Ben watched nervously as the carer led his vulnerable brother Simon out of their flat and onto the busy London street.
The short walk to the coffee shop was a highlight of Simon’s day and it was the carer’s job to make sure he enjoyed his usual hot chocolate and a warm brownie safely.
Simon, not his real name, is 28 and autistic. He also has epilepsy and psychosis. He cannot do anything for himself and has no sense of danger.
The brothers have forged a strong bond ever since their mother died of cancer in 2020, but Ben’s life has been on hold ever since.
He has had to quit his career in finance to look after Simon’s every need; washing, clothing, feeding him. Making sure he is safe.
And as the front door swung closed, Ben texted the carer one more time, to be on the safe side.
“Make sure to always stay close to him, especially when crossing the street,” he wrote.
More on Social Care
Related Topics:
The double tick of the WhatsApp message turned blue and the carer started typing. “Okay,” he replied.
But it would not be okay.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:59
Health secretary challenged by Sky News over social care
The person Ben had entrusted with his brother, the person whose job it was to care for him, failed him that day.
This is the story of what happened to Simon and what it might tell us about a social care industry in crisis, where councils are struggling to cope with demand – overspending by millions of pounds each year – and where the race to make savings could be putting vulnerable people at risk.
“There was knock on the door. Quite a frantic knock,” said Ben, recounting the events of that day in May.
“I went downstairs and realised it was Simon. He was sweating, huffing and puffing. Really upset. I looked into his eyes and could see that he was in a kind of sensory overload. I knew something was wrong.”
Image: Simon walked home alone and arrived looking ‘really upset’, his brother says
The carer was nowhere to be seen.
Simon, who should never be left alone, was right there on the doorstep. Alone.
Ben picked up his phone and messaged the carer. There was no reply. Then a few minutes later, the phone rang. It was the carer, sounding in a panic.
“Hello,” said Ben.
“I’m having an issue,” the carer said. “I went to the loo and asked him [Simon] to sit down and wait for me to come back.”
Ben could not believe what he was hearing. The carer had left Simon on his own in a busy coffee shop.
The carer continued: “I’ve searched everywhere.”
Ben said his brother wandered off when he realised no-one was with him. He left the coffee shop and turned onto the busy street.
Now completely alone, he crossed a busy road, with cars and buses all around him.
Then he walked alone for 15 minutes until he reached home.
Ben had so many questions, but in the months ahead he would struggle to get answers from the council and the care agency that supplied the carer.
Image: Ben has struggled to get answers from the council and care provider
Back in March 2024, Ben was told he could have a carer for 25 hours per week to help shoulder the pressure of looking after his brother.
His local authority, Camden Council, paid a provider called Hartwig Care.
Both Camden Council and Hartwig knew how vulnerable Simon was. It was all set out in a series of reports outlining his needs.
‘He could have been killed’
The first report was written by a social worker at the council, clearly stating Simon has “no road safety awareness and is at risk of wandering into the road if left unsupervised”.
The second report, written by a consultant neurologist, added: “Due to his cognitive disability, autism and epilepsy, he is not able to be alone without supervision.”
But on 1 May, the day the pair walked into the coffee shop, the carer sat Simon down and told him to stay where he was.
He then left him alone to go to the toilet, but when he returned Simon was nowhere to be seen.
It was a serious incident that Ben believes could have led to injury or even the death of his brother and calls into question the judgement and experience of the carer, who was costing the council £150 per day.
“The council said they would have to do an investigation. But I heard nothing back from the council,” said Ben.
Image: The council apologised and says it did a safeguarding review over the incident. Pic: iStock
A spokesperson for Camden Council said: “We would like to apologise to the resident and their family for the distress that this incident caused.
“Following this happening, we immediately began a safeguarding review with Hartwig to understand exactly what had happened and what they would do to ensure an incident like this does not happen in the future.”
Ben says: “The quality of care did not match the price that that they charged. And it just speaks to the greater issue about care in this country.”
A spokesperson for Hartwig Care said: “Due to client confidentiality, it is our policy not to provide comments on specific incidents involving our service users.
“However, we want to emphasise that client safety is always paramount in our service provision.”
Providers struggling to cope
Social care is at breaking point. Any council or care provider will tell you that.
The government knows it, which is why they have said they will reform social care and introduce a new National Care Service.
But the timetable for reform is unclear, despite councils appealing for more funding.
A staggering 81% of councils say they expect to overspend on their adult social care budgets this year, following a poll carried out by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care Services.
Nearly half (48%) of homecare providers say they cannot cope with current demand on services, according to the Homecare Association.
This could go some way to explain why complaints about adult social care, to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, have risen by a fifth since 2013.
Image: Care minister Stephen Kinnock says reforming social care will not be a quick process
Care minister Stephen Kinnock addressed delegates at the annual Children and Adult Social Care Conference in Liverpool recently.
He said the government was committed to reforming social care, but warned: “I’m not going to promise that change can be delivered overnight.”
The government knows social care reform will cost billions not millions at a time when public finances are in a fragile state.
Mr Kinnock told Sky News: “When we won the general election on the 4th of July, we inherited the worst fiscal environment since the Second World War. And so action has to be taken to get the public finances onto a stable footing.”
I suggested the government didn’t have the money to deliver on its promise to reform social care.
He said: “Until we fix the public finances we are not going to be in a position to invest properly in our public services. We’ve got to take it one step at a time.”
Government plans ‘unrealistic’
Melanie Williams, president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care, described the government’s plan as “unrealistic” but said she remains “hopeful”.
She said the chancellor’s plan to hike national insurance contributions for employers would cost the social care sector and estimated £1.8bn.
“Providers have told us that they’re considering handing back services and some are saying they may have to exit the business,” she said.
Image: Melanie Williams says some care providers might be forced to quit the industry
“We know that reform will be expensive and require a long-term investment over time. But we need to make those small investments to get there.
“It is a big concern that there are so many priorities for government to face that they won’t be able to afford the changes.”
Camden Council and Hartwig Care investigated the incident with Simon, but his brother Ben was not given a copy of the findings.
The council said the report had not been published online because the incident was “not serious enough”.
In August, Ben enlisted the help of a pro bono lawyer through a local disability charity who lodged a formal complaint with the council over its handling of the incident.
The council replied on 28 August and rejected the complaint, saying “the issues you have raised fall outside of our formal complaints process”.
Ben has been left with more questions than answers.
“I just want to know what happened and have confidence in knowing that it cannot happen again,” he says. “But I have been kept totally in the dark.”
Educators are split over the government’s proposed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, with some saying the move will improve fairness and accountability and others warning it could limit innovation in academy schools.
Pushed by the Department for Education (DfE) as a means to reform the education system, the bill seeks to improve school standards, strengthen attendance policies, and ensure that children receive a well-rounded education that prioritises their wellbeing.
The legislation also includes measures to increase school accountability, particularly for academies, by giving more oversight to the DfE.
Katharine Birbalsingh, headteacher of Michaela School in Wembley, north London, called it “absolutely appalling”.
“I’m just really concerned because, at the moment, school leaders have the freedom to do various things that are right for their intake,” she told Sky News.
“This bill will take those freedoms away.”
Ms Birbalsingh, also known as ‘Britain’s strictest headteacher’, added: “We got unlucky because we could have had Wes Streeting as education secretary, which would have been fine. Unfortunately, we got her [Bridget Phillipson].
More on Education
Related Topics:
“She [Ms Phillipson] is so arrogant. She’s just marched in there and gone, ‘I know what I’m doing, I’ll just do what I want’.”
But some argue that academies are left to their own devices and have a lack of accountability when it comes to things like parental complaints.
The bill will require all schools to follow the national curriculum and employ teachers who have Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) or are working towards it.
Image: Steve Chalke, founder of Oasis Academies
The founder of Oasis Academies, Steve Chalke, told Sky News: “We’re excited about the changes because we feel that education has been in a very, very poor place for the last decade or more.
“Schools have been stripped of resources and there have been giant problems about the recruitment and retention of teachers.
“We feel that this important bill is beginning to address all of those issues.”
The bill plans to provide all primary school children with breakfast, alongside uniform limits.
This would prevent schools from having more than three items of branded uniform clothing, potentially addressing concerns parents have about the cost of uniforms.
Mr Chalke said: “I am a fan of working hard collaboratively to create the best opportunities for any and every young person and their family.
“Because behind every struggling child is normally a parent who’s struggling with that.”
He added: “We at Oasis are excited about all of this, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have questions.
“It doesn’t mean that we’re being led blindly down the road, but our job is to be engaged in the discussion about how academies work more widely with their local authorities.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:40
February: Govt’s overhauling of Ofsted inspections
The bill will also give local authorities greater control over the pupil admission process.
Ms Birbalsingh said: “Any council could decide to reduce the number of children in one school and therefore reduce the money at that school and give more pupils to another school that’s struggling.”
Mr Chalke said: “Educational academy boards, academy groups, need to be accountable in strong partnership with others. And if this bill delivers everything it promises, wow. I think [it] will be an extraordinary outcome.”
Image: The bill will give local authorities greater control over the pupil admission process
The bill is set to be debated further in the coming weeks as it moves through parliament.
A DfE spokesperson said: “This government is determined to drive high and rising standards for every child through our Plan for Change, to ensure every family has a good local school for their child.
“Our landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers on this mission, getting high-quality teachers into every classroom, and ensuring there is a floor on pay and no ceiling.
“These measures will make sure we are giving every child an education as good as the best.”
Two Labour MPs have been denied entry to Israel and deported.
Yuan Yang and Abtisam Mohamed were rejected because they were suspected of plans to “document the activities of security forces and spread anti-Israel hatred”, according to a statement from the Israeli immigration ministry.
Ms Yang, who represents Earley and Woodley, and Ms Mohamed, the MP for Sheffield Central, both flew to the country from Luton on Saturday.
According to a statement from the Israeli immigration ministry, they were accompanied by two assistants and during questioning, the MPs claimed they were visiting Israel “as part of an official parliamentary delegation”.
The ministry branded their claim as “false”, but UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy reacted to news of the MPs’ detention saying their treatment while “on a parliamentary delegation to Israel” was “unacceptable”.
In their own statement, the two women said they were “astounded at the unprecedented step taken by the Israeli authorities”.
“It is vital that parliamentarians are able to witness, first-hand, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory,” the statement said.
More on Israel
Related Topics:
“We are two, out of scores of MPs, who have spoken out in Parliament in recent months on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the importance of complying with international humanitarian law. Parliamentarians should feel free to speak truthfully in the House of Commons, without fear of being targeted.”
They said they had travelled to “visit humanitarian aid projects and communities in the West Bank” with “UK charity partners who have over a decade of experience in taking parliamentary delegations”.
“We thank them, the staff of the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the Middle East minister and the Foreign Secretary for their tireless support,” the statement concludes.
Israel’s UK embassy said the MPs were denied entry because they had “accused Israel of false claims, were actively involved in promoting sanctions against Israeli ministers, and supported campaigns aimed at boycotting the state of Israel”.
Its statement said the women “chose not to exercise their right under Israeli law to petition the court to reconsider the decision”.
As a result, they were “offered hotel accommodation, which they declined” and their return flight was covered by the Israeli state.
“The visit was intended to provoke anti-Israel activities at a time when Israel is at war and under attack on seven fronts. Its purpose was to harm Israel and Israeli citizens and spread falsehoods about them,” the statement added.
“The state of Israel has both the authority and the duty to prevent the entry of individuals whose presence in the country is intended to cause harm to its citizens – just as such authority exists in the United Kingdom.”
Mr Lammy said in a statement to Sky News: “It is unacceptable, counterproductive, and deeply concerning that two British MPs on a parliamentary delegation to Israel have been detained and refused entry by the Israeli authorities.
“I have made clear to my counterparts in the Israeli government that this is no way to treat British parliamentarians, and we have been in contact with both MPs tonight to offer our support.
“The UK government’s focus remains securing a return to the ceasefire and negotiations to stop the bloodshed, free the hostages and end the conflict in Gaza.”
In an interview with Sky’s Trevor Phillips, chief secretary to the treasury Darren Jones echoed Mr Lammy’s accusation of “unacceptable” behaviour by the Israelis.
But Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that “every country should be able to control its borders” and “that’s what Israel is doing” because they “gave reasons why those people shouldn’t have come in based on their laws”.
“It’s really important, I believe, to respect those countries’ decisions,” she told Sky News.
Ms Badenoch also said she is “very concerned” about the “rhetoric” on the Middle East from Labour MPs – and six independents – and therefore she was “not surprised” by the move of Israeli border officials.
She claimed there is “a lot of repeating of misinformation, repeating of conspiracy theories” during Prime Minister’s Questions.
“I see Labour MPs standing up and saying things which even Keir Starmer has to disagree with and shut down at PMQs,” she added.
An artist whose official portrait of Donald Trump was publicly criticised by the president said her business is now “in danger of not recovering”.
The Republican leader made headlines at the end of last month when, in a post on his Truth Social platform, he said the portrait hanging in Colorado’s State Capitol had been “purposefully distorted”.
Following the criticism, officials said the portrait would be taken down and it has since been removed.
Sarah Boardman, the British artist who painted the Trumpportrait, said in a statement to Sky News she felt her “intentions, integrity, and abilities” had been “called into question” when the president criticised the oil painting.
In his post, Mr Trump said a portrait by the same artist of former US president Barack Obama was “wonderful” but “the one on me is truly the worst”.
Referring to Ms Boardman, whose collection of official portraits also includes one of former president George W Bush, Mr Trump said “she must have lost her talent as she got older”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Trump’s portrait to be taken down
He then added: “In any event, I would much prefer not having a picture than having this one.”
Almost two weeks since the criticism, Ms Boardman has now responded saying her business has been detrimentally impacted.
She said: “President Trump is entitled to comment freely, as we all are, but the additional allegations that I ‘purposefully distorted’ the portrait, and that I ‘must have lost my talent as I got older’ are now directly and negatively impacting my business of over 41 years which now is in danger of not recovering.”
The artist also described how “for the six years that the portrait hung in the Colorado State Capitol Building Rotunda, I received overwhelmingly positive reviews and feedback”.
“Since President Trump’s comments, that has changed for the worst,” she added.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Ms Boardman said the Colorado State Capitol Advisory Committee, Denver, commissioned her to paint the official portrait of President Trump for the Denver State Capitol Gallery of Presidents.
“The reference photograph and my subsequent ‘works in progress’ were all approved, throughout that process, by that committee,” she said.
“I completed the portrait accurately, without ‘purposeful distortion’, political bias, or any attempt to caricature the subject, actual or implied. I fulfilled the task per my contract.”