BREAKING: the DWP has JUST published the winter fuel payments cut ASSESSMENT – undermining Keir Starmer

The controversy over the Labour Party government’s cut to winter fuel payments continues to dominate the news. PM Keir Starmer and health secretary Wes Streeting have both denied that the government did an impact assessment on the effect of the cut on older people. However, late on Friday 13 September the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) threw them and Labour under the bus – by PUBLISHING an Equality Analysis it did in July.

Crucially, it found that disabled people will be hit hard by the cut.

Winter fuel payments cut: where’s the impact assessment?

Labour’s cut to winter fuel payments has sparked uproar. As the Canary has been documenting, Charity Age UK has calculated that Labour’s move will impact 800,000 older people on very low incomes. Specifically, this is those living on less than £218.25 a week as single pensioners, or £332.95 as couples.

And despite the government’s drive to increase uptake in Pension Credit – the benefit that automatically entitles pensioners to the winter fuel payments – the majority will still miss out this winter.

On top of this, Age UK estimated that around a million more pensioners less than £50 above the so-called poverty line will be “hit hard” by the Labour removing the benefit payment. Meanwhile, in 2017 Labour itself did an impact assessment which found around 4,000 older people could die as a result of means testing the winter fuel payment.

However, late on 13 September the DWP threw the cat further amongst the pigeons. Because despite Starmer and Streeting denying it repeatedly and live on TV, there is an assessment – of sorts.

The DWP: well, here’s an Equality Analysis…

In a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, the DWP revealed it had done an assessment – an “Equality Analysis” – back in July. In short, it found:

83% (2.7m) of those aged 80+ currently receiving winter fuel payments will lose out, compared to 90% (7.3m) of those aged 66 to 79.

The cut will hit more women than men. 54% (6.1m) of those who received a winter fuel payment in 2022/23 were Female, and 46% (5.2m) were Male. This means that 85% (5.2m) of women receiving a WFP will lose out, compared to 91% (4.8m) of men.

However, for disabled older people the winter fuel payment cut will also be bad. The DWP noted that:

We do not have published information relating to disability of WFP recipients. However, as a proxy we can look at those in receipt of the State Pension (as almost all of those on State
Pension receive a WFP), and whether or not they received a pensioner disability benefit (AA/DLA/PIP). Latest available data (May-23) shows that 20% (2.6m) of State Pension recipients claim AA/DLA/PIP.

It concluded that:

53% (0.8m) of the latest available (May-23) PC caseload claim AA/DLA/PIP. Therefore, those with a disability will be disproportionately likely to retain the winter fuel payment. However, around 71% (1.6m) of people with a disability will still lose entitlement.

So, it seems that as always, women and disabled people will be hit hardest by the government’s cut. However, that’s not the end of the story.

Winter fuel payments: it’s not over, yet

The Herald reported that:

comments given to The Herald earlier this week by the DWP insisting an impact assessment on the policy had been done.

The Herald also reported that senior figures in the DWP had advised the Chancellor not to introduce means testing of the benefit.

After days of No 10 refusing to comment, Keir Starmer’s deputy spokesperson said the only assessment made before the policy announcement was a standard legal one of potential equalities impacts.

So, while the Equality Assessment is not a full impact assessment, it seems that the DWP may have intentionally dumped this out late on a Friday night to cause problems for Starmer and Labour.

The DWP’s release of this data now poses major problems for the government. It confirms that disabled people will be hit hard – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Starmer should now have to ensure the department does an impact assessment. Whether he does or not, remains to be seen.

Featured image via the Canary