsh Government to support the principles of assisted dying, but it was defeated by 19 votes to 26. The motion was non-binding, but the Bill gives the UK Parliament the power to impose on the Senedd in Wales a measure that it has expressly said it does not want. The Bill as amended in Committee would give the Senedd the power to decide for itself when it is ready to bring the Bill into force.

Amendment 94 would reverse that provision and deprive the Senedd of the right to exercise its legitimate powers. It is not just that the amendment would restore the constitutional loophole that the Committee had closed; it threatens to create real problems and risks for Welsh citizens if the Senedd is forced to implement the Bill before its devolved healthcare system is ready. I urge fellow Members to have regard to the Committee’s decision and vote against amendment 94.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Paula Barker Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has led this important debate with openness and transparency at all times, and has treated all views with dignity and respect. She is acutely aware of the strongly held beliefs on both sides of this debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the concern that there was not enough time to debate the Bill. It is important to ensure the maximum amount of debate on this important Bill, and to ensure that all views are heard. The public wish to hear a considered view from all parliamentarians in this place, and we owe it to them to ensure that the debate continues, while treating each other with dignity and respect, just as we did last November, when we saw this place as its very best.

A money resolution is standard for any Bill put forward by the Government or an MP. The wording is identical to any other money resolution for any other Bill. It is important that all Members are clear that this debate is not about the merits or otherwise of the Bill, and it would be incredibly disappointing if any Member sought to use it as such.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does there not appear to be some confusion about the motion? It clearly says that this procedural motion has to be laid before the House

“for the purposes of any Act resulting from”

the scrutiny and debate that is to come. If hon. Members on either side of the debate, and on either side of the House, having considered the final version of the Bill, think that it should not be agreed to for monetary reasons, will not that be the time to vote no to the Bill?

[Paula Barker]

I will come to that point shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has sought every opportunity to be inclusive, and has sought a wide range of views, because she knows the value of all voices being heard. If the resolution does not pass today, the Bill cannot progress. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that that is not what the House voted for in November, and it is certainly not what our constituents want.

Three full days of oral evidence from 50 witnesses will begin next week. That will be followed by at least eight full days of scrutiny. None of that will proceed if the resolution is voted down today. I appeal to Members across this place, regardless of their views, to let us have the long overdue, open and transparent debate that will enable Members to formulate a final opinion on the Bill, irrespective of what that may be. To stifle it would be to stifle democracy. We must remember that democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight to the wrong one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. It is, indeed, a huge task we have before us. We will maintain ambulance capacity throughout this winter. He makes a valuable point about alternative models to hospital admissions and treatment in the community. That is a matter for the local ICB, as I know he knows. It needs to look at which model is the best fit, particularly in rural areas, to reduce the pressure on frontline A&E services.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Intermediate care for people facing homelessness, which is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, can reduce rough sleeping by around 70%. That is life-changing for people who have been sleeping rough and it plays a significant role in relieving pressure on hospitals. A recent evaluation of intermediate care for people facing homelessness in one county in England found a 56% reduction in A&E visits and a 67% reduction in emergency admissions. What exists currently is a postcode lottery. How can we embed the NICE approach in every integrated care system across England?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend has highlighted an issue that is often overlooked. Homelessness has risen to shocking levels in the last 14 years. When it was addressed under the last Labour Government, people were moved off the streets, and there was decent care at the front end of the hospital system and support in the community. My hon. Friend is right: there are good examples across the country, and we would like to see them embedded as part of our overall goal, across Government, of reducing the scourge of homelessness in society and once again supporting the front end of the health service.

Building an NHS Fit for the Future

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

The most Gracious Speech summed up the agenda, or lack thereof, of a tired Government: one who have run out of steam after inflicting considerable damage to our country over 13 long years and are intent on whipping up hate, manufacturing culture wars and sowing division, instead of a Government concerned with the bread and butter issues that matter to working people the length and breadth of Britain.

