Winter fuel payment changes that could help more pensioners
But he has not set out how the change to who is entitled to the payments worth up to £300 will look.
The means-testing of pensioners' winter fuel payments is an issue which has been blamed for contributing to Labour's poor performance in May's local elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election.
There are several options for how the Government could go about it.
Full reversal
One option would be a full reversal of the decision to strip the benefit from millions of pensioners.
The decision to make it available only to those who claim pension credit last year meant those claiming winter fuel payment fell by almost 90% and saved around £1.5 billion a year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates.
Undoing last year's policy change would make some 11 million more households eligible and of course wipe out the £1.5 billion in savings.
Create a specific threshold for winter fuel
Creating a new threshold and means test would allow households not on pension credit to apply directly for winter fuel payments.
Raising it 20% above the pension credit threshold would cost around £100 million and see winter fuel payments go to around 400,000 more families, according to the Resolution Foundation.
One option would be to model this on child benefit by allowing all pensioner households to claim but then require those above a certain income level to pay some back via a self assessment tax return, the IFS notes.
But there is a risk to adopting 'a clunky bureaucratic mechanism for what is, ultimately, a relatively small payment', IFS associate director Tom Waters warned.
Very pleased to just hear the Prime Minister has just said he wants more state pensioners to get Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) and they will work out what they're doing in time for the budget.
As I've said since day one, there are two main problems with the way the means testing… — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) May 21, 2025
Expand entitlement to those who get disability or housing benefits
Some 1.8 million more households could get winter fuel payment at a cost of around £500 million per year if entitlement is extended to those on disability benefits, the IFS estimates.
This would be more complicated to put in place in Scotland, where disability benefit is devolved.
Extending eligibility to include those on housing and disability benefits would give support to 1.3 million more pensioner families at a cost of £300 million a year, the Resolution Foundation estimates.
This would be an 'affordable' and 'sensible way forward', chief executive Ruth Curtice said.
Recommended reading:
Pay winter fuel money to individuals, not households
One difficulty in allocating the winter fuel payment is that it currently goes to households rather than individuals.
Changing this would mean the Government could do a means test on an individual basis and use information that it already records for income tax purposes.
It would see pensioners with a low income but with a high-income spouse get the winter fuel payment.
However, it could also see couples get twice as much winter fuel payment as single people, where at the moment a single person would get the same amount as a couple sharing a household.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
North Wales Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
North Wales Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'. Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. 'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'
