Later, MPs will discuss new details about the government’s social insurance cap. Charities warn that it will hurt the poorest people.
The government published an amendment to its plans last week, saying support payments from councils would not count towards the £86,000 limit on personal care costs.
Labour claimed it was “con”, and asked Tory MPs for their support in voting it down.
However, the health secretary stated that “everyone will be happier” because of the cap.
- Can the cap be used to improve the system of social services?
- Social Care Reforms: What will be the New System?
- Which are the biggest challenges in social care?
A central part of government plans to reform how England’s adult social care system is funded is the cap on personal care.
From October 2023, the idea is that no one will pay more than £86,000 over their lifetime for personal care, such as washing, dressing and eating.
Local authorities will pay for ongoing personal care costs once people reach this limit.
It is not possible to count money you spend on living costs, including food and lodging.
The threshold for getting some council support to pay for costs will also be made more generous, with people with assets up to £100,000 able to qualify, rather than £23,250 currently.
Vote on social care points to a political storm
While there won’t be much disapproval from some, the backbenches will be loud.
One former minister had this prediction for Monday’s vote about social care. A government win, but continuing pressure could force a U turn further down.
Concerns have been expressed about England’s proposed social-care cap. At £86,000 it disproportionately hits those with lower-value homes.
For some Conservative MPs who have retaken their Labour seats, this doesn’t seem like a level playing field.
Discontent grew with the announcement that some less affluent people would have to wait longer than expected to reach the £86,000 limit.
Some Conservatives privately blame the Treasury. They also claim that Boris Johnson needs to stiffen his backbone.
There are also concerns that Labour’s “broken promises narrative” may be gaining traction.
As damaging as the perceived overpromising or underdelivering of the government, it can cause the perception that an improvement to the social care system is inadequate.
Some MPs of Boris Johnson fear that there will be a political tsunami as tax increases are imminent before the next spring’s local election.
September was not a month in which the government specified whether these payments would allow recipients to use their funds towards reaching the cap.
However, the guidance was published Wednesday by it confirming that only payments from individuals’ own pockets count.
A number of charities condemned this move as they said it wouldn’t offer any protection to people with lower assets because it makes it more difficult to reach the cap.
It also contradicts the recommendations of Sir Andrew Dilnot (economist), who created the plan for the cap in 2011.
Last week, he told a committee made up of MPs that he was disappointed by the plan. He added: “It will tend not to hit people in areas of the country where there are lower house prices more than those who live in higher-priced regions.”
Labour has criticised the proposal and said it would vote against it in the Commons.
Jonathan Ashworth, shadow health secretary said that Jonathan Ashworth was the Shadow Health Secretary. “Government ministers not only taxed working people but now ask MPs to vote to support pensioners in the North and Midlands.
Tories “Red wall” [MPs representing seats who traditionally voted Labour before the last election]They should take the time to learn from these past weeks, listen to their constituents, and vote against this deeply unjustified proposal.
“Ministers must go back to the drawing boards and create a fairer package.
But Health Secretary Sajid Javid defended the proposals on Sunday, telling the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme: “No one will have to pay more than £86,000, doesn’t matter who they are, where they live in the country.”
The cap was meant to protect individuals “from catastrophic cost”, while the threshold for receiving support would be “much greater”.
He stated that the plans would mean everyone, no matter their location in the country, to be better off with the proposed changes. All will benefit.
Share Your Comment Below