07
The National Care Service
A social-care safety net — not another NHS.
Create a National Care Service as a targeted safety net for people who cannot afford essential social care or end-of-life care, funded by a proposed 1% Care Levy on gross income.
Published Manifesto 1.0 policy. The sections below set out the proposal as published. Questions and challenges are open questions, not settled answers.
Key figures
- Funding proposal
- 1% Care Levy
- On gross income, ring-fenced for the National Care Service.
- Purpose
- A national safety net
- For people who cannot reasonably afford essential social or end-of-life care.
- Protected group
- Catastrophic costs
- People facing catastrophic or unaffordable care costs.
- Status
- Not fully costed
- A framework for modelling, testing and public scrutiny.
01 · The Idea
Proposal 07 would create a National Care Service (NCS): a targeted national safety net for people who cannot reasonably afford essential social care or end-of-life care.
The National Care Service would not be another NHS, and it would not become the universal provider of all social care. Its purpose would be to protect people facing catastrophic or unaffordable care costs — the cases that can otherwise wipe out a lifetime of savings.
People who can reasonably prepare for future care should be encouraged to do so, through social-care insurance, long-term care savings, employer-supported care insurance or pension-linked care products. The NCS exists for those for whom preparation is not a realistic answer.
02 · How it works
The proposal introduces a dedicated 1% Care Levy on gross income, ring-fenced so that the money raised can be used only for the National Care Service.
The NCS would act as a safety net of last resort: supporting people whose care needs are essential and whose costs are beyond what they can reasonably afford, including end-of-life care.
Alongside the levy, the model would encourage personal and employer-supported preparation — social-care insurance, long-term care savings and pension-linked care products — for people in a position to plan ahead.
03 · Why it is being proposed
Social care is one of the largest unmanaged financial risks in British life. A single period of serious care need can consume a family's savings, while most people have no realistic way to prepare for it.
A ring-fenced levy creates a visible, honest link between what is raised and what the safety net provides — and forces the funding question to be answered in the open.
This proposal is not fully costed. Any estimates referenced in Manifesto 1.0 are illustrative working estimates only. Proper modelling is still required to determine the realistic tax yield of the 1% levy, what counts as gross income, how wages, pensions, self-employment and investment income would be treated, likely demand, eligibility thresholds, catastrophic-cost protections, administration costs, workforce requirements, and interaction with local authorities and the NHS.
The proposal therefore invites scrutiny rather than presenting the model as finished. If the 1% levy does not raise enough, the model should change. If the eligibility rules are unfair, they should change. If there is a better way to protect people from catastrophic care costs, it should be considered.
What this proposal does not say
- The National Care Service would not be another NHS and would not become the universal provider of all social care.
- The 1% Care Levy is a proposal, not a settled figure; estimates referenced are illustrative working estimates only.
- This proposal is not fully costed. It is a framework for modelling, testing and public scrutiny — not a finished blueprint.
04 · Questions for scrutiny
Nothing in Manifesto 1.0 is presented as settled fact. These are open questions the proposal must be able to answer — they are not answered here.
- 01Would a 1% levy raise enough to fund a meaningful care safety net?
- 02Is gross income the right tax base?
- 03Should wages, pensions, self-employment and investment income be treated equally?
- 04What should the eligibility threshold be?
- 05How should assets, savings and housing wealth be treated?
- 06Should there be a lifetime cap on what an individual is expected to pay for care?
- 07How should private care insurance be encouraged without disadvantaging people who could never afford it?
- 08How should responsibility be divided between the NCS, NHS and local authorities?
- 09What workforce, pay, training and capacity would the model require?
- 10Is there a better way to protect people from catastrophic social-care costs?
Have Your Say
What is your view on this proposal?
Scrutiny, not endorsement. Disagreement is as useful here as support.
Responses are counted anonymously and the running totals are shown publicly beside each option. One response per device, changeable at any time.
Have an objection, question or better alternative?
Set out your argument. Serious challenges shape later versions of the manifesto.