Social Security watchdog warns ministers of flaws in the scheme to scrap pensioner winter fuel allowances

Posted on October 21, 2024 by davidhencke

In a polite but tough message to Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, the Government’s official advisory body on social security, has exposed flaws in the government’s implementation of its rushed policy to abolish winter fuel allowances for 9.3 million pensioners and encourage the poorest to claim pension credit.

It also undermines the government’s case that it couldn’t consult them in advance because of the short timetable Sir Keir Starmer and chancellor Rachel Reeves imposed on introducing the change.

Dr Stephen Brien, chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee, says in a letter to Liz Kendall, ” I trust you will agree, there are considerable benefits in draft legislation being presented to us for statutory scrutiny before being laid, and that ‘urgency’ should be used only in exceptional circumstances. This Committee has a strong track record of supporting successive Secretaries of State respond at pace to emerging crises and risks. We have often arranged additional meetings to enable scrutiny to take place at short notice, in an attempt to avoid the need for invoking the urgency procedure. ”

In other words; ” we could have accommodated you, if only you had asked.”

The letter goes on to point out problems implementing the plans to increase the uptake in Pension Credit and outline flaws in the changes.

It reveals that although the ministry is committed to recruiting an extra 450 staff to cope with the demand for new pension credit claims not one of them can start handling a single claim for two months because they need training.

As the committee points out:” we remain concerned about the capacity of the Department to process Pension Credit claims in a timely way, ensuring that not only are people able to establish entitlement to Winter Fuel Payments, but also that they can be paid this Winter – at the point at which they are needed most.”

In other words ” given your timetable some of the poorest could wait to winter 2025 to get a penny”.

And it questions the headline figure of £1.3 million savings pointing out it could vary because of the extra costs of paying out more pension credit. The government only provides one example – assuming a 5 per cent extra take up from the 880,000 who could get it.

The letter says: This figure is ” representing a little over 100,000 additional households. We have not been presented with any rationale for such a central case estimate (corresponding to a closing by just 14% of eligible non-recipients).”

The committee would expect the government to provide a range of estimates – and points out that if they don’t provide one, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility will do it for them in the Budget.

It adds; ” this is no substitute for the Department’s timely analysis in support of its own proposals disconnected from the Budget process.”

5000 pensioners could be worse off by switching to pension credit

When it comes to flaws the most glaring one affects a small minority of 5,000 of the 10.8 million pensioners who are affected who claim child tax credits. If they claim pension credit to get the fuel allowance , it reveals, THEY COULD BE WORSE OFF because they lose the child tax credit. And the Department has not even told them.

The letter says: ” In the absence of any tailored communications for this group during the current take-up campaign, the Committee is concerned about the potential for confusion about what this group should do. In particular, there is a potential risk that some people may take steps to move onto Pension Credit in the belief that this would be beneficial, but ultimately be financially disadvantaged.”

It calls for an urgent change to the regulations to allow any pensioner who inadvertently does this to revert back to the existing system.

Then there those on housing benefit – a means tested benefit which does not qualify by itself for pension credit.

The committee says: “The Committee understands that take-up of pensioner Housing Benefit is higher than for Pension Credit and that around 120,000 pensioners on HB only might qualify for Pension Credit if they claimed it.”

It urgently recommends that these people are passported straight onto pension credit for this year only while their claims for pension credit are checked.

Finally there are the disabled. “The Department estimates that around 71% (1.6 million) of people with a disability will lose entitlement to the allowance.” Again the committee calls for the government to target those people who claim means tested benefits because they are disabled to make them aware of pension credit.

It goes on to criticise the government for not having an impact assessment of its own proposals – Sir Keir Starmer thought it wasn’t necessary – and warn the government that the Public Sector Equality Duty could be breached.

“Having identified any disparities in impact across protected groups, we would like to have a greater understanding of how this evidence has influenced, and been reflected in, the regulations. For example, what anticipatory actions have been taken; and what types of disparity are considered a necessary consequence of the policy intent?”

In fact according to the Office for National statistics the cuts are aimed almost exclusively at white British people – only five per cent of those affected are from ethnic minorities.

