Robert Buckland set to rebel on controversial social care changes vote

The Conservative South Swindon MP and former justice secretary hinted that “there was a lot of concern” among other Tory MPs and told LBC the government must rethink the issue.

The amendment would mean state-funded care costs would not count towards the £86,000 cap, so poorer pensioners would lose out.

Mr Buckland told LBC’s Tom Swarbwick: “I think the government should look again at this. We’re in danger of putting the cart before the horse.

“I think it’s far better to publish the social care white paper first so we can see what the new proposals are.

“What is the system we’re going to be funding? Let’s have a look at that first.

“Let’s do the white paper first and then fine-tune the way this system’s going to be funded. 

“There’s a lot of concern out there about this issue and I know the government is listening to those concerns.”

The Government has been warned not to take for granted that its MPs will back social care reforms, after Health Secretary Sajid Javid promised “everyone, doesn’t matter where they live in the country, will be better off” under the plans.

Ministers have come under fire for changes to proposals which critics have said will mean poorer recipients of care, including those in the north of England and in areas with lower house prices, will be hit hardest by a cap on costs.

And the Observer reported on Sunday that senior Tory MPs were urging the Prime Minister to ditch the plans or risk being forced into a U-turn without their support in a vote due in the Commons on Monday.

In September, the Government announced that an £86,000 cap on care costs would be put in place from October 2023.

It also said that people with assets up to £20,000 will not have to contribute anything to their care (up from £14,250), while those with assets to £100,000 will be eligible to receive some local authority support (up from £23,250).

But in a policy paper released on Wednesday, the Government said that for people who receive financial support for part of their care from their local authority, only the share they contribute themselves will go towards the £86,000 cap.

And groups said the change would mean such households receiving “far less protection than expected”, and that they could still face catastrophic costs that would eat up a greater share of their assets compared with wealthier recipients.

While Labour said its analysis had shown the changes would mean the average homeowner in two-thirds of northern areas will have to pay more towards their care. In the Midlands a third would be worse off.

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “Government ministers have not only whacked up tax on working people but are now asking MPs to vote for pensioners across the North and Midlands with modest assets to be hit hardest under Boris Johnson’s care con.

“Red Wall Tories should learn the lessons of the past two weeks, put their constituents first and join us in voting down this deeply unfair proposal. Ministers need to get back to the drawing board and come up with a fairer package.”

Sir Andrew Dilnot, who led a review into the future funding of social care a decade ago, had said those with fewer assets “will not see any benefit” from the new funding structure, with the Government set to make savings “exclusively” from this group.

He said: “There are a lot of concerns out there. If we’re changing the goalposts again halfway through the match, it doesn’t sit comfortably with me, or many colleagues.”

But Mr Javid told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One that Sir Andrew was only comparing his own proposals with the Government’s plan.

The Health Secretary said: “No-one will have to pay more than £86,000, doesn’t matter who they are, where they live in the country.”

But he was pushed that not everyone has assets of more than £86,000, and Mr Javid replied: “That’s where we’ve set the cap, so to protect you from catastrophic costs, because most people’s care journey is not that long, most people’s care journey is a couple of years.

“But one in, I think it’s around one in seven people, have costs higher than £86,000.

“What we have also done, which is very different to what Andrew had set out in his original plans, is we’ve got a much more generous means test.

“So what our plans mean, taken together, is that everyone, everyone – doesn’t matter where they live in the country – will be better off under the new proposals that we set out, versus the current system. Everyone will be better off.”

The Government has said that the changes to the proposals will ensure people “do not reach the cap at an artificially faster rate than what they contribute”.

But Sir Andrew said there is a “sort of North-South axis to this that people living in northern and other less-high house price areas are likely to be hit harder by this on average”.