Winter fuel payment abolition backlash

The United Kingdom government's decision on 29 July 2024 to abolish the winter fuel payment for all but the poorest pensioners gave rise to a significant backlash. Negative reaction came from Labour MPs, opposition MPs, trade unions, pensioner organisations, and the general public.

Background

See also: Winter Fuel Payment

On 29 July 2024, just over three weeks after gaining power in the 2024 general election, the new Labour government led by the new prime minister, Keir Starmer, announced plans to abolish the winter fuel payment for pensioners in England and Wales (these payments are the responsibility of the devolved governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland) who were not poor enough to receive pension credit or other means-tested benefits. The effect of this announcement by the new chancellor, Rachel Reeves, which she said was required because of the previous government's "undisclosed" overspending, was that around 10 million pensioners would no longer be given the annual winter payments which were worth between £100 and £300. The payments, which were introduced in 1997 by the Blair government, had been given since then to everyone above the state pension age, and were intended to help with winter heating bills.

Reactions

The announcement of this policy to remove fuel payments from pensioners took the nation by surprise as it had not been publicised in advance or included in Labour's manifesto for the election. With the announcement being made shortly before the Commons party conference season recess, there was only a limited initial response. However, several Labour MPs returned to Westminster complaining that their constituents were "furious and, in some cases, deeply worried".

In August, consumer journalist and founder of MoneySavingExpert, Martin Lewis, suggested that the government should rethink their plans to restrict who would get the payment saying they had gone too far by limiting it to only the "absolute poorest pensioners on the very lowest income".

Commons vote

On 5 September, Starmer conceded to demands and promised a binding vote in the Commons on whether the changes to the fuel payment would be implemented. The change of heart came after there was unease amongst labour MPs, with many of them signing an early day motion challenging the changes, and the opposition Conservative Party submitted a motion to annul the government's change to regulations. Labour MP Rachael Maskell said, "Being cold at home can lead to stroke, heart attack, hypothermia, pneumonia and other such illnesses" and recommended that the government should read the work of Professor Sir Michael Marmot and Sir Chris Whitty with respect to this "so that we can take a public health approach to people being warm at home, to mitigate the cost that could come without putting right mitigation around the winter fuel payments”.

The Conservative motion was debated on 10 September, and in the vote that followed, 348 MPs backed the government and 228 supported the opposition motion. With a majority of 120 to the government, the policy will be implemented. A total of 52 Labour MPs, including 7 ministers, did not participate in the vote. Labour MP, Jon Trickett voted against the government. BBC News say that around 20 of the Labour MPs who did not participate have publicly expressed opposition to the policy previously.

Trade union opposition

The government was put under pressure to abandon this policy by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) as it started its annual conference on 9 September. The TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, said of the plan that he was concerned about the removal of the universal payment for all but the poorest pensioners. The general secretary of Unite, Sharon Graham, repeated her call for the decision to be reversed. Fran Heathcote of the PCS union said that the plan was a "misstep" and it needed to be "put right".

At the Labour Party conference, held between 23 September and 25 September, Unite and the Communication Workers Union, managed to reserve time for a motion opposing the government's fuel payment policy to be debated and a non-binding vote taken. The motion was scheduled to be debated on the first day of the conference, but on the day, the same day that Reeves was due to give a speech, the vote was postponed until the last day of the conference - after Starmer had left. The announcement of the move was greeted with loud boos and jeers from the conference attendees. The Unite union said that by rescheduling their motion to the very end of the conference, the conference organisers had sought to silence them. The Labour leadership lost the vote, with delegates supporting the motion to scrap the government's policy.

Pensioner impact concerns

On 9 September it was reported that Labour MPs, including frontbenchers, were worried that Reeves's "brutal" plan for the fuel allowance would result in more older people ending up in hospital over the winter.

The UK's leading charity for older people, Age UK, wrote to Reeves with its proposal which it says would prevent around two million pensioners, for whom the payment is badly needed, having the payment stopped.

At prime minister's questions on 11 September, the former prime minister, leader of the opposition, Rishi Sunak, accused Starmer of covering up the impact assessment for the policy, asking him if the estimate for the number of deaths was higher or lower than the 3,850 Labour had previously forecast would result from this policy. Starmer did not answer that question directly.

Government watchdog, the Social Security Advisory Committee, criticising the plan, said it was rushed and ill-conceived, and asked that urgent changes be made to it before the cold winter weather hits. It also said that Reeves's estimate that it would raise £1.5 billion per year was very likely a sizeable overestimate.

The general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, one of the UK's largest organisations campaigning for older people, Jan Shortt, wrote to Reeves stating that as a result of the policy changes many older people may "not survive to see the spring or any other season". Shortt commented that not all pensioners receive a full state pension or have an occupational pension to rely on and called for the government to "step away from this ill-advised strategy immediately".

Legal challenge

On 25 October, a pensioner couple in Scotland were given permission to take legal action against the decision to restrict the payment by applying a means-test to it. They are alleging that the UK and Scotland governments did not follow the correct procedure and did not conduct an appropriate consultation or an equality impact assessment before implementing the change. The hearing is scheduled to take place at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on 15 January 2025.

Public opinion

Following the announcement of this policy, the Ipsos monthly tracker poll published in September showed that Starmer was more unpopular with the public than he had been for three years. 46% of voters had an unfavourable view of him. 32% of the poll's respondents had a favourable view of him, which was 6 points lower than it had been in August. The same poll showed Reeves being seen favourably had dropped 4 points since August to 23% and being seen unfavourably had increased by 9 points to 44%.

Following the commons vote, the results from a JL Partners/38 Degrees focus group of more than 100 people suggested that the new government was losing public support. The group comprised different age groups, regions, and voting intention. The most critical were older Labour voters, some younger voters were more sympathetic with the governments case, but most were critical of the policy.

A Savanta opinion poll commissioned by the Liberal Democrats party, and published on 29 October, found that 59% opposed the policy with 46% of Labour voters agreeing that Reeves was wrong to bring forward this policy while 35% agreed she was right. The poll also showed that 78% of people aged 55 and over said that Reeves should not cut the winter fuel payments.

Retaliation

Labour MP for the Blaydon and Consett seat, Liz Twist, has faced calls from her constituents to resign from her post as chair of the board of trustees at Age UK Gateshead, a charity for older people. These came after she voted in the Commons to support Reeves's fuel payment restrictions. One of the constituents said "Given she [Twist] is a North East MP, representing one of the poorest parts of the country, I feel it’s very hypocritical for her to hold this position and it's disappointing that she did not vote against the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment". Age UK said it was "advocating against the government's decision". On 30 October, Twist resigned, saying it was "because of the consistent pressure being placed on the charity by a number of people".