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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll