header-logo header-logo

08 September 2021
Issue: 7947 / Categories: Legal News , Public , National Health Service
printer mail-detail

Health & social care levy

The government has set out its plans to finance health and social care through a new levy, amid noisy scenes in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a 1.25% rise in National Insurance and on share dividends from April 2022. From April 2023, the rise will be separated so that it appears on payslips as ‘Health and Social Care Levy’, indicating it is ringfenced for health and social care. Working adults above pensionable age will pay the levy from April 2023.

The government forecasts the levy will raise nearly £36 billion over three years for frontline services. It intends to reform social care and bring health and social care provision closer.

An individual’s contributions to their own care will be capped at a lifetime contribution of £86,000, applying to anyone starting care after October 2023. The rest will be paid by public funds. Responding to a question from Jeremy Wright MP, Johnson confirmed the cap would apply to all those with care needs, regardless of age.

Those with assets of less than £20,000 will pay nothing (an increase of the threshold from £14,000), and those with less than £100,000 worth of assets will have their costs subsidised.

The changes will apply to England only. However, Johnson promised Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would get an extra £2.2bn per year.

Johnson acknowledged he was breaking a manifesto commitment but said ‘a global pandemic was in no-one’s manifesto’.

Opposition leader Keir Starmer QC said the funding issue predated the pandemic.

Currently, there is no ceiling on costs an individual must pay for social care in England, although those with less than £23,250 savings and assets are eligible for help from their council.

Under the new tax, about 6.2m people earning less than £9,568 will pay nothing extra. The government calculates about 40% of small businesses will pay nothing extra.

Issue: 7947 / Categories: Legal News , Public , National Health Service
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll