A damning new analysis reveals the expected £1.4 billion in savings from axing the winter fuel payment could turn out to be much less.
Rachel Reeves tried to strike a more positive tone during a tumultuous Labour Party Conference. (Image: Getty)
Rachel Reeves’ highly controversial winter fuel payment cut may save hundreds of millions of pounds less than planned, according to a new analysis.
The move, branded “cruel” by Rosie Duffield, who gave up the Labour whip this weekend, will see pensioners lose their winter fuel payment unless they receive Pension Credit or certain other means-tested benefits.
A new analysis seen by the Observer
The Chancellor has faced stiff criticism for the plan from within her own party, as well as from opposition voices in response to the move.
Rosie Duffield branded the winter fuel cut ‘cruel’. (Image: Getty)
As it stands, around 10.8 million people receive winter fuel payments. However, under the new plans, only 1.5 million will receive the support.
However, since the plan was announced there has been a surge in Pension Credit claims – 152 percent – meaning the number of recipients of winter fuel payments could be far higher than expected.
If more Brits successfully claim Pension Credit, that will mitigate the savings the Chancellor is hoping to make.
Angela Rayner, Sir Keir Starmer, and Rachel Reeves look on during Labour Party conference. (Image: Getty)
It’s a race against time for pensioners to make applications for Pension Credit before the deadline.
Current projections suggest there may be 158,000 more claims than expected before the late December cut-off. If that happens, it will cost the Treasury £246 million.
To make matters worse, because being on Pension Credit triggers other benefits, the total bill could be an eye-watering £700m.
