Health and Care Bill — New Clause 49 — Cap on Requirement to Pay Care Costs — 22 Nov 2021 at 21:45
The majority of MPs voted to limit the amount adults can be required to pay towards their eligible care costs over their lifetime, rather than to prevent an individual being charged once they, local authorities, or others had paid a certain amount.
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Cap on Care Costs for charging Purposes.
The clause amended the legislation which provided a framework for introducing a cap on care costs, Section 15 of the Care Act 2014. That legislation had not been commenced, and brought into effect. The intent of the 2014 legislation as indicated by its explanatory notes was to establish: "a limit on the amount that adults can be required to pay towards eligible care costs over their lifetime."
The 2014 legislation was drafted such that the local authority would not be able to charge an individual for the costs of their care once the total amount the authority, or other authorities, or anyone else had spent on the individual's care exceeded the cap. This did not achieve the intent of capping the amount an individual can be required to pay.
The amendment corrects the legislation such that it has its intended effect.
Without the amendment the cap on personal contributions would be lower for those for whom councils, or others, had contributed to their care costs. Without the amendment there would still be a cap, but it would not operate in the manner intended.
The minister introducing the new clause stated:
- We have always intended for the cap to apply to what people personally contribute, rather than on the combination of their personal contribution and that of the state.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Health and Care Bill, Parliament.uk
-  Health and Care Bill as introduced on 6 July 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Health and Care Bill as introduced on 6 July 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Section 15 of the Care Act 2014, Legislation.gov.uk
-  Explanatory notes to Section 15 of the Care Act 2014, Legislation.gov.uk
-  Edward Argar MP (Charnwood, Conservative), House of Commons Official Record, 22 November 2021, TheyWorkForYou.com
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||270 (+2 tell)||19||0||80.6%|
|Lab||0||172 (+2 tell)||0||87.4%|
|John Baron||Basildon and Billericay||Con||no|
|Philip Davies||Shipley||Con (front bench)||no|
|Chris Green||Bolton West||Con||no|
|Mark Harper||Forest of Dean||Con||no|
|Kevin Hollinrake||Thirsk and Malton||Con (front bench)||no|
|Philip Hollobone||Kettering||Con (front bench)||no|
|Mark Jenkinson||Workington||Con (front bench)||no|
|Andrew Lewer||Northampton South||Con (front bench)||no|
|Julian Lewis||New Forest East||whilst Con||no|
|Jason McCartney||Colne Valley||Con||no|
|Esther McVey||Tatton||Con (front bench)||no|
|Damien Moore||Southport||Con (front bench)||no|
|Mike Penning||Hemel Hempstead||Con||no|
|Andrew Percy||Brigg and Goole||Con (front bench)||no|
|Daniel Poulter||Central Suffolk and North Ipswich||Con (front bench)||no|
|Christian Wakeford||Bury South||whilst Con (front bench)||no|
|William Wragg||Hazel Grove||Con (front bench)||no|