So reports the BBC:
The Liberal Democrats have said if they won power they would stop the winter fuel allowance for people under 65. Anyone aged 60 can claim the allowance, worth £125 to £400, but the minimum age is due to rise to 65 in 10 years’ time.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said his party would implement the change now – saving about £400m in public spending. He said just under £200m would be used to give extra winter help to about one million severely disabled people or those who are terminally ill. …
Mr Clegg told the BBC his plan would not only save money, but put “extra fairness into the system”, by helping about a million people who currently do not qualify for the allowance.
“We say you should bring that rise in the eligibility age forward to now, that saves you about £400m and you could use some of that money to actually provide extra winter fuel payments to the very disabled or those who are terminally ill.
“Those are the kind of difficult, detailed choices which we are putting forward that no other party is being open enough about with the British public.”
This is a calculated risk on Nick Clegg’s part. The cut is a specific one, and will hit an easy-to-identify segment of the population: 60 to 65 year-olds.
It is also a move from a universal benefit – in which you accept that some who benefit do not need the money in return for increased take-up and lower administrative costs – towards targeted benefits. Nick has ruled this out in the case of child benefit, though Vince Cable is known to favour tapering the family element in tax credit.
Such are the (potential) downsides. More positively, Nick is able – rightly – to point to the fact that while Labour and the Tories talk about the need for cuts and tough choices, only the Lib Dems are so far being brave enough to put their heads above the parapet and identify actual cuts that will save money.
The question is: will that honesty convert into votes?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lochee Park - 1973 #dundeewestend
Urgent action needed on Welsh rivers
Llandow, 1950: The worst air disaster the world had seen
Electoral Calculus's local election predictions
Are memories like a row of telegraph poles?
tom arms
Simon R
Alan Jelfs
Peter Hirst
19 Comments
Brave, after a cold winter, and when fuel prices are high. It is easy to misconstrue as well – “LDs will take the winter fuel payment away from millions of vulnerable pensioners”…
BTW I thought tapering the family element in the tax credit was policy – doesn’t it provide a chunk of the funding for the pupil premium? Or am I out of date?
Wow, thats a vote winner – not.
It’s good that some of the money is being used to help people who usually slip through the system without help – those who are stuck at home through disability or illness. People who have to stay at home all day have to spend more on heating because they can’t turn the thermostat down when they go out to work.
On whether honesty is good or bad policy, I believe it’s the right thing to do. Labour will no doubt seize on it (along with Nick’s mention of Margaret Thatcher etc etc) to try to make us look like Tories in disguise, but that line of attack has little credibility when they refuse to implement fair tax reforms. We need to keep hammering on about taxes – we have clearly the best policy of any party, and it should have a wide appeal. It also immunises us from accusations of being Tory-lite. Incidentally, the £100 a year that pensioners will save from the increase in the tax-free allowance will also go a little way to compensating for the loss of £125-400 of winter fuel payement for the 60-65 year-olds.
@ Tim Leunig – to best of my knowledge, it was in Vince’s autumn discussion paper but is not official party policy. I saw a recent newspaper report saying Nick had ruled out tapering child benefit.
I see we have now started a process of inverse targeting – identify the specific groups that we will target NOT to vote Liberal Democrat! I wonder which fools thought this up.
Tony Greaves
It does seem odd to be trumpeting a policy like this that will result in a net saving of just over a thousandth of the projected annual deficit.
I never heard that it was considered good tactics to release bad news drip by drip …
It may be of interest to you to check out the current discussion of this policy proposal on the BBC Disability website “Ouch” available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F2322273?thread=7385870
This is my own contribution to that debate thus far:
Just to clarify what Clegg and co are talking about is those aged between 60 and 65 who are eligible for the Winter Fuel Allowance.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Inretirement/DG_10018657
In effect the only ones who qualify during this period are those on means tested benefits and mostly those who are on means tested benefits because of disability.
Whilst I think most would argue there is a case for removing the winter fuel allowance from wealthy people (of whatever age) via some form of basic means test, to have a policy based on only removing the benefit from the few poorest sick and disabled people who current get seen as a special case before they reach 65 and will get it as of right is sickening in the extreme.”
I then linked to this discussion of the issue here on Lib Dem Voice and commented as follows:
“To answer the question he poses will this policy impact on votes for his party?
I for one hope the answer will be a great big yes, but that the reaction will be far from a positive one at least on the part of all disabled people up and down the country as well as their families friends and any other person with a shed of decency.”
Peter Farrington
Disabled UK citizen and voter aged 57 with no political affiliations of any kind.
Just to clarify some elements of the policy –
We are proposing to extend the WFP to individuals in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), to those receiving the higher rate care component of DLA because they are terminally ill, and to families who have severely disabled children under the age of 5. It is targetted at these groups because they spend more time in their homes and therefore have higher fuel costs, yet they are also at a high risk of living in poverty.
On the other side of the equation, we are going to raise the age at which older people receive the WFP. At present anyone over 60 can claim the payments, but Government is increasing the age of eligibility to 65 in line with the increase in the state pension age for women (65 by 2020). We will simply increase the age of eligibility for WFP to 65 immediately. Many people in this age group are still working and the benefit is not at all well targeted. Of course, anyone aged 60-65 who has disabilities as set out above will continue to receive the WFP.
On an unrelated point but one raised by Tim at the top of the thread, it is our policy to taper the family element of tax credit. Child Benefit is a different thing.
Dear Pufflehuff
Many thanks for the clarification but you are I think still missing my point.
With the exception of retired women, claiming a full state pension at age 60 who get it “as of right” regardless of other circumstances, the only others able to apply below the age of 65 are those in receipt of specific means tested benefits and even then only if they are on the lowest of these like Income Support as housing benefit etc doesn’t qualify one for WFA.
The simple fact is the vast majority of those in the 60-65 group currently receiving the payments and or due to receive them in the next parliament will be people amoung the poorest and/or disabled people in the UK.
It is laudable you will now pay some groups currently not entitled to extra support, but the criteria you will suggest would pay the extra benefit to a working person who simply qualifies for high rate mobility and so not only doesn’t stay at home (not all people whi get high rate mobility do by the way) but in fact could be earning very comfortable income, say as an EHRC Commissioner or member of the ODI or 2025 for example, but take it away from all those on middle and lower rate care who are unable to work and/or unemployable having reached the age of 60 whilst already in a group suffering an extreme labour market disadvantage even if they were able to work.
This causes me to question just who in the disabled community this policy was discussed with, partly as I suspect they might well be disabled but currently working?
Or am I just being rather cynical about a few fellow disabled people here and the real answer is nobody thought to run this by disabled people at all?
Peter,
Winter Fuel Payment is awarded purely on age. You get it when you are over 60 as of right whether you are a man or woman. See the Government website, which is very clear on this http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Inretirement/DG_10018657
I think you may be confusing this with Cold Weather Payments which are paid to people on means-tested benefits such as pension credit. The Liberal Democrats are not proposing to change this at all.
Every Disabled Child Matters, Macmillan and Disability Now magazine among others have highlighted the fact that disabled people and people with terminal illnesses struggle with fuel bills.
The point Disability Now, Every Child Matters and McMillan is making is that all disabled people should be getting the WFA not that only those who are dying of cancer or on high mobility DLA or high rate DLA care because they are terminally ill or have children under 5 who are disabled.
If you are going to follow the call from the disabled community then pay WFA to all on at least middle rate DLA care and if possible also those on lower rate care especially when those people are reliant on means tested benefits.
Please just double check the actual figures for who currently gets/claims the benefit and you will find that other than women on state pensions the vast majority will be those in receipt of pension credit and/or other means tested benefita and not fit working and/or rich men aged 60-65.
Oh and just as an observation the under 5’s criteria would have meant the David Cameron would have qualified for the allowance which even allowing for the perceived advantages of a “universal” benefit in terms of reduced stigma might well lead to those truly in need that I have identified being sacrified in order to pay money to some who in all honesty do not really need it.
Many thanks for at least debating the issue though as it makes a pleasant change to at least be heard if not agreed with. LOL
Just to clarify as an independent, voluntary, unpaid benefits advisor and disability activist I do know exactly which benefit I am talking about here and would point you to the actual wording on the Direct Gov website which explains why, in the main, it is only women claiming state pension who get this benefit automatically whilst yes I agree others can apply they don’t get it automatically.