The Gracious Speech could have—should have—included significant measures to improve our public services and rescue our public sector from the state of permanent decline that those on the Government Benches have put it in. The NHS is on life support and so, too, are the Tory Government. Waiting lists are now approaching 8 million and NHS staff are forced to use outdated, creaking equipment, making their jobs harder. Meanwhile, those on the Tory Benches preoccupy themselves with minimum service levels and trade union bashing, rather than tackling the root causes of the recruitment and retention crisis gripping our health service. Those on the Tory Benches say that they want minimum service levels on strike days, but what is the Conservative plan to provide minimum levels of service on non-strike days?

As the Prime Minister brings back one of his predecessors to the heart of Government, let us not forget that it is the 13 years of public sector pay policy first initiated by the new unelected Foreign Secretary as Prime Minister that has led us to this point. Only yesterday, the General Medical Council warned the Government that a record number of doctors plan to leave the profession due to burn-out and dissatisfaction. It states that the long-term workforce plan has come too late. Indeed, many would say it represents too little, such is the scale of the problems that are now endemic in the NHS.

There was never a better time in recent history for the Gracious Speech to include the Government’s long-promised mental health Bill. Instead, the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 has been shelved by the Government. The charity Mind is right when it proclaims that the Government have failed to prioritise mental health as well as broken their promise to thousands of people. Despite the Government promising to deliver 6,000 extra NHS GP appointments, patients are finding it impossible to see a GP because there are simply not enough GPs to meet the demand for care. Some of my constituents are being forced to perform DIY dentistry, because they are facing two-year waits for check-ups and some cannot even access an NHS dentist.

If we look at adult social care, we see that thousands of people are stuck in hospital beds who are medically fit to leave but unable to do so because the care they need in the community simply is not there. I am sure that all Members remember only too well the former Prime Minister—for the avoidance of doubt, let me remind them that this was three Prime Ministers ago—telling us that he would fix the broken social care system within the first 100 days of office. Nowadays, many Ministers do not even reach the heady heights of 100 days in office—just ask the lettuce.

Once again, the Gracious Speech contained nothing for renters, NHS staff or working people. The Government are again reaffirming their intent to turn their back on the most vulnerable in our society. The scars left by the pandemic, the volatility of the labour market and the cost of living crisis weigh heavily on millions upon millions of people in this country—on workers in the public and private sectors, and on those who cannot work.

The Government’s programme of austerity hit the very poorest in their first five years. Electorally, the Government were shielded from their own policies because—as he has now admitted—the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, changed the funding formulas to take money from deprived urban areas and give it to other parts of the country such as the leafy shires. However, now the chickens are coming home to roost, and it appears that no one is safe from the Government’s economic dogma, aside from their mates in the 1%—not homeowners, and not those on wages larger than the national average. Indeed, many are carrying the significant economic burden of our times, for themselves and their families.

When we have the highest tax burden since the second world war and the largest squeeze on wages in 200 years, the word “economy” featured just once in the King’s Speech. If anyone was in any doubt about the lack of a long-term plan from this Government, they should be in no doubt now. The Government do not have one. They are out of ideas, out of Ministers, and out of time. Last week’s King’s Speech was one of the last big moments that the Government had to turn the tide and come to the aid of our citizens in their time of need. Instead, they have signalled their intent to fill the vacuum left by a threadbare agenda with politicking, and with division rather than governing. The best thing they can do now for the British people is call a general election, and give Britain its future back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Yes I will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he has championed this issue. I have visited the hospital; I have seen it for myself. As he will be aware, the full business case was received by the Department this morning. While the cost has increased, it is still within the wider funding envelope for the scheme on that site and I will do everything I can to expedite the process as he asks.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

In recent months, there was a concerted campaign from the public to prevent the closure of Park View Medical Centre in Liverpool, which was subsequently closed by the Merseyside and Cheshire integrated care board. Not long after the conclusion of the campaign, during which members of the public were turning up to board meetings, the ICB announced that 50% of its meetings would now be held exclusively in private. I for one do not believe that that is a coincidence. What would the Secretary of State’s advice be to Merseyside and Cheshire ICB on transparency and accountability, and is it not time we looked at strengthening the guidance?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I was not aware of that decision by the local ICB. As a principle, I think we can agree across the House that greater transparency on such meetings is important, so I will follow up on that. The Government are making significant investment into Merseyside; both Alder Hey Children’s Hospital and the Royal Liverpool University Hospital have been rebuilt at significant cost as part of this Government’s commitment to investing in the NHS estate in that area.

