The House of Lords has delivered a significant blow to the Government's proposed changes to social care funding, rejecting amendments to the care cap outlined in Clause 155 of the Health & Care Bill. The vote on 7 March saw peers vote against the government's plans, which had been widely criticised by charities and opposition parties for disproportionately benefiting wealthier individuals.
Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director at Age UK, expressed strong approval of the Lords' decision. She stated, “At Age UK we are really pleased, and also relieved, that the House of Lords has rejected the Government’s proposed changes to the care cap. This is a victory for fairness and for everyone who fears losing almost everything they own to pay for their care in older age.” The charity had been vocal in its opposition to the proposed changes, arguing they would undermine the principle of a universal care cap.
The Government's original intention for the Health & Care Bill was to cap lifetime care costs at £86,000, aiming to protect individuals from unlimited expenditure on social care. However, the contentious Clause 155 sought to introduce a mechanism where only the individual's direct contributions to care costs would count towards this cap, not the portion funded by local authorities for those with lower assets. Critics argued this would mean that individuals with substantial assets would reach the £86,000 cap more quickly than those with fewer assets, effectively making the cap less effective for the latter group.
For example, under the rejected proposals, if a local authority paid £200 towards someone's weekly care costs because their assets were below a certain threshold, and the individual paid £300, only the £300 would count towards the £86,000 cap. This contrasts with the original understanding where all care costs, regardless of who paid them, would contribute to the cap. Age UK and others argued this would create a two-tiered system, where those with fewer assets would still face the prospect of depleting more of their savings before reaching the cap.
The opposition parties welcomed the Lords' decision. Labour and the Liberal Democrats had consistently argued against the government's proposals, highlighting concerns about equity and the potential for the changes to exacerbate existing inequalities in the social care system. They contended that the revised cap would not genuinely protect those with modest assets from catastrophic care costs, contrary to the initial promises made by the Government.
The implications of this vote are significant. The Government will now need to reconsider its approach to the care cap, potentially facing further parliamentary battles or having to make concessions to address the concerns raised. The rejection underscores the deep divisions and ongoing challenges in finding a sustainable and equitable solution to funding social care in England.