Labour’s proposed National Care Service will not eliminate the need for individuals to sell their homes to cover care home fees, Andy Burnham acknowledged on Tuesday. The Labour leader unveiled plans intended to address the financial burden faced by many, but conceded the new system would only cover personal care costs, leaving individuals responsible for “bed and board” expenses if they require residential care.

Burnham’s announcement follows recent comments from the Prime Minister expressing a desire to reform a care system that often forces people to spend significant savings or lose their homes. To help fund the new National Care Service, Burnham also confirmed plans to scrap the pension triple lock, a mechanism introduced in 2011 that guarantees the state pension rises annually by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5 percent.

While Burnham asserted the reforms would enhance people’s capacity to protect their assets, experts warned that the financial pressures on families are unlikely to be fully alleviated. Economist Sir Andrew Dilnot, who has advocated for a government cap on care costs, noted that a system offering universal payments without covering all residential costs would still leave many exposed to “catastrophic” expenses. Similarly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) emphasized that tax increases or spending cuts will be necessary to support the additional government expenditure implied by the policy.

The triple lock suspension has drawn significant criticism across the political spectrum. The Conservative Party and Reform UK voiced opposition, with the Tories initiating a petition aiming to preserve the existing pension guarantee. Some Labour MPs have also expressed concerns, recalling the backlash over the scrapping of winter fuel payments, which faced partial reversal after considerable voter dissatisfaction.

Liverpool Riverside MP Kim Johnson warned the pension changes could lead to severe political consequences, comparing them unfavorably to previous policy controversies. Burnham, however, defended the decision, insisting it differs substantially from the winter fuel payment debate and highlighting that the state pension would continue to rise in line with earnings over time, albeit without the triple lock’s guaranteed uplift.

Government projections indicate that removing the triple lock’s earnings link could reduce pensioner income by an estimated £15 billion annually by 2040. Burnham argued that while pension increases might moderate, beneficiaries would gain peace of mind through improved care and greater ability to safeguard homes and savings. He also suggested that a better-funded care service would enable more people to remain in their own homes longer.

The IFS’s deputy director Jonathan Cribb reiterated that suspending the triple lock does not generate new resources to finance expanded care commitments, noting: “Cancelling an unfunded increase does not free up funds to pay for a new government commitment.”

Under the current triple lock arrangement, the state pension increases each year at the highest rate among inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5 percent. Labour’s proposal would remove the direct link to earnings, potentially slowing the growth of pension payments in the coming years.