NHS Winter Pressures

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The measures announced today speak to the heart of that issue: by putting in more capacity to decompress emergency departments, we allow, in particular, more same-day emergency care, where patients can be rapidly assessed, diagnosed and treated without being admitted to a ward. By unblocking capacity on wards, we enable emergency departments to release patients, which in turn creates the capacity for ambulances to hand over patients. The delay in handovers from ambulances is caused where the emergency department is already at capacity and there is an understandable reluctance from clinicians for additional patients to come in. Freeing up capacity within the emergency department is therefore about the operation of same-day emergency care at the front door of the hospital as well as what is happening at the back door with delayed discharge.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that the Government will now block-book residential homes for hospital discharges, but social care is in crisis and has been for many, many years. Care workers are leaving the profession in droves, because of low pay and poor conditions. To prevent care workers from leaving to work for supermarkets or Amazon, what will he do to recognise their incredibly highly skilled work and pay them what they deserve? Unless we retain existing staff, the international recruitment drive is meaningless.

[Steve Barclay]

We need to both maximise international recruitment and retain existing staff. That is why the Chancellor, in the autumn statement, with all the other competing pressures that he faced, prioritised putting £7.5 billion into social care over the next two years—the biggest ever increase, under any Government. Alongside the announcement of a further £6.6 billion investment in the NHS over the next two years, that was about recognising the centrality of social care in the wider pressures on the NHS.

Access to GP Services and NHS Dentistry

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I put on record that my husband is a senior manager in the NHS.

Dr Claire Fuller was commissioned by the Government to lead a national review of primary care. In her introduction to that review, she says that

“there are real signs of…discontent with”

general practice,

“both from the public who use it and the professionals who work within it.”

Every day, more than 1 million people benefit from primary care professionals and, by Dr Fuller’s own admission, primary care teams are over-stretched “beyond capacity”. Sadly, we have not heard anything today from the Secretary of State to address that issue.

GPs have been working in local communities for over 100 years. The concept has not changed: GPs are still based in their local community, with the only difference being that the buildings they work in are much more modern. GPs have now moved to a triage system, creating the perception that it is difficult to get a face-to-face appointment, and for some of my constituents that perception is reality. Bookable appointments have now moved to a longer lead-in time, from three to four weeks in advance to seven to nine weeks in advance. Nationally, there were half a million more appointments in January this year than in January 2020, but the number of GPs is roughly the same, despite the Government’s promise in February 2020 that they would recruit 6,000 more GPs by 2024. More than two years down the line, we are simply no further on.

People are frustrated and angry that they are being contacted by GP surgeries to book in for a health check, yet cannot get to see their GP when they feel unwell. While it is undoubtedly important for GPs to carry out health checks, which can enable interventions, that cannot be at the expense of routine appointments. Those health checks are on an enhanced service contract, meaning that the GP is paid for every patient who takes them up. That is in addition to their normal contractual obligations, so it is no wonder that patients are frustrated. At the NHS Confederation last week—the gathering of more than 5,000 senior NHS managers and staff—which the Secretary of State said he attended, the single biggest area of concern was workforce.

We must ask ourselves why the guidance from NHS England predominantly concentrates on emergency care, rather than urgent care. It talks about how many people are waiting in accident and emergency, how many ambulances are delayed, and how many people cannot be discharged on time. Those are all important subjects, but that emphasis diverts people’s attention from the important point that the part of the NHS that deals with 90% of patient needs, GPs, only receives the crumbs off the table: 9% of the budget. It is time for the Government to deliver on their promises to recruit more GPs. The biggest threat to the NHS is crippling workforce shortages. If those shortages are not resolved, the Government will eventually start saying, “The NHS is failing.” That will, in turn, lead to the hedge funders coming in and taking over.

Our NHS staff are underpaid, undervalued and under-resourced, and are then blamed by this Government—this Government who have been in power for 12 years. Meanwhile, patients are struggling to get GP appointments and, often, when they call 111, they are advised to present themselves at A&E. This Government are hellbent on turning the NHS into the national hospital service, rather than the national health service. The model of primary care must change, and change for the better, to enable our constituents to access GP services in a timely and appropriate manner. Quite frankly, nothing less is good enough.