© Blackwell Publishers Ltd.   © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. ,  Cowley Road, Oxford, OX  JF, UK and  Main Street, Malden, MA , USA. S P  A  0144–5596 V. 35, N. 4, S 2001, . 441–458 Carer Break or Carer-blind? Policies for Informal Carers in the UK Linda Pickard Abstract This article examines three policy statements on informal carers published in the UK in — the National Strategy for Carers, the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care and the note of dissent by two members of the Royal Commission. These three documents contain two rather different approaches to policy for carers. On the one hand, the National Strategy and note of dissent emphasize respite care or short-term breaks for carers, and are concerned with sustaining the well-being of carers as well as ensuring the continuation of caring itself. The Royal Commis- sion, on the other hand, emphasizes support for the older or disabled person who is being cared for, as a means of supporting the carer, and advocates “carer-blind” services. It is argued that this policy contains within it the potential to substitute for or replace the carer and that this represents a radical new departure for social policy for carers in the UK. The advantages and disadvantages of the two policy approaches are explored. It is argued that policies for carers should include both services specifically for carers, like breaks from caring, and services provided for the cared-for person, like domestic and personal care services. Wider issues about the proper boundary between family and state care are explored. Keywords Social care policy; Informal care Informal care, particularly by the family, is the most important source of care for most older people in the UK. Older people rely far more on informal care than on formal services. A recent Personal Social Services Research Unit study using the / General Household Survey found that, of older people in Britain who had help with domestic tasks,  per cent relied exclusively on informal help (that is, family, household members, friends and neighbours),  per cent relied on both the informal and formal sectors and only  per cent relied exclusively on formal services (Wittenberg et al. ). Research during the s, however, has increasingly uncovered the economic Address for correspondence: Linda Pickard, Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WCA AE. Email: L.M.Pickard@lse.ac.uk