KEIR Starmer has said the Government failed to assess the impact of cutting fuel payments for millions of pensioners before rushing the change through Parliament.
The Prime Minister argued it was not legally necessary for the Government to prepare an impact assessment of ending universal Winter Fuel Payments, which critics say will risk the health and lives of pensioners.
Labour voted to cut the payment for all but the poorest pensioners earlier this week and have waved away demands to produce documents assessing the impact of the decision.
READ MORE: What to expect from The National on the indyref 10-year anniversary
During the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn when the Tories were considering a similar measure, Labour produced research which found such a cut risked the lives of around 4000 pensioners.
Speaking to reporters on a flight to the US, Starmer said: “I know you think there’s a report on my desk but there isn’t one.”
The BBC reported that Number 10 has said the way in which the change was made, via a statutory instrument, meant the Government only needed to compile an impact assessment if the cost of the legislation is greater than £10 million – which it is not in this case.
The Government has repeatedly argued the cut, which they expect to save around £1.4 billion per year, was necessary to stabilise the economy.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves' popularity plummets, according to new poll
Analysis by the House of Commons Library found that 10.8 million pensioners in England and Wales received the Winter Fuel Payment last year. This coming winter, that number will fall to just 1.5 million.
The cut has been replicated in Scotland, with the Scottish Government also deferring its takeover of the benefit from Westminster to next winter.
The SNP have argued they had “no choice” but to follow Labour’s lead and have accused Starmer of “balancing the books on the backs of pensioners”.
LibDem work and pensions spokesperson Wendy Chamberlain told the BBC: “We know this will have massive knock-on effects for pensioners and potentially our NHS this winter as people are forced to choose between heating and eating.
"Liberal Democrats are calling on the government to tax the big banks rather than punish pensioners to make up for the years of Conservative Party failure."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel