Health and Care Bill — Clause 140 — Cap on Care Costs for Charging Purposes — 30 Mar 2022 at 20:30

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 motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 80.

Lords amendment 80 stated:[4]

  • Leave out Clause 140

The Explanatory Notes relating to Clause 140 explain[3] that the clause makes it so the costs that count towards the cap on care costs are the costs the adult is required to pay (at the local authority rate) rather than the combined costs incurred by both the adult and the local authority.

Clause 140, which was supported by the majority of MPs in this vote, provided for an amendment the legislation which provided a framework for introducing a cap on care costs, Section 15 of the Care Act 2014[6]. That legislation had not been commenced, and brought into effect. The intent of the 2014 legislation as indicated by its explanatory notes[7] 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.

Clause 140 corrects the legislation such that it has its intended effect.

Without clause 140 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 who originally introduced the new clause stated[8]:

  • 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
Con245 (+2 tell) 8070.4%
DUP0 2025.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1020.0%
Lab0 121 (+2 tell)061.5%
LDem0 10076.9%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1050.0%
Total:245 147066.7%

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
Kevin HollinrakeThirsk and MaltonCon (front bench)no
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)no
Jeremy HuntSouth West SurreyCon (front bench)no
Andrew LewerNorthampton SouthCon (front bench)no
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyConno
Holly Mumby-CroftScunthorpeConno
Derek ThomasSt IvesCon (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