FOREST of Dean MP Mark Harper said an amendment to the Health and Care Bill "potentially disadvantages the less well-off" after rebelling against the Government for the second time in three weeks.

Mr Harper was one of 19 Tory MPs to vote against an amendment to the bill on November 22, saying that health ministers had not "properly worked with the sector or MPs to explain their thinking or decisions".

The Government announced plans to exclude means-tested council support payments from a new £86,000 lifetime cap on personal care costs last month.

Mr Harper said he couldn’t support proposed changes to social care payments after the Government failed to guarantee that people would not have to sell their homes to pay for it.

He followed Labour and other parties in rejecting the plan, and despite a further 28 Tory MPs abstaining, the amendment was backed by 272 votes to 246.

It comes after Mr Harper opposed Boris Johnson’s much criticised bid to protect the then North Shropshire Tory MP Owen Paterson from suspension for breaching Parliamentary standards, labelling its handling "one of the most unedifying episodes" he had ever seen in 16 years as an MP.

Following the social care vote, Mr Harper said: "The amendment put forward by the Government to the Health and Care Bill (New Clause 49), and voted on last night, makes a significant change to how the cost cap works.

"It potentially disadvantages the less well-off and those of working age with life-long conditions.

"I voted against it last night¦ Health Ministers haven’t properly worked with the sector or MPs to explain their thinking or decisions.

"As Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Learning Disability I want to make sure we focus on working age adults, not just older people, unlike these proposals.

"The Health and Care Bill will now go off to the House of Lords, who may suggest amendments that the Commons will have to debate and vote on in the coming months.

"There is a White Paper on social care due before the year end. We should consider this proposal properly with all the facts at our disposal when the White Paper is published.

"I want our social care reforms to work for everyone."

Critics of the Government claim that because the £86,000 cap is universal, it puts the less well off at a massive disadvantage.

Someone with a house worth £106,000 and long-term social care needs costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, could end up having their estate reduced to just £20,000.

In contrast, someone in exactly the same position with a £500,000 house would be able to leave a much greater proportion of their assets - £414,000 - to their next of kin.