Sir Keir Starmer admitted last night that his Government had not evaluated the risks of removing Winter Fuel Payments from an estimated 10 million pensioners.
The Prime Minister stated there was no ‘report on my desk’ despite warnings from various sources, including Labour when in opposition, about the potential for increased elderly mortality due to the unpopular policy.
During a trip to Washington, reporters asked the PM if he could present the impact assessment, typically conducted by civil servants to analyse the risks and benefits of major policy decisions, regarding the means-testing of energy bill subsidies.
So Labour did NOT do a Impact Assessment on removing the Winter Fuel Allowance from OAPs.
Starmer and Co couldn’t give two hoots for pensioners, the 4000 they were told would die only encouraged the vote knowing billions would be saved for their bosses.pic.twitter.com/9SU4PzYtaO
— Darren of Plymouth 🇬🇧 (@wolsned) September 12, 2024
The PM claimed that low-income pensioners would receive pension credit to mitigate the impact but acknowledged: ‘There isn’t a report on my desk which somehow we’re not showing.’
When pressed about the absence of an impact assessment, he reiterated: ‘There isn’t a report on my desk.’
Upon being informed of the legal requirement to conduct such an assessment, Sir Keir responded that it was ‘not actually true.’
The PM added: ‘I know you think there’s a report on my desk but there isn’t one.’
Downing Street stated that departments are not obligated to carry out impact assessments for policies costing less than £10 million to implement.
However, reports indicated that an assessment had been conducted regarding the potential impact on race, gender, and age due to the removal of Winter Fuel Payments for those not on benefits.
A Downing Street spokesperson said ministers must consider the equalities implications of any policy development to assess the proportion of protected characteristics, such as age and gender, among those who claim winter fuel payments. This exercise is part of routine advice considered by ministers and occurred in the usual manner.
A Downing Street spokeswoman confirmed that some statistical work had been done but not on the impact on vulnerable pensioners.
She stated: ‘There are clear rules on this that we followed carefully, and for policy changes implemented through secondary legislation, like the change to winter fuel payment eligibility, departments are required to make regulatory impact assessments if the cost of the legislation exceeds £10 million, so an assessment was therefore not required for the change to winter fuel eligibility.’
She further added that there was a legal duty to consider the ‘equality implications’ of any policy development, which was done in the usual manner to assess the proportion of protected characteristics, such as age and gender, among those who claim winter fuel payments.
An official statistical publication outlined the estimated number of households in fuel poverty, but the spokeswoman confirmed there had been no assessment on how many people affected by the change might have health difficulties or be vulnerable.
When asked if an assessment should have been conducted to determine whether elderly people might die due to the change, the spokeswoman said: ‘The Government will ensure that those most vulnerable and should be receiving support are receiving it, which is why there is a significant effort to convert people onto pension credit.’
She added: ‘We also want people to apply for the broader support available for the most vulnerable. Our approach is to ensure that those most vulnerable are receiving targeted support, and we’ve had to make a tough decision to rebalance the books given the state of public finances.’
In 2017, Labour claimed Conservative plans to means-test the winter fuel allowance could result in nearly 4,000 deaths.
Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, a motion ‘regretting’ the move to strip the allowance from 10 million pensioners passed by 164 votes to 132.
Former Brexit Party MEP Baroness Fox of Buckley said the debate over reducing winter fuel payments had led to ‘boomer bashing.’
The non-affiliated peer commented: ‘In this instance, the nice party is in danger of having stirred up quite a lot of antagonism and hatred towards a generation who deserve better – ordinary working people who just happen to be old.’
The House of Lords supported the ‘regret motion’ by 164 votes to 132, a majority of 32, proposed by the Tories.
Earlier, the administration had narrowly defeated a Conservative backbench attempt in the unelected chamber to entirely block the measure by 138 votes to 30, a majority of 108.
What Other Media Are Saying
- The Canary reports on Rishi Sunak’s reluctance to publish the impact assessment for the Labour Party’s cut to winter fuel payments, highlighting the potential devastating effects on British pensioners.(read more)
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce808nyry3do
The British government’s decision to cut winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners in England and Wales has sparked controversy, with Keir Starmer asserting that no impact assessment was conducted.(read more) - The Guardian reports that ministers did not conduct a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of winter fuel payments, despite concerns about health risks and potential fatalities.(read more)
Frequently Asked Questions
Here are some common questions asked about this news
Has the government assessed the risks of removing Winter Fuel Payments?
No, Sir Keir Starmer admitted no such assessment was carried out.
Did the government legally need to do an impact assessment?
No, according to No. 10, it’s not required for policies costing less than £10 million.
Was there any assessment related to the equality implications of the policy?
Yes, an assessment was conducted on potential impacts by race, gender, and age.
Will low-income pensioners be affected by this change?
Low-income pensioners receiving pension credit will still receive support.
Did the House of Lords oppose the removal of Winter Fuel Payments?
Yes, the House of Lords passed a regret motion by 164 votes to 132.