Quote:
“How to get your Winter Fuel Payment
You should automatically get the Winter Fuel Payment without applying if you’re aged 60 or over by 27 September 2009, and either:
you got a Winter Fuel Payment last winter and you still meet the conditions for getting it
you got State Pension or another benefit except Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit or Child Benefit during the week of 21–27 September 2009
If your partner is getting any of the following benefits then they will receive the Winter Fuel Payment:
Pension Credit
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance (income related)
Otherwise, if you think you qualify for a Winter Fuel Payment, then you will need to apply. Call the Winter Fuel Payment Helpline on 0845 9 15 15 15 or get a claim form online.
This means you will need to apply if you don’t claim benefits, don’t get State Pension, or if the only benefits you get are Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit or Child Benefit.”
I do accept, however, that others can apply at age 60 but they do not get it automatically which is not the same as not having the right to claim as my earlier post implied for which I apologise.
“Incidentally, the £100 a year that pensioners will save from the increase in the tax-free allowance will also go a little way to compensating for the loss of £125-400 of winter fuel payement for the 60-65 year-olds.”
Actually, it looks to me as though only those over 80 get £400, and that the maximum anyone could lose would be £250. The trouble is that those currently getting £250 include people on various benefits – many of whom may not be pensioners, and so wouldn’t benefit from the income tax changes. So no doubt quite a lot of poor people would be quite badly hit by this change.
Peter, I didn’t apply for Winter Fuel Benefit and I’m not in any of the categories you list, but I got it sent to me anyway when I reached 60. I’m not sure what system apart from invidious means testing would exclude people like myself who is working full time and in truth does not need £250 from the government at this point in my life, but I figure that as they sent it to me anyway and I’ve paid a huge amount of tax in my life I might as well have it. If LibDem cuts take the benefit away from people like me that’s fine: if people who are in genuine need suffer then it isn’t.
There is an obvious solution here and that would be to remove the automatic qualification to WFA for those under 65, other than by virtue of just being over 60, but leave the benefit in place for those under 65 I have described who currently get some form of means tested benefits as this would still remove the inequality the difference in retirement age created between men and women which prompted the lowering of the age to 60 for all without penalising those who receive the extra allowance in acknowledgement their situation is very much on a par with the average 65+ age group by reasons other than just their gender.
How about that as an alternative along with my other suggestions as above Mr Clegg?
Or perhaps by making the allowance taxable for those on incomes in excess of £15,000 per adult plus £5,000 per child as others have suggested as a way of limiting the payment of some other benefits?
You must have access to the statistics of how this would all work out cost wise as the detailed stats for WFA are apparently already in the commons library and presumably will show the breakdown of those getting WFA along with means tested benefits and those who are not in a way I am unable to as I cant get access to the stats from any other source.
The ‘Cold Comfort’ report fiound that £2.2 billion of the £2.7 billion paid in Winter Fuel Payments is going to households who are not in fuel poverty. 100,000 pensioner households who receive WFP have an income over £100,000. Meanwhile a full 49% of the ‘fuel poor’ receive no WFP.
Oh and just to answer the comment about it being OK to keep it having payed a lot of tax I should comment that in the twenty plus years I was able to work before becoming disabled I was well paid and probably paid more in tax and national insurance in those years than the average wage earner pays in a full 40+ years as a tax payer, but due to my condition may well be lucky to see 60 let alone 65 given recent confirmation of what has caused my worsening disability over the years even though the condition itself is not “terminal” in the way some but not all cancers are and I will die with it not necessarilly from it. 🙁
I’m 60 years old and self employed. If I don’t work I have no income. My health isn’t as good as it could be and the Winter Fuel Payment is a little boost that helps in an ‘every penny counts’ situation. You tinker with that payment at the cost of mine and my wife’s vote. Tax the bankers – they started this mess!
Im not sure whats going on is the winter fuel being stopped for 60 onwards or is going to stay the same for next 10years then change im confussed also whats happening wth state pension is thats safe without these people would be so much poverty and how can the pensioners keep warm in the winter,can anyone tell whats going on and explain it to me .Thank you