Support for Pensioners

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

14:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for pensioners. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I have secured this debate because not only do pensioners represent an enormous portion of our population—over 10 million people—but the way we support them impacts every single person in this country. From the start to the end of our careers, we should all aspire to a comfortable retirement for ourselves and our loved ones. I know the Government understand that, because before the election they made big pitches to pensioners. The now Work and Pensions Secretary said: “Labour are determined to once again be the Pensioners Party.” The now Prime Minister said: “My Labour Party will always be on the side of pensioners”. Members may recall that Labour’s manifesto featured the heartbreaking story of Gary, a pensioner who was struggling to heat his house on his pension. I feel immensely for people like Gary, who have struggled when times were really tough, and who voted with hope for a Government that they believed would reduce their energy bills and look after vulnerable pensioners.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he is making. Only today I heard from a pensioner in West Worcestershire on an income of £13,500 who was stripped of his winter fuel allowance last year. He is having to live in only one room, as that is all he can afford to heat. Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to hear that example?

I am absolutely shocked, and I will come on to mention a few stories from my own constituents. They are very similar, and I think we are hearing these stories up and down the country.

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges that older people are facing. I note that there are no Labour Back Benchers here to contribute to the debate. We have the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, so the payroll are here, but despite all the rhetoric during the general election campaign about supporting pensioners, Labour Back Benchers do not seem to be willing to stand up for them in this debate.

I had noted the same, but I was going to wait until the end of the debate to see if any sneaked in. Perhaps the Whips are calling them now—who knows? We will see whether any turn up to defend the current Government’s record. The simple reality is that hope for more support was misplaced. Instead, energy bills are up and support for vulnerable pensioners has been cut. The Prime Minister said in April that Britain’s pensioners want politicians who will be straight with them, and I agree. Here is the truth: whatever the failings of the previous Government, and whatever difficulties they had grappling with the impacts of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and their own missteps at times, they always tried to support pensioners. As recently as March last year, the now Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), admitted on social media that “pensioners are an average of £1,000 better off” as a result of policies since 2010. He may want to reflect on that when he sums up this debate. Last winter, Gary might well have received £600 from his winter fuel payment and his pensioner cost of living payment; this winter, he might well have received nothing. Like an estimated 9.2 million pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment this winter, Gary may have found himself without the vital support he received last winter to make that choice between heating and eating a little less difficult.

My hon. Friend is making some really important points, particularly with the examples of pensioners who find themselves trapped. The crux of this issue the unfairness, but it is also about the speed with which this policy decision—this political choice—was made. Even as recently as 27 April 2024, the now Prime Minister was saying: “Britain’s pensioners deserve better. They deserve certainty, and for politicians to be straight with them so they can plan their lives.” This is not an example of fairness, it is not an example of certainty, and it is certainly not an example of being straight with pensioners.

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to the importance of certainty and stability when it comes to pensions, so that people can plan for their futures, regardless of their age. For the Government to pull the rug out from under the feet of vulnerable pensioners with little or no notice at all is absolutely shameful. Gary has seen the Government that he voted for with hope and optimism for a better life snatch away the lifeline he relied on. If he is on the old basic state pension, he will have seen 86.5% of his triple lock-backed increase snatched back. Indeed, he could well find that it will take until 2027-28 for his income to reach the level that he might have expected to see this winter. Gary is not alone, because although this Government talk about millionaire pensioners being able to cope, for many of the 9.2 million pensioners losing their winter fuel payment, that really was vital support. The average pensioner, far from being the millionaire fat cat that the Government would like us all to imagine, earns just over £22,000 per year—similar to the income of a worker on the living wage. The level at which the threshold to keep winter fuel payments was set for a single pensioner means that someone could be bringing in less than £1,000 per month and now be one of the “millionaire pensioners” on whose shoulders the Government have chosen to balance the books. Age UK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty or just above the poverty line, including 1.1 million pensioners with a disability, will lose their winter fuel payment. I have heard so many stories from constituents in Mid Bedfordshire about the impact that that will have on them—stories of people who have had to make the stark choice between heating and eating this winter. I heard from a constituent who now cannot shower, who cooks a hot meal just once a week, and who can turn on their heating only when it is “unbearably freezing”. One constituent told me of the struggles to keep their 92-year-old father warm. Their father has dementia, and he keeps worrying about the bills.

My hon. Friend mentions dementia. Nearly 1 million pensioners in this country are living with dementia. Two weeks ago, NHS England published its priorities, and dementia had been removed, as had the target for diagnosing it. Does he agree that that is a huge concern, not only for those living with dementia, but for the millions of family members and friends who support them?

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately for people living with dementia and their families, and he makes a very important point. It is another shameful decision by this Government not to support the most vulnerable in our society, and people should be shocked by it. Another constituent told me that they have stopped using their cooker and that they now find it difficult even to dry their washing. This Government promised that they would be on the side of pensioners. However, as a constituent recently summed it up for me, they feel “terribly let down by the Government”. They are right to feel like that. This Government have let my constituents—indeed, all our pensioners—down. They have balanced the books on the backs of people earning less than £1,000 per month. Even if someone is still eligible for winter fuel payments, they will get them only if they have signed up for pension credit. The arbitrary barrier of the pension credit threshold will mean that many of our poorest pensioners—Age UK estimates that around 1 million people have weekly incomes of less than £50 above the poverty line—will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. Potentially hundreds of thousands of even poorer pensioners will miss out on vital support, because the Government expect them to answer over 200 questions—two hundred questions—to access the help they need. Perhaps I am being unfair.

No.

My hon. Friend says no, but I was making a rhetorical statement. Perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps the Government care deeply about supporting pensioners and have been working tirelessly to help them. Well, there is another problem there, because a Government working tirelessly to support the most vulnerable pensioners would know exactly how many needed support and how many were missing. They would have a tracker counting down towards zero, and a working culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that meant it did not rest until everyone who needed support received it. Do they have that culture? No, they do not. The Government have already admitted that they have set no targets for pension credit sign-ups, and last month they could not even give me an estimate of how many pensioners below the pension credit threshold will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. It is utterly shameful.

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He is rightly highlighting the weaknesses of the Labour Government in supporting pensioners. Does he agree that in many communities, the voluntary and third sector is now stepping forward to provide that support? In my area we have the Borders Older People’s Forum, the warm-ups in St Boswells village hall, the Hawick dementia café and multiple other examples of the voluntary and third sector stepping forward to provide the support that the Government should be providing.

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. Yes, the third sector has come forward to support, but what have the Government done to the third sector? They have applied national insurance increases and reduced the threshold, causing pain and suffering for the sector that our constituents now rely on because the Government have stepped away from their responsibilities. The support that the Government have given pensioners to cover off the impacts of their decision to cut winter fuel payments is merely the thinnest of political spin. The most prominent such cover is the extension of the household support fund, which itself is an attempt to outsource the protection of vulnerable residents to already under-pressure local authorities that should be focused on delivering high-quality public services. But it is worse than just outsourcing the problem, because a bit of examination showed that up to be the most disappointing example of the empty words our constituents hate. Despite the spin, the truth is that the household support fund simply has not been designed with pensioners in mind. The east of England receives £32.90 per pensioner. London receives double that: £66.73. When I first saw those numbers and the Government’s description of the household support fund as mitigation for pensioners, I wondered why London’s pensioners had been deemed so much more deserving of support, so I wrote to the Secretary of State. I got the simple answer that the fund is not intended to be targeted at pensioners. The Government have even admitted to me that they do not know how much of the household support fund went to pensioners this winter. Age UK estimates that typically, £1 in every £10 the household support fund pays out goes to pensioners. What does all that mean for our pensioners? It means more pensioners in hospital—nearly 20,000 more in November and December 2024 than in the same months in 2023, a 6.6% increase. That is 6.6% more stress on our already overstretched health services, and it is nearly 20,000 more pensioners suffering in hospital and potentially suffering lasting ill health, because this Government, which some of them voted for in the belief that they would look after them, forced them to make a choice between heating and eating. It means tens of thousands more pensioners in poverty. Those are the Government’s own statistics.

Does my hon. Friend think it is notable that current chief medical officer, who remains in post under this Government, in his 2023 annual report, cited specifically the concern that cold homes were a driver of hospital admissions? My hon. Friend will also note that delayed discharge from hospital is often a cause of pressure in urgent and emergency care departments, yet the Government have again delayed any changes to social care. While we all recognise that there are often challenges—indeed, as a Minister, I faced them myself—the hypocrisy of those who suggested before the election that there were simple solutions, and yet are now taking decisions that are actively leading to elderly, frail patients being admitted to hospital, at the same time as other decisions are deliberately delayed, is striking.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. My original speech had an element of social care in it, but I took it out, so I am pleased that he brought that up. This Government have kicked social care reform down the road, and we can kick it down the road no longer. We have to face up to these difficult and tough decisions. There are no simple answers to these things, but my right hon. Friend makes a good point and I agree with him. I have used the example of winter fuel payments to demonstrate a simple truth. This Government told pensioners that they were on their side. They campaigned for their votes. The Pensions Minister—again, I have been watching his X or Twitter—was even at the pensioners club in Swansea just days before the general election, no doubt reassuring them that he was on their side. Perhaps when he comes to respond he will tell us what he was doing. They have let our pensioners down, without apology, without owning their decision, and without any care for what it might mean for millions of the most vulnerable people in our society. Now the 9.2 million pensioners—13.5% of the UK population—who are losing their winter fuel payment see the Government talking about sending money that could pay for it many times over to Mauritius. If they care about helping pensioners, they are out of their depth. They did not think about the impact of their decisions and have not bothered to monitor it. If they do not care, they gave pensioners false hope and took it away as soon as the votes were counted. What a sad state of affairs. On too many issues, the Labour party was happy to talk the talk in opposition, but is unwilling to, or perhaps incapable of, walking the walk in government. In June, the now Work and Pensions Secretary decried the number of pensioners paying tax going up under the Conservatives. In November 2023, the now Chancellor said that the Government were picking people’s pockets by not increasing tax thresholds. Now that the Labour Government are in charge, an estimated 2 million more pensioners will be paying tax by 2032. Time and again we see the same old Labour party, which will say anything to get votes and nothing to help when in government.

On the subject of broken promises, before the general election, the now Prime Minister said that there would be no increases in council tax. However, many of the 64,000 pensioners across the Bradford district who will be impacted by the winter fuel allowance will also have a 10% increase in their council tax as a result of our local Labour-run administration. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the broken promise of the winter fuel allowance that will impact pensioners, but the broken promise of increased council tax?

Indeed, the winter fuel allowance is one example of many broken promises. I know that my constituents feel let down by this Labour Government, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising some pertinent examples from his constituency. Where do we go from here? Well, I am here to help the Government with some simple ways in which they can help our pensioners.

I don’t think they are listening.

I do not think they are listening either, but let’s try. The Minister for Employment has told me previously about the Government’s desire to help pensioners reduce their energy bills, and I agree. There was a flagship policy in Labour’s manifesto, but good intentions alone are not enough to reduce energy bills. The Government’s Great British Energy pet project will not produce any energy. It will not employ anything near the number of people they said it would, and its boss cannot say when it will reduce energy bills. For many pensioners, that simply will not be soon enough. It is not just the Government’s GB Energy plans that are a mirage. They want to improve energy efficiency, but they cannot say where their warm home grants will be spent. They cannot say how many of the worst impacted properties off the energy grid are listed buildings that would need more specialist support. All the energy wasted on plans that will not bring down energy bills could have been better spent taking real steps to reduce them. While the Government have been talking about reducing energy bills, they have gone up by £170. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve real, focused action to drive up energy efficiency and drive down energy bills. From the private sector I know that the old axiom “what gets measured gets done” is more than a cliché. The Government need to start taking seriously getting every single person eligible for pension credit signed up for it. To do that, they need to set out a credible, measurable plan with targets that we can all hold them to account on. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve a real focus to make sure that the most vulnerable pensioners get the help they need. Getting them that help will also help the Government in their mission to grow the economy. Independent Age found that spending an additional £2.1 billion on pension credit for all eligible pensioners would save the NHS and social care around £4 billion. That is extra money to spend on the Government’s priorities—growing the economy and delivering better public services while protecting the most vulnerable pensioners. We must also go further to ensure that the Government are able to support both the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. People need confidence and certainty in pensions to plan. That is a lesson we must learn from the winter fuel fiasco, and indeed from the legacy of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Politicians cannot continue to promise things that cannot be delivered. We have a duty in this place to deliver the things we promise. That means ensuring that we put the state pension on a long-term sustainable footing with a plan that looks to the future. During this Parliament we must clearly communicate to the young people starting work now the support that they can expect to receive from the state when they retire, so that from their first days in work young people can start to plan for a comfortable retirement. We must get pensions reform right—I think the Minister will agree with that—so that young people have good choices available to them as they build financially secure futures. In doing so, we can build greater financial resilience so that the next generation of pensioners, and those that come after, will never have to worry about choosing between heating and eating again. To do anything else would be a dereliction of the duty we have been entrusted with by our constituents. The Government promised pensioners that they would deliver for them. Instead, they have chosen to balance the books on the backs of people who cannot simply turn around and go back to work, and who cannot find an extra £50 behind the sofa to turn on the heating this week. Although the Government can hide behind shameful, politically driven characterisations of some of the poorest in our society as millionaire pensioners to justify snatching away vital support, pensioners know the truth. Labour were elected on a promise to make pensioners’ lives easier; they have done the opposite. Over the next four years we all have a duty to do better for the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. I hope that the Government will get a grip quickly and rise to that challenge.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

