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.

MPs were considering the Health and Care Bill.[1][2][3]

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[4]. That legislation had not been commenced, and brought into effect. The intent of the 2014 legislation as indicated by its explanatory notes[5] 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[6]:

  • 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.


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con270 (+2 tell) 19080.6%
DUP0 3037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 50100.0%
Lab0 172 (+2 tell)087.4%
LDem0 10083.3%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 31068.9%
Total:270 246081.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by name

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Peter AldousWaveneyConno
John BaronBasildon and BillericayConno
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)no
Chris GreenBolton WestConno
Mark HarperForest of DeanConno
Kevin HollinrakeThirsk and MaltonConno
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)no
Mark JenkinsonWorkingtonCon (front bench)no
Andrew LewerNorthampton SouthCon (front bench)no
Julian LewisNew Forest Eastwhilst Con (front bench)no
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyConno
Esther McVeyTattonCon (front bench)no
Damien MooreSouthportCon (front bench)no
Holly Mumby-CroftScunthorpeConno
Mike PenningHemel HempsteadConno
Andrew PercyBrigg and GooleCon (front bench)no
Daniel PoulterCentral Suffolk and North Ipswichwhilst Con (front bench)no
Christian WakefordBury Southwhilst Con (front bench)no
William WraggHazel GroveCon (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive