Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Social care architect ‘very disappointed’ and ‘uncomfortable’ with government changes to cost cap

Poorer pensioners ‘will be much less protected against catastrophic risk’

Rebecca Thomas
Health Correspondent
Thursday 18 November 2021 08:19 EST
Comments
Sir Andrew Dilnot, slams government’s social care cap proposals
Sir Andrew Dilnot, slams government’s social care cap proposals (Rex Features)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A leading architect of the government’s social care reforms said he is “very disappointed” and “uncomfortable” with watered-down proposals for the social care cap that hit less affluent households.

Sir Andrew Dilnot told MPs that changes to the Social Care Act, due to be voted on next week, would mean the poorest households in the country will not actually benefit from the cap.

He told the House of Commons treasury committee on Thursday that the changes will mean pensioners “will be much less protected against catastrophic risk.”

“A very large proportion of the population needing care will find itself materially less protected by the proposals the government has announced then they would’ve been,” he said.

Those with less valuable houses but facing significant care journeys will be much less protected against catastrophic risk and the sale of their house if this amendment were made”.

Sir Andrew, a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said there is likely to be a north-south divide as “people living in northern and other less high house prices are likely to be harder hit.”

In 2019 Prime Minsiter, Boris Johnson promised “no one would have to sell their house” to pay for social care.

However the new proposals will mean some pensioners will have to use up 80 per cent of their wealth to cover care costs before the threshold kicks in.

Sir Andrew said: “That would mean you certainly would have to sell your house.”

However, he said that while the current financial settlement for social care was “inadequate,” it would nonetheless “deliver a significant increase in long line spending in social care.”

He added: “Now, there is a whole set of areas — particularly yesterday’s announcement — on which I feel very uncomfortable, but it is striking is that it’s the first time it’s happened.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in