After seeing his Commons majority cut by the Tory rebellion, Boris Johnson now faces a new social care fight in the Lords.  

He was warned by peers that his plans to lower the cost cap will be scrutinized’very carefully’.

Lords could ask the government to reconsider if they request a tougher fight in lower House.

Johnson’s policy was narrowly passed last night, with 19 Conservative MPs voting against it and many more abstaining.

Ministers were unable to say whether the change to the £86,000 cap on care costs honoured an election pledge to guarantee no-one would have to sell their home to pay for care.

Experts, Labour MPs, and backbennch Tory opponents joined with experts to warn against the change that would count individual payments toward the cap and not contributions from local authorities. This move could result in poor recipients receiving more assets than the rich.

With a margin of 26 votes in favor, the amendment was passed by 272 to 246. This is a much smaller margin than the working majority of 80 MPs.

Boris Johnson (pictured in Northumberland yesterday) has been warned that peers will scrutinise his proposals watering down the cap on costs 'very, very carefully'

Boris Johnson (photo taken in Northumberland yesterday), has been warned his peers will examine his proposal to reduce the costs cap’very very carefully’

The Prime Minister narrowly pushed through his social care policy in the Commons last night (pictured), despite 19 Conservative MPs voting against and dozens more abstaining

The Prime Minister managed to narrowly pass his Social Care Policy in the Commons last evening (pictured), despite 20 Conservative MPs voting against it and many more abstaining

Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey and ex-chief whip Mark Harper rebelled to oppose the plans – while around 30 MPs appear to have 'actively' abstained

Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey and ex-chief whip Mark Harper rebelled to oppose the plans – while around 30 MPs appear to have ‘actively’ abstained

Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey and ex-chief whip Mark Harper rebelled to oppose the plans – while around 30 MPs appear to have ‘actively’ abstained.

Jeremy Hunt, ex-health secretary confirmed today that he was one of those who voted.

He told BBC that although he was conflicted about the matter, he ended up abstaining as it was a disappointment that the cap had been changed.

“But, it is still a step in the right direction.”

It won’t preserve the assets of as many people, because it doesn’t include council support when calculating whether or not the care cost cap has been met.

“We must remember that the most vulnerable people will receive more assistance sooner than what they are currently receiving.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff stated that the House of Lords would scrutinise the Government’s social care reform “very, very carefully”.

A crossbencher professor of palliative medication said to BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘I think that when it comes to the House of Lords. we will need to scrutinise these very, very carefully.

“We will do as the Lords does very well: go over each line, talk about everything, and see the overall funding assessment.

“So, although I doubt there will be a quick answer, I believe we will still spend a lot of time looking at the situation.

“The impact assessment will prove to be extremely important.

“It is possible that we will ask the Commons to reconsider their position.It could be possible that we will come up constructive amendments in order to improve the situation at the moment, as there’s clearly much disquiet.

William Wragg, a senior Conservative, and Dan Poulter, a NHS doctor, voted against the changes, along with Christian Wakeford, Mark Jenkinson and Mark Jenkinson who were elected to retake former Labour strongholds north of the border for the Tories.

Johnson had earlier in the day defended the plans, calling them ‘incredibly generous’ as well as “much better than existing systems” during an address at the annual CBI Conference.

In September, the Government announced that a £86,000 cap on lifetime care costs will be put into place from October 2023.

A policy paper from last week indicated that personal contributions only will be counted towards the cap for those who have received financial assistance from local authorities for part of their care.

Experts say that the cap will become more expensive for those living in poverty than those who are wealthy. This will result in less of your assets being used to pay care costs.

According to the Resolution Foundation, people living in Yorkshire and the North are at greatest risk of having their wealth destroyed by rising care costs.

Former chief whip Mark Harper stated that he will be against the amendment amid lingering anger among Tory backbenchers about the Owen Paterson sleaze dispute.

It could ‘potentially adversely affect the less-well-off as well as those in working age who have lifelong conditions’, he warned.

Robert Buckland was a former justice secretary and urged ministers to “look again”. Mr Wakeford, Bury South MP said that the changes he made were not in his best interests.

‘Especially when one of the main messages for introducing this levy was ‘You won’t need to sell your house for care’, to get to a point where unfortunately you might need to and (it’s) arguably our least well-off in society, our least well-off voters – again, it’s not something I’m particularly comfortable with,’ he told Times Radio.

Labour’s analysis indicated that changes would mean average homeowners in 2/3 of the northern areas would have to contribute more toward their care. A third will suffer in the Midlands.

According to the manifesto of Conservative Party for 2019, social care reforms should ‘guarantee no one needing care must sell their home in order to pay it’.

The official spokesperson of the Prime Minister could not comment about whether or not people might have to sell their home to help pay for care.

Sally Warren (the policy director of the King’s Fund’s health think tank) criticized the sudden change.

She stated that the change in social care caps is a retrogressive move, which will still expose people of low wealth to high care costs.

The amendment squeezed past by 272 votes to 246, with the 26 margin far smaller than the PM's working majority of around 80 MPs

This amendment was passed by 272 votes, to 246. Its 26 margin is much less than that of the PM’s working majority (around 80 MPs).

“It will likely mean that people who have moderate wealth and live in poverty will need to sell their homes to cover their healthcare, but people living in richer areas of the country will not be affected by this.

Liz Kendall, Shadow minister of social services, charged the Tories with breaking their electoral promise.

“Instead, they voted for taxing ordinary workers, while the richest in our country are not affected,” the Labour MP claimed.

“Once again Boris Johnson’s failures lead to working people paying the price.”

Under the plans, people with assets of less than £20,000 will not have to contribute anything to their care – up from the current level of £14,250 – while those with assets worth up to £100,000 will be eligible to receive some local authority support, up from £23,250.

The amended Health and Care Bill will be debated by MPs again on Tuesday, just before being extended scrutiny in House of Lords.