Burnham backs free social care but gives no timetable for reform
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Andy Burnham has reaffirmed that social care should be free at the point of delivery, but has provided no timetable for reform and ruled out changes before the next general election. He said Labour would set out a vision for a National Care Service in its next manifesto, while acknowledging that introducing it would cost billions and might prove politically unpopular.
Burnham rejected an estimate of £18 billion a year as too high, arguing that people already pay tens of thousands of pounds for care and can lose their homes. He said the system should follow NHS principles, with everyone contributing and being covered; Baroness Casey is developing detailed proposals, while a possible 10 per cent inheritance tax has previously been suggested as funding.
- Burnham backs free social care but gives no implementation date.
- Labour plans a National Care Service manifesto commitment.
- Reform could cost billions, with funding unresolved.
New here? Start with this
Social care is the support provided to people who need help with daily tasks because of age, illness or disability. In England, unlike NHS treatment, it is not generally free: many people must pay towards care, and those with significant savings or property can face large bills.
Andy Burnham is the mayor of Greater Manchester and a senior Labour politician. He has argued for a National Care Service based on the NHS principle that care should be funded collectively and available to everyone, while Baroness Casey is working on proposals for how such a system might operate.
The debate matters because demand for care is rising and the current system can leave families facing difficult financial choices. Any reform would require billions of pounds in public funding and decisions about how that money should be raised, such as through taxation.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Free social care based on NHS principles could protect people from losing their homes or exhausting their savings because of care needs, while ensuring access depends on need rather than wealth. Supporters argue that everyone should contribute through taxation and everyone should be covered, creating a simpler and fairer system. They may also see a clear long-term plan as necessary even if reform is expensive and politically difficult.
The case against
Opponents may argue that making social care free would create a major and potentially unaffordable burden on taxpayers, particularly when public finances are already constrained. Without a firm timetable or settled funding mechanism, promises of a National Care Service could raise expectations without providing practical certainty. They might favour more limited or gradual reform, targeted at those in greatest need, rather than adopting universal coverage immediately.
Full account
Andy Burnham has said he wants to establish a National Care Service in England, modelled on the NHS and free at the point of use. Speaking as Labour’s conference began in Liverpool, he described the existing system as deeply unfair and warned that its weaknesses could eventually place further strain on the health service.
Burnham said the proposed system would be funded collectively, meaning that everyone would contribute and everyone would be covered. He linked his determination to reform to his father Roy’s recent death after living with Alzheimer’s, while stressing that Baroness Louise Casey’s review would help shape the detailed policy.
The plan is not expected to be introduced during the current parliamentary term. Burnham said existing Labour manifesto commitments, including promises not to increase VAT, income tax or national insurance, made immediate reform difficult. Instead, he intends to present a fully developed proposal at the next general election, expected in 2029, and seek a public mandate before implementing it.
The reports differ in their treatment of the finances. One presents the proposal as potentially involving a new inheritance-based tax and cites a Health Foundation estimate that a universal service could cost £18.5 billion a year by 2035–36. The other focuses on Burnham’s rejection of an £18 billion estimate and his argument that the present system already imposes heavy costs on families, including the loss of savings and homes. Both accounts report his insistence that reform may be politically unpopular, while the Conservative response cited in the coverage opposes further tax rises.
Where outlets differ
The first report explicitly links the funding discussion to a possible new ‘death tax’ and gives the Health Foundation’s projected annual cost. The second places greater emphasis on Burnham’s claim that the £18 billion figure is too high and does not foreground a specific tax proposal. They also differ in emphasis: the first highlights his father’s death and his promise not to leave office without addressing the issue, while the second stresses the threat that failing social care poses to the NHS and the need for public endorsement at a general election.
More coverage
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Andy Burnham says social care must be free at the point of use – but won’t say when and admits it will cost billions of pounds a year”.