14:53:00

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. Adequate Government support for pensioners is vital to ensuring dignity in old age. Indeed, the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which it looks after vulnerable people. Many, many pensioners have only the state pension as their main source of income. The UK Government’s recent action to cut support for pensioners has rightfully been met with anger. Labour MPs, including all Scottish Labour MPs, voted to cut the winter fuel payment for 900,000 Scots. Weeks later, Scottish Labour MSPs voted against an SNP Government motion demanding that the UK Government reverse the introduction of means-testing of the winter fuel payment. Now Anas Sarwar claims they are going to deliver it if he is elected next year. Pensioners do not have time for that kind of Scottish Labour false promise while their benefits are being cut. Ministers point to the uptake in pension credit as some sort of mitigation for the cut in the winter fuel payment, but it seems ridiculous that the cut was not delayed to allow for a longer uptake campaign. I hope the Minister will tell us, because I do not understand yet, what the trade-off is between the revenue raised by the cut in the winter fuel payment and the uptake of pension credit. If the uptake increases to, say, 50% or 60%, what does that do to the money that the cut is supposed to be raising? If the Government had delayed the cut, that would have ensured that pensioners do not miss out and would have reduced the number of pensioners going cold this winter. I come from one of the coldest parts of these islands. Hon. Members have probably heard of Braemar, which is often said to be one of the coldest parts of the UK. It is in the north-east, close to Balmoral, the King’s private estate. Many, many pensioners in the north-east are feeling the effects of this cold winter. I totally endorse the comments that were made about the impact that has on people’s health, the increased admission rate to hospital, the increased number of delayed discharges, and the increased number of avoidable deaths. In the general election, Labour was elected on a platform of change, but I and many voters had no idea that that change would be to cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners. I am old enough to remember previous Labour Governments, and I do not recognise this Government as a real Labour Government. They just do not seem like the kind of Government I was expecting. At least one colleague in this Chamber was with me when we had a debate on fuel poverty in England. We heard about all sorts of measures that the Government could be taking, such as social tariffs, social prescribing and, perhaps more importantly, some form of windfall tax on the obscene profits that energy companies are making—I think the figure cited was £423 billion or something of that order. A windfall tax on that level of profit would absolutely dwarf any saving from the cut to the winter fuel payment. In contrast to the UK Government, the Scottish SNP Government will provide universal support through the introduction of the pension-age winter heating payments next year, which will ensure a payment for every pensioner household in the winter of 2025-26. Pensioners in receipt of a qualifying benefit such as pension credit will receive that benefit at a rate of £300 or £200, depending on their age. Meanwhile, all other pensioners will receive £100 from next winter, providing them with support not available anywhere else in the UK. The SNP Government in Scotland have shown that the UK Government’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment was wholly political. For reasons that I do not understand, they chose to punish pensioners, especially those just above benefit thresholds. As already said, another failure of pensioner support from the UK Government—both Labour and Conservative, I must add—was on WASPI compensation. I was shocked to see that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who happily posed for a photograph with WASPI women while in opposition, ignored them and the ombudsman report, which demanded compensation, as soon as she came to power. Other policy decisions are hurting pensioners. For example, the employer’s national insurance contribution charges are leading to reduced third-sector service provision. The farmers family tax is leading to higher prices at the supermarket, and that hits the most vulnerable people in society, including pensioners.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the important role that third-sector organisations play in our society. Was he as shocked as I was to learn from Marie Curie cancer care not only that the increase in national insurance will cost it several million pounds a year, but that the winter fuel allowance is being taken from 44,000 terminally ill pensioners?

