Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Honorary Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.
This week’s vote in Parliament on the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) was a test of whether this Government has any consideration for the pensioner.
The Labour government scrapping of the Winter Fuel Allowance discriminates within the pensioner group. The WFA has not been means-tested; it is an allowance paid annually to help aged people pay for their home heating to keep them warm in winter. It is not defined as a benefit.
Keeping aged people warm is a precautionary measure rather than see them ill and potentially needing GP and other medical assistance and even admitted to hospital. Blaming the previous government has nothing to do with this current political decision
Many pensioners rely on the WFA to top up their gas and electricity bills so that they maintain heating in their homes during the winter; this especially applies to those aged over 80 years
The nagging point is that suddenly the Labour government has moved the goal posts by scrapping the WFA except for those receiving pension credit, opening up an ideological question of who is defined as wealthy. Many pensioners may have assets but are income poor.
How do pensioners get the means-tested pension credit? Well, for a start they have to declare their earnings and savings – not something this group of the population has been brought up to do.
They are law abiding, value privacy, have been prudent in their finances, and most will not have a chartered accountant to look after them. They do not wish to be a burden on the State; many live alone.
But here we have a Labour government suggesting they could claim pension credit. The argument appears to be counter-productive. The Chancellor has said in parliament this WFA withdrawal will save £1.5bn – but if every person eligible claimed pension credit it will cost more than the savings made from the withdrawal of WFA!
This group of people have been brought up all their lives to be prudent. Always have funds for a rainy day. Many will have lived through rationing during and after WWII.
Rationing did not cease until 1954 and even after that certain commodities were difficult to obtain. The idea of having no funds was to be avoided. During that rationing period many people had to do without, or barter” to obtain food, clothing, and perhaps even coal for the fire.
To obtain a pension credit means no savings above £10,000 – and every £500 over £10,000 counts as £1 income a week. For example, if you have £11,000 in savings, this counts as £2 income a week. you therefore exceed that figure.
The point, in any case, is they don’t want to declare what savings they have, and that today’s pensioners are now being discriminated against simply because they are not seeking the pension credit. They like to have savings for emergency needs; they do not want state handouts.
The basic pension is £156.20 per week, or £8122 per annum; the new state pension is £203.85 per week, or £10600 per annum. This is well below the minimum living wage (£11.44 per hour, equivalent £21,670 per annum) recognised as being required to have a decent standard of living.
The majority of pensioners are not able to supplement their earning, although some do. Instead of cutting out the WFA, is there not an argument for examining a Pensioners Living Wage?
Their pension is calculated based on what NIC contributions they have made during their working lives. It is not a handout, not a benefit, but what they have paid into the system. It is a payment by right and not means tested.
Perhaps if Labour were being logical they would scrap the WFA for everybody. Of course that would create considerable opposition. It would certainly destroy their ideology that people without savings deserve protection. Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to care and look after our aged population?
These pensioners are not working people, although they are being treated that way. But working-age people are where the Government should be looking for savings.
Labour needs to investigate fully all recipients of sickness and disability benefit to establish if they are fit to work. There are 2.9 million people on sickness and disability benefits; perhaps some savings could be made there. We see reported that some GP’s after a six minute telephone consultation charge £35 to sign the patient off; there is clearly something wrong there.
There are also nine million inactive people who don’t pay tax and NIC; some might be on benefits. The Government should investigate saving from this sector of the population – not penalise pensioners.
Remember, the reason the WFA is not means-tested because (unlike pension credit) it is not a benefit. Nothing was said about in the Labour manifesto about changing that. This is a process of taxation by stealth.
The Labour Government is penalising pensioners who have some savings and forgetting that a basic pension is not a living wage. If they were being logical they would withdraw the WFA for everybody. But no – they are working on an ideological idea that if the pensioner is not in receipt of the pension credit, the pensioner is wealthy.
We as Conservatives should oppose this petty approach and speak up for pensioners
