text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Health and Care Bill - New Clause 49 - Cap on Requirement to Pay Care Costs
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye to limit the amount adults can be required to pay towards their eligible care costs over their lifetime, rather than to prevent an individual being charged once they, local authorities, or others had paid a certain amount. 
  
  @ MP voted no to prevent an individual being charged for their eligible care costs once they, local authorities, or others had paid a certain amount towards their care, rather than to limit the amount adults can be required to pay towards their care costs over their lifetime.  
  
  
  The majority of MPs voted to limit the amount adults can be required to pay towards their eligible care costs over their lifetime, rather than to prevent an individual being charged once they, local authorities, or others had paid a certain amount. 
  
  MPs were considering the Health and Care Bill.[1][2][3]
  
  The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: ''Cap on Care Costs for charging Purposes''. 
  
  The clause amended the legislation which provided a framework for introducing a cap on care costs, Section 15 of the Care Act 2014[4]. That legislation had not been commenced, and brought into effect. The intent of the 2014 legislation as indicated by its explanatory notes[5] was to establish: "a limit on the amount that adults can be required to pay towards eligible care costs over their lifetime."
  
  The 2014 legislation was drafted such that the local authority would not be able to charge an individual for the costs of their care once the total amount the authority, or other authorities, or anyone else had spent on the individual's care exceeded the cap. This did not achieve the intent of capping the amount an individual can be required to pay. 
  
  The amendment corrects the legislation such that it has its intended effect.  
  
  Without the amendment the cap on personal contributions would be lower for those for whom councils, or others, had contributed to their care costs. Without the amendment there would still be a cap, but it would not operate in the manner intended.
  
  The minister introducing the new clause stated[6]:
  
  :We have always intended for the cap to apply to what people personally contribute, rather than on the combination of their personal contribution and that of the state. 
  
  --
  
  
  * [1] [https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3022 Parliament's webpage on the Health and Care Bill], Parliament.uk
  * [2] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0140/210140.pdf Health and Care Bill as introduced on 6 July 2021], Parliament.uk
  * [3] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0140/en/210140en.pdf Explanatory notes to the Health and Care Bill as introduced on 6 July 2021], Parliament.uk
  * [4] [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/section/15/enacted Section 15 of the Care Act 2014], Legislation.gov.uk
  * [5] [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/notes/division/5/1/4/2 Explanatory notes to Section 15 of the Care Act 2014], Legislation.gov.uk
  * [6] [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2021-11-22b.98.0#g110.2 Edward Argar MP (Charnwood, Conservative), House of Commons Official Record, 22 November 2021], TheyWorkForYou.com
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  