Britain’s social care system is stretched to breaking point.
With more than 130,000 vacancies and millions of older people struggling without adequate support, the government’s £34 million plan to invest in care robots sounds, at first, like a futuristic solution. Machines that can lift, remind, or monitor could, in theory, relieve exhausted staff and fill the gaps no one else can.
But as promising as it sounds, this experiment in robotic care comes with serious questions, and hasn’t quite panned out very well. Other countries already trialling similar technology have found that while robots can help with practical tasks, they can’t replicate compassion, trust, or human connection. As the UK races to embrace automation, the real challenge might not be building the robots. It’s figuring out whether we actually want care without people.
The care crisis is genuinely desperate.
By 2050, one in four people in the UK will be aged 65 or over, per the BBC. The care system is already struggling, and this demographic change will make everything worse. There simply aren’t enough human carers to meet demand. This is why robots seem like an attractive solution. If you can’t find enough people to do the work, automate it. The logic sounds reasonable until you look at what actually happens when care robots meet real elderly people.
Japan tried this already, and it didn’t go well.
Japan started subsidising care robots ten years ago because they had the same problem with an ageing population and care worker shortages. They were ahead of everyone else in testing whether robots could actually work in care homes. A researcher spent seven months observing care robots in Japanese care homes. The results weren’t what anyone expected. The robots caused more problems than they solved, which should worry the UK as we head down the same path.
Care workers spent more time maintaining robots than they saved.
The biggest drain on staff time wasn’t caring for residents, it was cleaning and recharging the robots. Then there was troubleshooting when things went wrong, which was constantly. After several weeks, care workers decided robots were more trouble than worth. The whole point was to save care workers time. Instead, they were too busy servicing robots to use them. This is the opposite of the promised benefit and exactly what nobody wants to hear after investing millions.
A robot that helps lift people was constantly in the way.
The HUG robot was designed to help carers lift elderly people from beds to wheelchairs or toilets. It looked like a sophisticated walking frame with support pads. In theory, it would reduce physical strain on carers and help people maintain mobility. In practice, care workers had to constantly move it around to keep it out of residents’ way. It became an obstacle rather than help. The logistics of having a large robot in a care home turned out to be more complicated than designers anticipated.
The therapy robot upset the person it was meant to comfort.
Paro is a robot that looks like a baby seal. It’s designed to provide comfort to dementia patients by responding to being stroked with movements and sounds. The idea is it gives people something to interact with that responds but doesn’t need actual care.
One resident became overly attached to Paro, and got distressed when it wasn’t available. Creating emotional dependency on a robot that needs charging and maintenance created welfare problems nobody had anticipated. Therapy robots can cause the distress they’re meant to prevent.
The exercise robot was too short and squeaky.
Pepper is a small humanoid robot designed to lead exercise classes. It could demonstrate movements with its arms and give instructions. This should free up staff time while keeping residents active and engaged.
Residents couldn’t follow the routines because Pepper was too short for people to see properly. They also couldn’t hear it because its voice was too high-pitched. Basic design failures made an expensive robot completely useless for its intended purpose.
Robot hands still can’t do delicate tasks.
For robots to actually help with care, they need hands that work like human hands. Current robot hands have the strength and basic dexterity but can’t do delicate tasks like using scissors or picking up fragile objects safely. Using scissors involves constant feedback from your sense of touch that adjusts how you cut. Teaching a robot to do this is incredibly complex. Without this capability, care robots can’t do most of the tasks that would actually be useful.
They’re trying to copy animal muscles instead of using motors.
Current robots use motors which are strong but not graceful or efficient. Engineers are now trying to develop artificial muscles made from materials that extend and contract like real muscles when electric current is applied. This might eventually create robots with more natural, gentle movements suitable for caring for vulnerable people. However, it’s early-stage development, meaning the robots that would actually work properly are years away from being ready.
People’s reactions are “like Marmite.”
UK care provider Caremark trialled Genie, a small voice-activated robot, with people in Cheltenham. One man with early-onset dementia enjoyed asking it to play Glenn Miller songs. Others were less impressed. Some people love the idea of care robots, others hate it. There’s no middle ground. This makes rolling them out difficult because you can’t predict who will accept them and who will refuse to engage with technology when they’re vulnerable.
Elderly people want robots that clean themselves.
When researchers asked elderly people what they’d want from care robots, practical answers dominated. They want voice interaction, non-threatening appearance, and crucially, robots that charge and clean themselves. As one person put it, “We don’t want to look after the robot, we want the robot to look after us.” Current care robots require significant maintenance, which defeats the entire purpose from the user’s perspective.
The economic model might make care workers’ lives worse.
If care robots become economically viable, it likely means paying care workers less and having much larger standardised care homes designed for robots to operate in. Workers would be minimum wage robot maintenance staff rather than carers. This is the opposite of the promise that robots would give care workers more time for quality interaction with residents. The economic reality of making robots work might create worse conditions for both workers and elderly people.
Big tech companies will deploy them whether we’re ready or not.
Elon Musk’s Optimus humanoid robot served drinks at a Tesla event. Tech billionaires are invested in making humanoid robots mainstream. Once they’re commercially available, they’ll be marketed for care, whether or not anyone’s figured out if that’s actually appropriate. Experts warn we need regulations in place before big tech companies start deploying care robots without consulting anyone about whether this is what we actually want. Right now, there aren’t proper safeguards.
The government said they’d be normal within 20 years.
In 2019, the government announced that within 20 years, robots would become a normal part of our lives, transforming how we live and work. That gives us until 2039 for care robots to go from occasionally causing distress to robot seals to being trusted with vulnerable elderly people.
Given the problems Japan encountered a decade into their robot care experiment, and given that UK robots still can’t use scissors properly, this timeline seems wildly optimistic. We’re betting billions on technology that doesn’t work yet and might not work the way we need it to.
