If social care is finally at the heart of the political agenda, what does this mean for people who rely on support and their families and allies?
There have been 22 reviews of social care in 30 years; most health and social care secretaries have focused only on the first part of that brief; and successive ministers have treated social care as intractable, disappearing from the job before acting.
There is tentative optimism over the words of new prime minister Andy Burnham, speaking about social care at the Labour Party conference as we went to press and pointing to changing the triple lock to generate “significant savings” (the triple lock is the promise that the state pension will increase annually by whichever three things rise the most: inflation, average wages or 2.5%). But will this change be enough?
The will is clear; even in his first comments as prime minister, Burnham said: “It’s a major dereliction of public duty that parliament has not faced up to this of all challenges, something so fundamental to life as this.” New health and care secretary Yvette Cooper has vowed to “take forward plans for social care”.
Positive points
Reasons to hope include the prospect of a new National Care Service, a faster timetable for Baroness Louise Casey’s adult social care review (reporting in summer 2027, a year earlier than planned), cross-party talks and promises of a person-centred, preventive system.
Burnham’s acknowledgement of the vital yet undervalued role of care staff bodes well, suggesting better career progression for these workers and increased public awareness of this role as a skilled, essential public service rather than employment of last resort. Burnham has said he wants staff to be “the best paid people in society, not the worst”.
For people with learning disabilities and their families, fewer vacancies and a lower staff turnover could mean consistent and higher quality support.
But details have yet to be worked out with key questions yet to be answered (box).
On the final point, Casey’s The Big Conversation on Care (aiming for more public engagement in deciding the future of care) must embrace a wider group.
A good start would be to check out the Social Murder Festival (Social Murder – the term says it all, Community Living Autumn 2026).
Disability Rights UK has warned: “Up until now, the Casey Commission has failed to engage with disabled people’s organisations, and its consultation process has consisted of inviting a cross-section of individuals to join round tables… the Big Conversation on Care implies that mass engagement will continue to be the main route.”
Another key concern is how far reforms improve coordination between different parts of the support system. Take the ongoing changes to special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Given the well-documented transition cliff edge between children’s support and adult social care (leaving young people struggling when school or college ends), families worry that SEND reforms will undermine educational rights and reduce specialist provision. The government’s SEND consultation, which closed in May, has yet to report.
The charity Sense is among those warning “some of the biggest services disabled people with complex needs rely on are changing”.
Harriet Edwards, Sense director of influencing, has said: “These systems can have a huge impact on people’s lives. They affect whether children get the right support at school, whether adults can live independently and whether families can get the help they need… If services worked together better, families could spend less time battling the system and more time living their lives.”
If the new government can ensure a rights-based approach drives the future care and support landscape – rather than focusing solely on who pays for or commissions services – there will be a greater chance that people will have more choice and control over their lives.
