Protecting specialist social affairs and health journalism

A letter to the Director General of the BBC

Dear Mr Brittin,

I am writing to express my deep concern at the reported plans to combine the BBC’s social affairs and education editor roles and to incorporate the health editor’s responsibilities into those of the medical editor.

As Honorary President of the Independent Care Group and someone who has spent

almost four decades working in social care, I urge you to reconsider.

Social care has spent more than three decades struggling to secure the political attention it deserves. Too often, it has been forgotten, postponed, or treated as an afterthought. At a time when the Prime Minister has recognised the need for fundamental reform, the BBC should be strengthening its scrutiny of this essential public service.

These decisions affect the quality of life, dignity, and independence of millions of people:

older people, working-age adults with disabilities, unpaid carers and the families trying to find support for someone they love. Their experiences deserve sustained national

attention.

Alison Holt’s reporting has helped bring those experiences into public view. Her

knowledge, persistence and sensitive approach demonstrate the value of specialist

journalism. Hugh Pym’s coverage has similarly helped audiences understand the

pressures facing health services and the decisions taken by those responsible for them.

My concern goes beyond job titles. It is about whether journalists will retain the time,

resources, and editorial authority to investigate these complex subjects properly.

Combining already substantial briefs risks spreading that expertise too thinly.

Social care needs reporters who can dig beneath announcements and promises

examining how care is commissioned, why services struggle to remain viable, why families cannot obtain support and why skilled care workers remain undervalued. It needs journalists who will return to these questions after the headlines have moved on and ask ministers what has actually changed.

I have repeatedly argued that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. Yet their

relationship also needs careful explanation. Medical advances, hospital performance,

community support, and the funding of long-term care are connected, but each requires

distinct knowledge and sustained scrutiny.

The BBC’s role is not to endorse my proposals, or anyone else’s. It is to test competing

arguments, expose failures, examine potential solutions, and hold those in power to

account. That work is particularly necessary as the country debates reforms that could

shape care for generations.

I recognise that the BBC faces difficult financial choices. Nevertheless, protecting

authoritative specialist journalism should be central to its public service purpose. People

who struggle to make their voices heard depend upon broadcasters willing to listen and

investigate.

Please reconsider these proposals and protect distinct, properly resourced editorial

leadership for social affairs and health. I would welcome a response explaining how the

BBC intends to safeguard the depth, independence, and prominence of its social care

coverage.

After decades of neglect, social care needs greater attention. The BBC has a vital part to

play in ensuring that promises of reform lead to meaningful action.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Padgham

Honorary President, Independent Care Group

Executive Chairman, Saint Cecilia’s Care Group