Independent think tank the Institute for Government has urged former senior civil servant Baroness Louise Casey to rip up her remit as newly appointed chair of the government's social care commission.
Nick Davies, IfG director responsible for public services, said the government's decision to set up a new commission on the creation of a National Care Service was a "cop out". He added that the three-year timescale handed to Casey meant her final recommendations would land in the runup to the next general election, at "the worst possible time to have a grown-up, cross-party conversation about how to fund social care".
Davies said that with a House of Commons majority of more than 150 and four years to go until the next general election, prime minister Keir Starmer and his cabinet could just have got on with the task of reforming social care, informed by the wealth of existing evidence.
However, in a comment piece on the IfG website, he said former Department for Communities and Local Government director general Casey could seize control of her remit to deliver the review the nation needs.
"Casey is a good choice to lead such a commission," he said. "She has the credibility that comes from a long track record of successfully tackling difficult issues, including rough sleeping and families with complex needs, and will make an excellent advocate for her recommendations. But despite her talent, the decision to appoint her was a cop out."
"As so often with supposedly intractable policy problems, the stumbling block is political will far more than a lack of convincing evidence about the problem or potential solutions," he continued. "But there is plenty that Casey can do to encourage politicians to act."
Davies said Casey's best chances of success would be to follow the example of Adair Turner's 2002 Pensions Commission and rewrite her terms of reference. He suggested Casey should rapidly accelerate the deadlines for her interim and final reports – and rejig her first-phase mission.
"The remit Casey has been given makes little sense," he said. "Phase one is meant to set out recommendations for effective reform in the medium term, but she must somehow do that before considering models of care, service organisation and funding, all of which are not meant to be addressed until phase two.
"Casey is much more likely to bring about lasting change if she uses her first report to set out her vision for the care system, the probable cost of delivering this and, critically, the options for paying for it. Phase two could then focus on producing a final recommendation for how to address the difficult question of funding."
Davies said if Casey did that, and delivered her interim report by the end of this year and her final report in 2026, there would be more time for consensus-building activities that could "reduce the political costs".
"This is eminently achievable given how well-trodden the social care debate is and the speed at which similar policy reviews have been completed," he said. He added that while cross-party consensus for her recommendations would be desirable, her "most important stakeholder" would be chancellor Rachel Reeves.
"Previous efforts to reform social care, including the Dilnot inquiry, have been undermined by a lack of buy-in from the Treasury," Davies said.
"To succeed where others have failed, then, Casey must provide a sellable case – one that is practical and politically realistic – for how reforms can be paid for."