I completely agree with the hon. Member —that is absolutely shocking. I was not aware of that particular statistic, but I have spoken several times on the Floor of the House about the plight of hospices. Only this morning, I heard from Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, which is facing a cut of £250,000 as a result of those extra employer’s national insurance contributions. That association does not yet know what the impact of that cut will be, but the two people on my call this morning might well lose their jobs. We are speaking here about nurses and other support workers who provide essential support to people after a stroke. That is the impact of those national insurance changes on such organisations. I will wind up by simply saying—as I said earlier—that to me, all of this shows that this Government fundamentally do not understand the situation of so many pensioners throughout the UK.

15:00:00

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing today’s debate. As others have pointed out, it is rather sad that the Labour Benches are empty today. I can only guess that Labour Members are not interested in this issue, or perhaps they did not receive the message from the Whips suggesting that they come along. We on the Conservative Benches speak to our constituents day in, day out. We knock on doors and listen to people, and we know that this issue is not going away. Thousands and thousands—millions—of pensioners out there are hurting, and they are worried about the lack of the winter fuel payment. To some, £300 may not seem like very much, but perhaps the Minister needs to be made aware that to someone on a fixed or low income, £300 is literally the difference between heating and eating. It enables them to turn their heating up when the winter weather hits. People who do not get the winter fuel payment will not get the cold weather payment either, so it is not just a single whammy; it has a multiplying effect. One of the most shocking, or saddest, things about this issue is that it was literally days into this Labour Government’s tenure that the Chancellor announced that she was scrapping the winter fuel payment, and just weeks ahead of the winter. We are still only in February—we have not seen the winter through yet—and we have already witnessed and felt plummeting temperatures. Our pensioners have had no time to prepare for this; no time to try to save, or to work out whether they can afford to have a bit of extra insulation in their homes. They have had no time to even fill in the form to apply for pension credit, hoping that they might be eligible for it. We have spoken today about the third sector helping our pensioners. Some pensioners go to the third sector for help with filling in their pension credit application form. I do not know whether the Minister has actually seen that form, but believe you me, I have. It is pages and pages—questions upon questions. I opened that document and thought, “Oh my goodness, where do I start?” I would like to think that I am quite intelligent and technologically minded, but even I found that form to be an absolute nightmare, so how does a person who is 83 and is sitting at home feel? Those pensioners might not have somebody who can help them to fill in that form, so they are excluded—not just digitally excluded, but excluded from being kept warm. I hope that the Government are listening today. I have also tabled a series of written parliamentary questions, because it was clear from the very beginning that the Government had not made a full assessment of what the situation looked like and what it might look like. That includes the impact on our health services and on social care, but fundamentally, this is about the impact on pensioners sitting at home and on their health. I have often struggled to get meaningful answers out of the DWP. I must admit that I table quite a lot of written questions and ask a lot of questions in the main Chamber, as my constituents would expect me to do, but of late, I have been trying to find out something really important: how many people who are eligible for pension credit were waiting for their winter fuel payment at the end of last year, and again as of 31 January. The DWP replied: “Where the customer is eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment, the Department aims to make this payment within 2 weeks of the award of Pension Credit. Customers won’t miss out on Winter Fuel Payments even if their qualifying benefit takes longer to process than usual.” I remind the Department and Ministers that some people cannot wait—they need that money. They need that payment to be processed now, while we are in the winter period. Those people have their bills to pay now, so I gently urge the Minister to do anything that he can to speed up payments to those who are eligible. That would be one tiny thing that might help some people. We rightly talk a lot about the people who are eligible, but there is also a big group of pensioners who are just over the threshold. They are the ones who are really hurting because they qualify for nothing. Pension credit is, I think, classed as a trigger benefit. If someone gets pension credit, it triggers the winter fuel payment. It is all means-tested. I completely understand that, but as I say, there are pensioners who are getting absolutely nothing. They are the ones who are really facing hard decisions. “Shall I put the heating on today? Shall I put the oven on today? Actually, I can’t afford to put the oven on. I don’t have a microwave. I might have to have a cold lunch.” That is no good if you are ageing and in ill health. The other anomaly that I want to raise is someone who is on attendance allowance but seriously ill. They do not have a huge amount of money, but are over the current eligibility level for pension credit. They are missing out on winter fuel payments as well, and they are often the people who really need extra heating at home. Again, it is the difference between keeping warm or not. We know that some people spend more time in bed in the hope that they can keep warm. For all the wonderful work that our churches and community organisations do providing places of welcome and helping in the community, a whole group of people cannot even leave their homes because of mobility and health issues. If we are not there to support them, what is their life like? Does it mean just lying in bed, feeling more and more isolated? We already know that social isolation is a problem among older people. I could go on and on, but I will resist doing so. We know that 14% of pensioners are in destitute poverty. Can we imagine what that must be like? I find it incredible that a Labour Government have made this callous decision on winter fuel. For those who are in receipt of pension credit, how can the Government continue to justify this policy? People are not being treated fairly, while at the same time the Government are in discussions with the Mauritian Government. We hear the sum of £18 billion talked about. The Government deny that, often saying that it is £9 billion. I frankly do not care whether it is £9 billion or £18 billion. I have strong views on what is happening with regard to the Chagos islands, but when we relate it to the winter fuel allowance, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) did in the House the other day, when she highlighted that that money is enough to pay winter fuel payments to all pensioners for the next 12 years, I think that starts to give some context about where the Government’s priorities lie.

15:08:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for setting the scene incredibly well. I hate to say this, and apologise for doing so, but I am disappointed that no Labour Back Benchers are present because, as the Minister will know, my allegiance lies to the left of politics. That is who I am, but the party that I expected to be the party of conscience is no longer that party. I spoke to my friend, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), before I rose to speak. I am very conscious that it is not Opposition Members that put it into law that the winter fuel allowance would be withdrawn from pensioners; it is Government Members. That is incredibly disappointing for me. The party of conscience, as I saw it, is no longer the party of conscience. I say that with deep regret, but I say it honestly, because that is how I feel, and I have to put it on the record. Although the previous Government did it, we will take the credit for it. Remember that the DUP was in partnership with the Conservative party. As part of that deal, we secured the triple lock on pensions for our people. Everybody gains from that. To be fair to the Labour party, it is committed to it, and I do not see any changes coming in that regard—at least I hope to goodness that no changes are coming. For a certain period of time, that helped to keep pensioners out of poverty due to cost of living increases, not least the ever-escalating fuel bills. Even the triple lock cannot keep up with prices. Poverty among older people is the highest it has been since the 2008 recession. Northern Ireland, where oil instead of gas is more often used to warm houses, has seen sharp price rises. Indeed, I understand that 68% of houses in Northern Ireland depend on oil. Over the past three years, National Energy Action has experienced a significant rise in the number of households seeking emergency support because high energy prices and wider cost of living pressures mean they can no longer afford to keep their homes warm and safe. That is something to which I can testify. Many people get food bank vouchers from my office in Newtownards. My constituency had the first food bank in all of Northern Ireland. A good thing about the food bank is that it brings together the churches, individuals and organisations that wish to help. Sometimes we can focus on the dire need, but we should also focus on the fact that it brings good people together to help. There is a goodness out of it, and one that I am pleased to support. My office is the biggest referrer for food bank vouchers in the whole of the constituency. The food bank does wonderful things and helps people in their hour of need.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wonderful work that food banks do, but does he agree that it is a source of shame to this country that food bank usage is growing?

