Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 - Motion to Annul

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 5:45 pm on 11 September 2024.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Janke Baroness Janke Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Work and Pensions) 5:45, 11 September 2024

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is a sense of bewilderment for so many people at one of the new Labour Government’s first actions being to punish the poorest pensioners for the shortcomings of the previous Conservative Government by restricting winter fuel payments to those receiving pension credit.

Means-tested pension credit is renowned for its low take-up: 39% of those entitled to it do not claim it. At this point, I would like to welcome the Minister. I am sure she will recall that during her time in opposition, we worked on a cross-party basis to try to boost the take-up of pension credit, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. However, despite a fairly vigorous campaign, its success was marginal and small. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said, successive Governments have wrestled with this problem over the years and failed to crack it.

The reasons that emerged for the low take-up were the resistance of this generation of pensioners to what are perceived as state handouts; and that the level of bureaucracy, as has already been mentioned, but also the burden of proof of need are so demanding that many people are intimidated by the idea of claiming. Many older pensioners do not have access to the ICT equipment and skills which are essential to make a claim. I would be interested to know what action the Government will take, where so many people have failed, to increase take-up. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has said, if they are successful, what will be the impact on the savings of £1.4 billion?

Age Concern tells us that more than 2 million pensioners will be harmed by this measure: some 1 million who are eligible for but not receiving pension credit; 1 million who are just below the pension threshold and on low incomes, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke so movingly; and 200,000 who have high energy costs due to disability or a health condition, or who have to live in poorly insulated homes. It is also true, as we have heard in this Chamber from many noble Lords, that many pensioners who receive winter fuel payments do not need them; but surely a blanket withdrawal with no time for those affected to plan and assess their financial circumstances is callous and arrogant.

It is also irresponsible to introduce such sweeping measures without a proper impact assessment, given the risk to vulnerable and elderly people. I was interested to hear from the Minister today that we need several months to conduct impact assessments and consultations on ticket touting, yet somehow this was inappropriate for a measure such as this.

Other ways of targeting have been suggested, such as limited payments to households in council tax bands A to D or, as others have said, bringing payments within the definition of taxable income. These may raise less but are fairer and less draconian, and they remove the misery and indignity of means testing.

Ministers have assured us that the triple lock increases will compensate for lost payments but, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, so eloquently said, this is clearly not the case. The triple lock is here to ensure that pensions keep their value in the face of rising costs. Despite the improved value of the state pension in recent years, it is one of the lowest in Europe and the triple lock needs to be maintained to bring it to a realistic level to support the many poor pensioners without generous private pensions who depend on the state pension to survive.

This is a shabby and unworthy policy which will hit the poorest and most vulnerable elderly. Such measures show disrespect for those most in need and will have plunged many pensioner households into insecurity and fear of the future. We need a considered approach to policy-making that affects our most vulnerable citizens. Knee-jerk reactions are completely inappropriate in this context.

The Liberal Democrats are willing as a constructive Opposition to work with the new Government on the many problems they undoubtedly face. We will therefore not support the fatal Motion today but have outlined different approaches in our Motions. But we will expect the new Government to listen to the voices of others and show that they have done so. The arrogance of a large majority is not helpful to constructive working. The noble Baroness must assure us today that the Government will listen to the strong views expressed here and by pensioners and the public, objecting to this damaging attack on vulnerable pensioners, and we call on them to think again. I will be supporting the Liberal Democrat Motion.