The Conservatives still have deep scars from Theresa May’s disastrous attempt to implement what was dubbed a ‘dementia tax’, which contributed to the woeful 2017 election result that ultimately left her in office but without power.
The problem of social care has been ducked by successive governments going back decades, and, despite his promise on the steps of Downing Street to fix it once and for all, Boris Johnson has yet to fully deliver on this pledge.
Legislation was passed following the landmark report by Sir Andrew Dilnot in 2011, but politics again scuppered the plans in 2015 despite the Care Act legislation being passed into law.
Now the details of Boris Johnson’s plan for a lifetime cost cap of £86,000 – in effect, the maximum anyone will be expected to pay directly towards their care – are drawing criticism.
Under the fine print of the scheme, quietly published on Wednesday, only the amount that individuals directly contribute to their social care costs will count towards the cap.
In the case of someone who has received financial support for part of their care, such as from their local authority, only their own personal contributions will count.
This is to ensure that people “do not reach the cap at an artificially faster rate than what they contribute”, the Department of Health and Social Care said.
It added that the “much more generous” means test that accompanies the cap will be the main way of helping people who have fewer assets.
But less-affluent households could still face catastrophic costs that would eat up a greater share of their assets compared with wealthier recipients.
In September, the government said that people with assets up to £20,000 would not have to contribute anything to their care, and that those with assets up to £100,000 would be eligible to receive some local authority support. The document published on Wednesday says that local authorities will start a care account for each individual eligible for or receiving care, and will monitor their progress towards the cap.
So someone with barely more than £100,000 in assets will still face an eventual bill of £86,000. Those with significantly more assets, such as most people living in the southeast of England, will be able to retain the vast majority of their property’s value.
This approach appears to ignore the inequality in housing wealth across the UK, and was rejected as being unfair by Sir Andrew Dilnot in his proposals. He will be appearing in front of the Treasury Committee on Thursday, where he will surely make his displeasure known.
In the background as this discussion takes place is a social care system in which vulnerable people are suffering. They are not getting the care they need, and in addition the collapse of the service is having a knock-on effect on the NHS.
The government’s promise to fix the problem once and for all seems far from being achieved, and the criticism of these plans, especially from northern red-wall Conservatives whose constituents will suffer disproportionately, will surely grow in coming days.
