The House of Commons held the debate on Winter Fuel Payments yesterday.

Rachael Maskell (Lab, York Central) was extremely vocal on the Winter Fuel Payment, highlighting concerns about inadequate support for pensioners in fuel poverty. She criticised the current £300 payment for the over-80s, stating it is insufficient for some but unnecessary for others. Rising housing, food, and energy costs have worsened the situation for 2.1 million pensioners in poverty. Maskell urged the government to ensure proper assistance for pensioners, especially with the upcoming energy price cap increase. She also emphasised that changes to the payment should be delayed and targeted toward those who can afford to lose it, arguing that current savings to the public budget are minimal and could be further reduced if more pensioners claimed pension credit.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford) supported Maskell’s concerns, drawing parallels to the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) scandal and suggesting delaying changes until 2025.

Andy McDonald (Lab, Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) noted that many pensioners eligible for pension credit do not claim it, which skews the projected savings. He called for better take-up of pension credit, which would negate the savings the government anticipates.

Melanie Onn (Lab, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) and David Smith (Lab, North Northumberland) highlighted the importance of better promoting support schemes and addressing the specific needs of rural pensioners living in energy-inefficient homes.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions, Emma Reynolds, explained that the need to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment was due to a £22 billion deficit left by the previous government. While acknowledging the difficult choice, she emphasised that targeting support at the poorest pensioners is necessary given the financial situation. Reynolds also highlighted efforts to increase pension credit uptake, which would provide additional benefits, including the Winter Fuel Payment. She encouraged local authorities to use the household support fund for those just above the means-testing threshold and noted government steps to simplify the pension credit application process. Despite criticism, she defended the urgency of the decision to avoid economic instability and ensure long-term public service improvements.

The Opposition also debated cuts to the Winter Fuel Payments in the House of Commons.

Mel Stride (Con, Central Devon) expressed strong objections to how the government handled the changes to the Winter Fuel Payment system. He criticized the urgency and lack of scrutiny, noting the bypassing of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the absence of a proper impact assessment. Stride highlighted that the new regulations would strip winter fuel payments from millions of pensioners, amounting to £7.5 billion in cuts, without adequate justification or consideration of the severe impact on vulnerable people.

Stride cited concerns raised by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which criticized the government’s process. He questioned the emergency rationale for the changes and the absence of SSAC’s report. He also called for proper scrutiny, especially given the health risks of living in cold homes, which can burden the NHS. He urged the government to delay the implementation of the regulations until full consideration by the SSAC and the impact assessment.

In support, Graham Stuart (Con, Beverley and Holderness) condemned the lack of proper procedure, noting that it could lead to thousands of deaths.

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Con, South Wiltshere) proposed looking at mitigating the impact for those over 80 years old, who currently receive higher payments.

Stride reinforced that the haste was politically motivated to avoid scrutiny and shift blame. He emphasized that this decision was more about political expediency than fiscal necessity and should have been handled with more care and transparency.

James Murray (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury) stressed that Labour inherited significant financial instability from the Conservatives and that restoring economic stability would be a slow and difficult process. He emphasized the need for tough decisions, even if they risk being unpopular. The main focus of his contribution was the proposal to means-test winter fuel payments, which would ensure the benefit goes to pensioners in the greatest need. He noted that a large number of wealthier pensioners currently receive the payment, which he argued is unsustainable given the current financial situation. Murray also discussed efforts to increase pension credit take-up, citing the importance of making sure pensioners who are eligible for this support claim it. He mentioned the success of the government’s campaign, which has led to an increase in applications.

Sarah Olney (Lib Dem, Richmond Park) spoke against the government’s plan to cut winter fuel payments. She criticized the impact it would have on vulnerable pensioners, particularly as energy costs are set to rise. Olney argued that the government had failed to adequately consider the consequences for both the NHS and the broader public. She highlighted the Liberal Democrats’ continued opposition to these cuts, having tabled an early-day motion and supported a prayer motion to annul the legislation.

Olney emphasized the importance of pension credit uptake, but voiced concern that many pensioners would lose out on support before being made aware of their eligibility for pension credit. She pointed out that even with an expected rise in pension credit claims, 700,000 pensioners would still be excluded. The Liberal Democrats, she said, advocate for additional measures, such as free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, a social tariff for vulnerable households, and a windfall tax on the profits of energy companies.

Nick Timothy (West Suffolk, Con) criticised Labour MPs for breaking their promise by voting to cut the winter fuel allowance. Timothy argued that this cut, planned by the Chancellor, affects not only wealthy pensioners but also those on modest incomes. He accused the government of using the funds to benefit union donors instead of aiding low-income pensioners and social care.

Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness, Reform) described a pensioner’s emotional response to the policy, highlighting fears over winter warmth and energy costs. Tice condemned the government’s choice to enrich public sector workers and unions while cutting support for pensioners, suggesting it will be remembered and condemned by voters.

Harriet Cross (Con, Gordon and Buchan) emphasised the harsh winter conditions in her constituency and the critical need for the winter fuel payment. She criticized both Labour and the SNP for failing to support pensioners, pointing out that Labour had previously opposed cuts to this benefit. Cross argued that pensioners will now face difficult choices and questioned Labour’s principles on this issue.

Mims Davies (Con East Grinstead and Uckfield) expressed concern over the impact of the winter fuel cut on pensioners, particularly with rising energy bills. She criticized the government for not doing enough to help pensioners and for failing to provide a proper impact assessment. Davies highlighted that pensioners like Valerie, who are affected by the cut, are worried about how to stay warm this winter.

Emma Reynolds (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) defended the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment as a necessary measure due to a significant budget shortfall. She argued that the policy targets help to those who need it most, while maintaining other supports like the triple lock and warm home discount. Reynolds stressed efforts to boost pension credit uptake and countered criticisms by highlighting the government’s broader support measures