The savings from limiting the winter fuel allowance to only the poorest pensioners are unclear and could be outdone by a rise in those seeking pension credit, a group of experts has warned.
The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), which provides statutory advice to ministers on benefits, also admonished the Government for not having provided an impact assessment of its plans before they were brought into law.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the universal benefit would be limited to only the least well-off pensioners not long after Labour came into power, as part of a bid to plug what she called a £22 billion “black hole” in the public finances.
The number of pensioners in receipt of winter fuel allowance is set to fall from some 10.8 million to 1.5 million people, which could save the Government £1.5 billion.
Only those in receipt of pension credit and other means-tested benefits will still qualify for the payment, following a Commons vote in early September.
Since Ms Reeves’ announcement at the end of July, there has been an uptick in the number of people applying for pension credit, following work to raise awareness of the often under-claimed benefit.
But in a letter to the Department for Work and Pensions published on Wednesday, the SSAC said “it is not clear how the tension between the two goals of fiscal savings and increased take-up of pension credit is resolved within the plans”.
The committee also said it was disappointed no impact assessment of the plans had been made by the Government, and suggested it was not convinced by Sir Keir Starmer’s assurances that pension credit take-up would prevent a number of pensioners from falling into poverty.
It added: “Given the scale of pensioners who will be affected by this change, and the speed at which it is being introduced, we are not similarly reassured that this will be the case and are of the firm view that a more detailed assessment is urgently required, in particular, on the potential poverty impact.”
The SSAC suggested further safeguards were also needed for pensioners in receipt of other benefits, including child tax credits and disability living allowance.
Downing Street said scrapping the universal benefit was “not a decision that we wanted to take”, but pointed to the need to address ailing public finances as the reason behind the move.
A No 10 spokeswoman added: “When it comes to winter fuel our position remains that we remain focused on ensuring that those eligible for that support are receiving it.
“There continues to be effort under way in the Department (for Work and Pensions) to ensure that people are applying for that and receiving back-dated payments where eligible.”
Shadow work and pensions secretary Mel Stride said: “The Government’s own advisory body has stated that winter fuel payment legislation is not fit for purpose.
“It confirms that leaving almost 10 million pensioners out in the cold to pay for union pay rises will have a huge impact on pensioners already in poverty. Many will face the dreadful choice between heating and eating caused by this Labour Government.
“Labour have 13 days to reverse this policy before the Budget. Now is the time for them to follow their own advice, and unpick this cruel policy.”
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