The government revealed this week that there had been no wide-ranging assessment of the impact of winter fuel cuts, but a more limited “equalities analysis” was released, as a result of a freedom of information request.
Drawn up by officials in the Work and Pensions Department, it suggested some of the most vulnerable could still lose out on payments.
While 100,000 more pensioners are expected to claim Pension Credit, and therefore retain the winter fuel payment, the document anticipated that more than 750,000 who are eligible still won’t apply.
The over 80s are expected to sustain the largest financial hit.
The Conservatives said this data was “shocking” – and called for the government to commission and publish a full impact statement of the cuts.
Those calls are being echoed – privately – by some of Sir Keir Starmer’s own MPs.
One of them told me the lack of a full assessment “is shocking, and I find it profoundly depressing”.
The MP said the issue wasn’t going away, critical emails were continuing to flow into their inbox, and people would be concerned if there was no information on how elderly people might be affected.
Another said: “It’s pretty shocking that the government have not carried out an assessment especially given the concerns raised by backbenchers and across the House.”
One of their colleagues said: “It may well be that an assessment wasn’t legally required.
“But it was clearly morally required.”
My conversations with Labour MPs have been non-attributable, as there is a reluctance to speak out publicly at this stage.
That’s partly because, I’m told, government whips are closely monitoring dissenting voices.
But it’s also because some MPs behind the scenes are still hopeful that they can wrest some mitigation from the Chancellor in next month’s budget, so don’t want to antagonise No 11.
On Saturday, Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who abstained in the Commons vote on the cut this week, said the equality analysis showed the “detriment” the policy would cause to “very vulnerable people”.
The MP, who is chair of the all-party group on ageing, told the BBC she wanted the government to publish a full impact assessment and delay the introduction of the policy for 12 months.
Mitigations needed “to be considered at pace” for this winter, she added.
So far there has been no signal from the Treasury that they are planning to do anything beyond extending the Household Support Fund, at a cost of £421m, until next April.
One MP told me “they need to start working fast on what will happen in the budget”.
Another MP suggested their own government was acting hypocritically.
They said: “Had the last government failed to carry out vital assessments, we would have accused them of avoiding scrutiny and not wanting to be held to account.”
Fears were expressed, too, that the government had made a poor first impression on voters who had switched to Labour.
MPs with concerns extend beyond those who abstained on Tuesday’s vote.
That said, many others have accepted Rachel Reeves’s argument that in-year cuts were necessary because of the state of the public finances, and that help should be targeted at the most vulnerable.
A Treasury spokesman told the BBC that more than a million pensioners would still get a payment this winter, and the focus was now on ensuring those who were eligible were getting the support they need.
Speaking to reporters, the prime minister said: “We are pushing very hard on pension credit to make sure everybody who is entitled to it is on it.”
And he said he had sympathy with people struggling with bills: “I am not pretending this is an easy decision.”
The move certainly proves that the Labour leadership is willing to take difficult decisions.
But the financial saving seems likely to come at a political cost.
Source Agencies
