Labour ‘underestimated’ impact of winter fuel raid

Charities say Government has underestimated the impact of benefit’s ‘brutal rationing’

Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Labour is facing mounting backlash for its failure to assess how many pensioners would die as a result of its winter fuel raid.
Ministers revealed this week that up to 100,000 additional elderly people could be pushed into poverty by the removal of the payment, worth up to £300 per year, in a long-awaited impact assessment.
However, campaigners today said the figures were an underestimate, and criticised the report for failing to say what impact the policy would have on the NHS or how many people could die as a result.
Labour’s own analysis during the 2017 election campaign – under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn – found that 4,000 pensioners would lose their lives if the winter fuel allowance were means-tested.
The party cited research which found half of the almost 10,000 decrease in “excess winter deaths” resulting from cold weather between 2000 and 2012 was because of the winter fuel allowance’s introduction.
Dennis Reed, of campaigning body Silver Voices, said “There is no doubt that the impact of this policy will cause extra deaths from cold-related conditions and put more stress on emergency NHS care this winter.
“Because of the refusal to conduct a full impact assessment before railroading this policy through, Labour has cooked up a winter NHS crisis entirely of its own making.”
The Government had come under repeated fire for its failure to carry out a full impact assessment before announcing that winter fuel payments would be stripped from 10 million pensioners. Only those eligible for pension credit will receive the benefit.
On Tuesday, the Department for Work and Pensions finally bowed to pressure as it published a report claiming 100,000 more pensioners face relative poverty by 2027 due to the policy. The Department denies the modelling was an official impact assessment.
Relative poverty was defined by officials as a pensioner who is living off 60pc of the UK’s median income after the impact of housing costs.
Charities said their own internal modelling suggests the actual figures will be much higher.
Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said: “The Government’s modelling suggests some 50,000 to 100,000 older people will fall into poverty each year as a result of their decision to brutally ration winter fuel payment. That’s bad enough, we may all feel, but really looking at the effect in this way understates its impact on pensioners on low and modest incomes.
“Age UK’s own impact assessment found that as many as two and a half million older people who can ill-afford to lose the payment will do so because they don’t claim pension credit, aren’t eligible, or have especially high energy needs due to ill health or disability.”
Joanna Elson, chief executive at charity Independent Age, said: “Recent polling we commissioned showed that 44pc of people aged over 65 in England think losing the winter fuel payment will negatively impact their physical health.
“Combined with the Government’s own prediction that around 100,000 older people will be pushed into poverty as a result of the change, it is very worrying that they are choosing to continue with this policy.”
Ms Elson said that pensioners have been telling the charity that they aren’t turning the heating on. She said: “Losing the winter fuel payment will only lead to even more people in later life feeling they have no choice but to jeopardise their health.”
A DWP source said that the way the numbers were calculated means that small differences in the base numbers can dramatically affect the final prediction.
The Government has faced similar criticism for underestimating the impact of its VAT raid on private schools after Telegraph analysis found 3,000 pupils had been forced out of private schools.
A government spokesman said: “Internal modelling on poverty estimates was produced as part of routine policy advice. The modelling is subject to a range of uncertainties and does not take into account the significant work we are doing to encourage pension credit take-up.
“The modelling also doesn’t reflect that we have put in place extra support for those who need it most, such as our extension of the Household Support Fund.”
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email