"I can't tell you what individuals are going to do. Mr Scully told Sky News' Kay Burley: "There will be fewer people selling their houses and hopefully none. Image: Jeremy Hunt told the County Councils Conference the change to how the cap is calculated is 'very disappointing' People receiving care in their home do not currently have their home counted towards their assets, neither do spouses of people in care homes who are still living in the family home, but this stops after they die so the payment is deferred to their children.īut MPs of all parties have said those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will, in fact, struggle to reach the £86,000 cap so may have to sell their homes to pay for care.
"There's a housing disregard for as long as your spouse is in it so this is something that will benefit people across the country." "Previously you had to pay for the cost of your care until you were down to £23,000, now we're saying if you have £100,000 or less we'll help you and that doesn't include your housing asset, your home.
"This is massively more generous than the previous regime," the PM said ahead of tonight's vote. Health Secretary Sajid Javid said "everyone will be better off" under the reforms and Boris Johnson said a person's home will not count towards their assets if they are below £100,000. "I think the really important thing is we have a cap which we didn't have before and so we have a system in place and we can then have a grown-up political debate about how the cap should operate on." "Once this cap has been introduced at this current level, it will be entirely open to governments in the future to change the way the cap is calculated to make it more progressive going forward," he said. Other backbench Tory MPs are expected to join him following lingering ill-feeling after being whipped to support former MP Owen Paterson in a standards row which the government then had to perform a U-turn on.įormer health secretary Jeremy Hunt told the County Councils Conference the change to how the cap is calculated is "very disappointing" and is "a less progressive measure than was hoped for".īut he urged MPs thinking of voting to throw out the changes this evening to refrain from doing so as he said the cap is the most important change and how it is reached can be altered. In contrast, someone in exactly the same position with a £500,000 house would be able to leave a much greater proportion of their assets - £414,000 - to their next of kin. However, those council payments do not count towards the £86,000 cap, which means when the person dies that amount could still need to be paid for from their estate.īecause the £86,000 cap is universal, someone with a house worth £106,000 and long-term social care needs costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, could end up having their estate reduced to just £20,000. This has led to accusations it will be unfair on poorer people and those who live in areas where homes are worth less.įor example, if you have a home worth £106,000, you would qualify for the new means-tested system once your care costs go above £6,000. In the original proposal by Sir Andrew Dilnot, which the government adopted as the basis of its social care reform, this means-tested support would count towards a cap on care costs.īut changes announced last week revealed means-tested payments from your local council will not count towards the £86,000 cap. This is calculated by taking into account how much income you have – and whether you are nearer the £20,000 lower limit or £100,000 upper limit.
Those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will also now be eligible for new means-tested financial support from their local councils to help with the cost of their care. People with less than £20,000 in assets – value of their home, savings or investments – will not have to pay anything towards their care, which is up from £14,250. In September the government announced a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England should have to pay for social care. What are the changes and why could they be unfair?