Social care’s total omission from Rachel Reeves’ Autumn Budget “spoke volumes about the Government’s priorities”, former Deputy Prime Minister Damian Green has warned, arguing that the sector has once again been overlooked despite escalating pressures.
Speaking at a Westminster panel discussion the morning after the Budget, Green criticised the Chancellor’s failure to reference social care at all, saying that “if there had been any good news for the sector, the Chancellor would have been trumpeting it”. Instead, he said, the absence underscored social care’s status as the UK’s “silent public service”.
The panel, brought together by Bridgehead Communications to explore the Budget’s implications for the sector, brought together more than 50 care leaders, investors and policymakers, who collectively warned that the Government’s smorgasbord of tax announcements will hit providers and self-funders in an already beleaguered sector landscape.
Panel Chair and Bridgehead Communications Managing Director William Walter set out the fiscal landscape bluntly: “Employer NICs – up. National Living Wage – up. Local authority borrowing – up. Council taxes – up. Property taxes – up. Savings taxes – up. Inheritance taxes – up. Across the board, costs are rising, squeezing care providers and self-funders alike.”
His assessment drew agreement from the rest of the panel, who consistently returned to a recurring theme: the Autumn Budget may not mention social care by name, but its pressures will hit the sector hard.
Tax pressures and warning signs
Speakers warned that rising business costs, driven by tax increases on vehicles that have a considerable effect on rural domiciliary care providers, and on properties over £2 million, the so-called ‘mansion tax’, alongside the latest minimum wage rise, would compound existing instability in the social care sector.
Clare Connell, CEO of Connell Consulting, captured this sentiment in her description of the Labour Government’s recent budget as a repeat of the 1970s:
“This Budget reads as though Rachel Reeves and her Treasury mandarins have pulled down a well-thumbed playbook from the 1970s. Dennis Healey showed how tax-and-spend economics ultimately chokes growth and ends in crisis, while Michael Foot proved that artificial job creation without productivity only fuels inflation and instability. Despite all of this, Rachel Reeves, in her infinite wisdom, appears determined to revisit both mistakes at once.”
Offering an alternative to the repeatedly stalled reform agenda, LaingBuisson Founder and Executive Director William Laing outlined a proposal known as the Personal Asset Protection Guarantee, informally described as a “Dilnot Lite” model. Under the system, the state would step in once individuals had spent down a percentage of their assets, protecting households across income brackets while maintaining private care capacity and operating similar to an insurance scheme.
Bringing an international investment lens to this matter, Andrea Auteri, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Elevation Advisors, reminded the room that capital is global and “global capital has a choice”. Investors go where there is “stability and predictability”, conditions that the UK consistently struggles to provide – “the issue with the UK is that it is always thinking six-months ahead”. As a result, sectors such as social care are faced with repeated, ad-hoc tax changes that undermine the confidence required for a long-term pipeline of care investment.
Workforce pressures and migration policy
The panel’s discussion on the announced minimum wage hike tied in to the Labour Government’s recent overhaul of the legal migration system, presenting further restrictions to an already strained care workforce.
One attendee, a small Cornish care provider, reflected on the post-Brexit departure of EU nationals from the care sector, commenting that the lack of accurate data creates challenges for workforce planning.
Holding a similar sentiment, a representative from Curaa Group, described the Budget as “incredibly depressing”, combined with the government’s migration policy which he viewed as a “knee jerk reaction” to popular political sentiment rather than what was required for policy.
Laing suggested that modest reforms to the benefits system could help maintain support for those who need it while encouraging more people to enter the sector and Andrea Auteri argued that the Government could elevate the profession “to the dignifying level it deserves,” for instance, by lowering tuition costs, similar to the approach taken for nursing education.
Further contributing to this debate, one attendee from The King’s Fund stressed that in the current climate, no political party is likely to prioritise care workforce needs over migration targets. He questioned how the sector can make itself more attractive to potential workers, noting that many make the rational choice to pursue employment in other fields, such as supermarkets, where pay is competitive and working conditions are less physically and emotionally demanding.
Policy coordination and long-term reform
Having been absent from the Budget, social care’s future requires cross-departmental coordination. “This was clearly a Budget for the backbenchers,” he said, noting that while markets have remained calm, meaningful reform is unlikely without a catalysing crisis.
Reflecting on local authority funding in this regard, Green stressed that the sector cannot sustainably be financed locally: “In the long run it is impossible to fund adult social care through local authorities … we should abolish the fiction [that social care can be funded locally] and say that this is a national service funded nationally.”
He also highlighted the persistent clash between local authority and NHS budgets, noting that Integrated Care Boards “should have solved” these imbalances, “but it clearly hasn’t worked,” leaving social care underrepresented in planning and resource allocation.
In regard to this, during the Q&A segment of the panel, a provider asked whether taking the funding responsibility away from local authorities would address these imbalances. Green emphasised that the local government sector remains deeply immersed in devolution reform and “extremely patchy across the country,” reinforcing the argument for national funding of adult social care.
Overall, the panel painted a picture of a sector facing rising costs and tightening workforce pressures, all without a clear plan from the Government. With social care absent from the Budget entirely, speakers warned that without national leadership and long-term funding reform, the system risks drifting further into crisis.
Commenting on the event, William Walter, Managing Director of Bridgehead Communications and Chair of the panel discussion, said:
“It was refreshing to see such frank discussion across the panel and audience. It is vital that we build a credible vision for care, one that aligns workforce policy with demand and stabilises funding at a national level.
“What came through clearly today is that, for too long, successive governments have prioritised healthcare and the NHS over social care. This Labour Government is no exception, and the continued absence of a viable, long-term funding solution means the silent crisis in social care will only deepen.
“What is needed now is the political drive to change that. We at Bridgehead are proud to continue bringing together policymakers, providers and investors to help shape the long-term reforms the sector so urgently needs.”
Image depicts the panel, brought together by Bridgehead Communications.