This again shows how rushed regulations can be full of holes and unintended consequences and that neither Sir Keir Starmer nor Rachel Reeves took enough care over drafting them. Perhaps they genuinely don’t care, as pensioners can’t play a role in their growth plans and the sooner they die off the better. I wonder whether either of them have any grandparents.

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00

£10.00

£20.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Coffey sneaks through tough plan to push 114,000 Universal Credit claimants into jobs while Parliament is in recess

Posted on August 14, 2022 by davidhencke

The Department of Work and Pensions is to tighten the rules significantly to force 114,000 existing Universal Credit claimants into work as job vacancies soar across Britain.

She is changing the rules so far more people will have to go on what is known as an intensive work search regime where they will be monitored continually by work coaches on how many jobs they have applied for and why they didn’t get them.

Therese Coffey has been planning to do this since January this year and consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee, chaired by the architect of Universal Credit, Stephen Brien, on January 26.

Ian Caplan, DWP’s Director of Employment, Youth and Skills

A letter to the committee from Ian Caplan, director of employment, youth and skills said:

“The Secretary of State wishes to bring in the change as soon as practically possible…for providing immediate support to low-earning households to increase incomes at a time of immense cost of living pressures…. By bringing these regulations into force as quickly as possible, including by laying the regulations in recess, the Department can start making the operational preparations”

SSAC kept decision secret for 8 months

The committee approved the idea on February 4th but agreed to keep the decision secret until last week when it published the minutes of a meeting between DWP officials and the committee.

To make the change the government is using a regulation to uprate what is known as the Administrative Earnings Threshold – a device which sets the level of benefit and earnings dividing those who only receive ” a light touch” regime – ie occasional checks whether they are seeking work – from their local job centre and those put on intensive work search programmes. Those who refuse or don’t co-operate properly with face benefit cuts as a sanction.

It will move the level from £355 to £494 a month for a single claimant and from £567 to £782 a month for a couple. At present some 250,000 people covered by the intensive work search programme are in work – this will increase the number by 50 percent. The government justify it by saying the new level brings it into line with recent rises in the national minimum wage for those in work.

What is more interesting – and perhaps why the minutes were withheld – is the question and answer session between the committee members and civil servants.

While the overall aim of the scheme is to get a higher income for the unemployed – by getting them work or more work for those in part time jobs – the DWP admit they have another agenda. Questioned about the current job vacancies level encouraging this move officials said: “the vacancies position the labour market is considered by some to be hot which could be driving inflation.”

In other words by getting more of the unemployed into work, employers would have a bigger pool of labour and would not have to offer higher wages or even compensate people for the rising cost of living.

Will the unemployed be recruited as strikebreakers?

There may now be an even more compelling reason as Therese Coffey wants this to be law from September 26, since the government plans to use agency workers to break the coming strike wave. What would suit ministers would be if the unemployed could be drafted in as agency workers leading to confrontation with striking workers on trains, buses, schools, the NHS, and the post office with shouts of ” scab” and bringing the police in to make mass arrests of strikers. A reminder of the miners’ strike.

There were other gems from the minutes – which in my view revealed the attitudes of the DWP and committee members

There was much questioning about the effect this could have on 16-24 year olds which suggested the programme could work for them. There was concern about the disabled – and an admission by the DWP that except in Yorkshire it had done hardly any research on how this could affect them.

What was tellingly missing was the complete lack of interest from the DWP or committee members about the effects on people over the age of 50 and 60. The DWP didn’t even bother to give the committee a breakdown on them. But it is a fact that the rising of the pension age to 66 -particularly among women – has seen a big increase in numbers on Universal Credit who can’t get jobs.

I really wonder whether this is prejudice. Women like Therese Coffey, who is 50, have had stellar careers and I wonder if they think women born in the 1950s and 1960s who are on the dole are failures or nonentities, don’t cause them a lot of trouble and don’t turn physically aggressive like some men. So they can be safely ignored. Certainly any thought about their plight or indeed any old person was spectacularly missing from discussion about this new drive.

Please donate to my blog to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.