Burnham’s plans for social care and its workers are admirable but changes must come quickly | Heather Stewart
Heather Stewart welcomes Andy Burnham’s proposals to share the cost of personal care and put care workers at the centre of a national care service. Drawing on her family’s experience of paying for her mother’s residential care, she argues the plans recognise a system that leaves families struggling, but says help is needed well before the next parliament.
Personal care is only part of residential care costs; accommodation, food and household upkeep would remain outside Burnham’s proposed coverage. Labour has set aside £500m for pay rises under a fair pay agreement due to take effect in April 2028, though some say this may be insufficient to address the workforce crisis. Stewart argues an interim national care body could set standards, improve NHS coordination and help negotiate pay sooner; Louise Casey is due to report next summer on how the service could be built and funded.
- Burnham proposes shared funding for personal care.
- Families need support before the next parliament.
- Labour’s £500m pay fund may not be enough.
New here? Start with this
Social care is help with daily living needs such as personal care, accommodation, food and household support for older or disabled people. Currently, families often have to pay these costs themselves when a relative requires residential care, with many struggling under the financial burden. This has become a significant policy challenge.
Andy Burnham has proposed creating a national care service that would cover personal care costs across society rather than leaving these entirely to families. His plan would put care workers at the centre of the system. Accommodation, food and household costs would remain the responsibility of individuals and families.
Labour has set aside £500m for care worker pay rises under a fair pay agreement beginning in April 2028. Some observers question whether this funding will be sufficient given the current shortage of care workers. Louise Casey is due to report next summer on how such a service could be built and financed.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting Burnham's approach believe his proposals represent genuine progress on a generational challenge, particularly through sharing personal care costs and centering care workers' wellbeing via a fair pay agreement. They argue that careful, phased implementation towards April 2028 allows for proper planning and infrastructure development, avoiding the pitfalls of rushed reform whilst delivering real improvements when fully launched.
The case against
Those calling for faster action argue that families cannot wait until 2028 for relief from unsustainable care costs, and that the care worker shortage demands urgent pay improvements rather than a multi-year delay. They contend that establishing an interim national care body immediately could begin coordinating services and negotiating better pay conditions now, preventing further deterioration whilst the comprehensive system is built.