Poor pensioners will be hardest hit by a watering down of social care reforms, the architect of the original cap warned last night.
Sir Andrew Dilnot gave a withering assessment of a change to the way the new social care cap will work, warning it would hurt those in northern constituencies.
Ministers yesterday faced a fierce backlash over the move, which was quietly announced on Wednesday.
Under the change, only people’s personal contributions will count towards the £86,000 cap – the value of any state support they receive will not.
This means that the less well-off, who get Government help to pay their bills, would have to pay out for longer before they hit the cap.
Sir Andrew said the change would mean anyone with assets of less than £186,000 would lose out – affecting around six in ten social care users.
Those with assets of £106,000 or less would be hardest hit by the changes – 30 to 40 per cent of those needing care – but it will not make a difference to those with more than £186,000.
The Prime Minister, pictured onboard a train from Wolverhampton to Coventry rail station yesterday, was warned by Tory MP Stephen McPartland that the social care cap move risked turning voters against the party
Sir Andrew, an economist, said that those living in northern England and in areas with lower house prices are likely to be the worst affected.
And he warned that for people needing significant care for a long time, the change meant the less well-off would not ‘gain any benefit’ from the cap.
The Government said the change – which is likely to save the Treasury £500million – would ensure people ‘do not reach the cap at an artificially faster rate than what they contribute’.
But Sir Andrew told MPs yesterday that there is a ‘sort of North-South axis’ to the plans.
‘On the whole, this will tend to hit less well-off people obviously harder,’ he explained to the Commons Treasury committee.
‘It will tend to hit people in regions of the country with lower house prices harder than it does those in regions with higher house prices.’
Boris Johnson dismissed the criticism, insisting the social care caps would be ‘a massive improvement for everybody in the whole country’.
He told reporters yesterday: ‘What we’re saying is for the first time in history we’re stopping people having to pay unlimited quantities for their care.
‘We’re restricting the amount you can possibly pay to a fixed limit and the state comes in and helps you, the state comes in and helps you as soon as you have assets of £100,000 or less.
Sir Andrew Dilnot said the change would mean anyone with assets of less than £186,000 would lose out – affecting around six in ten social care users
'And that’s never been done before.’
But the Prime Minister was warned by Tory MP Stephen McPartland that the move risked turning voters against the party.
‘We need to put social care into the hands of our NHS with local GPs at the heart of the service to patients and their families,’ he told the Daily Mail.
‘These “little tweaks” just undermine any trust in the Government and the system as millions of people will believe they are supported when they are not.
‘All MPs hear from families, every week, that have fallen through the cracks or the funding is not available and ask us to intervene, but the care system is broken.
‘It needs to be transparent and clear, these little tweaks always hit the poorest families hardest and turn voters against us as they feel let down.’
Labour’s social care spokesman Liz Kendall said the cap ‘is a complete con’. Referring to the health and social care levy, which will be introduced to pay for the policy, she said: ‘Ordinary working people are facing a tax hike that will do nothing to improve care now, and
