Care Bill [HL]

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 5 returns us to the issue of deferred payments. I begin by saying that I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject again. Unfortunately, the Government’s position on it has been fraught with misunderstandings, and I would like to take this opportunity to dispel at least some of those.

First, I remind the House that a consultation on funding reform has been running over the past three months, and it closed last Friday. During these three months, officials have travelled across the country explaining our proposals and seeking people’s views. What we have put forward so far are proposals—something for people to consider. These are not set in stone. We will listen to what we have heard through our consultation, and indeed in this Chamber, as we develop our policies over the next few months.

The purpose of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has explained, is to ensure that anyone—even people with assets of great monetary worth in addition to their main home—can have a deferred payment agreement. I have to make it clear that if one takes this amendment literally, I disagree with that principle. I do not think the public purse should be helping people who do not need financial support to pay their care fees. This would seem a long way from the Dilnot commission’s view that deferred payments should be used to support people who,

“would be unable to afford care charges without selling their home”.

For a person with a substantial sum in their bank account or substantial liquid savings, a deferred payment agreement might be a cheap loan—a convenience, one might say—but it would not be serving its core purpose.

I hope that we can therefore agree that the principle of having an upper threshold for non-housing assets is a sound and a necessary one. If we agree that this is a sound principle, all that is left to do is agree on an amount. Our consultation sought views on that amount. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked what was wrong with an asset threshold of £118,000. From April 2016, we are extending means-tested support for people with up to £118,000 when the value of a person’s home is taken into account in the financial assessment. This determines when an individual may be eligible for local authority support with their care costs. Deferred payment agreements are designed to help people to pay for their care costs; their ability to meet these costs in the short term will be dependent on their liquid non-housing assets rather than housing wealth. I can say to the noble Lord that we are happy to consider using a threshold of £118,000 as we analyse the consultation responses. We are happy to consider a range of figures.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked why we proposed the £23,250 threshold. We were seeking to identify those people most at risk of having to sell their home to pay for their care. The reason we proposed £23,250 specifically is because it provides consistency with the threshold for means-tested support when the value of someone’s home is not taken into account, and with the principle that people with non-housing assets under that amount are likely to need state support to pay for their care costs. Indeed this is the same figure and the same reasoning that the previous Government applied in their White Paper. Therefore, from that point of view if no other, it is a little surprising to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, arguing against it.

There is an interesting point about people with more than £23,250 in savings. About 60% of people entering residential care are state-supported, meaning that they have only limited assets. Of the remaining 40% who enter residential care as a self-funder, less than half have liquid savings of more than £23,250. This means that the proposed threshold of £23,250 excludes only the richest 15% of people entering residential care. By increasing the liquid savings threshold to £118,000, the scheme would be available to all but the richest 5% of people entering residential care. I hope that that is a helpful contextual analysis. However, I reiterate—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—that we are not wedded to the figure of £23,250. We will analyse the responses to the consultation before making any further decision.

To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about whether the scheme will actually be cost-neutral, we intend and believe that in the long run the scheme will be cost-neutral. We have committed £330 million to fund the implementation of the cap cost system, and deferred payments to cover the initial set-up costs.

I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will, on reflection, agree that his amendment would be undesirable as drafted and that he will be content to withdraw it.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that if a house has to be sold, after the repayment of the debt, the proceeds remain the property of the person whose house was sold? Would it be possible for the potential beneficiaries to pay the debt in advance so that the house does not have to be sold?

[Earl Howe]

My understanding is that the short answer is yes. There is no reason why potential beneficiaries should not use other moneys to pay the debt, in which case the legal charge over the house would be released by the local authority.