Yes, it is disappointing, and I cannot ignore that fact. I always like to think that good people come together, reach out and try to address those issues, but the hon. Gentleman is right that they should not have to. In September 2023, NEA undertook a Northern Ireland-wide representative survey to assess the impact of energy prices on households. The survey found that 41% of households in Northern Ireland were spending at least 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs, and were therefore in fuel poverty. The continued pressure on household budgets has led to a rise in detrimental coping mechanisms. Those systems that should be in place to help are clearly unable to. For example, 19% of households told the survey that they had gone without heating oil, gas or electricity in the past 24 months because they were unable to afford energy. One in 10 households admitted to skipping meals to ensure they had enough money to pay for energy. Others have referred to that. The pensioners I speak to are vulnerable, have complex health needs and have disability issues. Sometimes they have no family. As others have said, they have to look after themselves, but they are unable to. That dismays me greatly. Data shows that close to one in five households over over-60s are now in such severe fuel poverty that their homes are being kept in a condition that “endangers the health” of the inhabitants. What happens when someone cannot heat their house? The house deteriorates, the mould grows and the damp grows. It is a fact: people have to have a level of heat in their houses; otherwise, they will deteriorate. That is an impact that is perhaps not often seen. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will remember the debate this morning in which a constituent was mentioned: an elderly person, over 70, who was living in a house with a leak in the roof. He did not have the ability to fix it, had no family to fall back on and did not qualify for any grants for it. The deterioration of houses cannot be ignored. Fuel poverty among pensioners is dangerous and must be addressed. I recently went to the home of a lady who was applying for attendance allowance. I am no better than anybody else, but I know how to fill in forms—I know how to do all the benefit forms, and I have done them for umpteen years; I know how they work, and I know the right words to say on behalf of a deserving constituent. When I was on the election trail in July, going round the doors, I acquired between 80 and 90 attendance allowance forms. Those constituents did not qualify for pension credit, but we were able to get them on to attendance allowance, as I will explain with one of my examples. Those forms take at least an hour to fill in, and I have a staff member who does nothing but fill in forms five days a week—sometimes six. Let us be honest: I am no spring chicken any more. I am a pensioner and I will be reaching quite a significant figure shortly, but I am pretty strong. I think I am strapping, although I am not sure whether my wife agrees—she is the one who really matters. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has a great interest in shooting; I could probably stand shooting for the best part of the day in cold weather, as long as the pheasants and the pigeons kept coming over my head.

Not only standing, but I recall that in the debate on Monday, the hon. Gentleman was sitting next to the Minister, such was the pressure on seats. Given that none of the Minister’s colleagues have bothered to come to the debate, perhaps he might consider sitting over there again and giving the Minister a little company. As other hon. Members did, the hon. Gentleman is talking quite rightly about the speed and the targeting of the policy. The point is that it was a choice. There is a debate to be had about universal benefits and targeted benefits, but the speed with which it was done meant that some of the targeting, such as for pension credit, was not addressed. That has caused the cliff edge that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about, so that if someone is just over the threshold, they lose out entirely. On choices, the Government have chosen to fund not just the Chagos deal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, but the above-inflation pay rises to trade union workforces such as train drivers. The hardship cases set out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others show that this issue is not about a wider debate on the economy, the mistakes made in the Budget or their effect on our growth projections, but about choice. The Government have chosen to give money to their other priorities—but before the election, they told pensioners that they would choose to prioritise them.

Order. The right hon. Member is a man of great of experience and he knows that this is an intervention, rather than a speech.

The right hon. Gentleman was doing so well that I felt like leaving him in full flow. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on that issue. I was successful with that lady’s attendance allowance form, and I am pleased that the benefits system justified her claim given her complex health needs, including mobility issues. In that lady’s case, it enables her to get £436 per month, or £5,130 a year, which fills the gap from not getting the pension credit. However, not everyone qualifies for that allowance, which is what the right hon. Member referred to. The lady’s home was on the brink of freezing, and she very openly said that she was hopeful of getting the attendance allowance to fill the tank with oil, which she did. She justified her claim and she deserved it, but she should have got it years ago. She did not apply because she did not know about the allowance, so perhaps the Minister could look into contacting pensioners directly. I find the pensioners who I deal with regularly to be very independent, and they are nearly apologetic for applying for a benefit. They say, “Oh no, I don’t think I’d qualify for that,” but when we ask them questions, we suddenly find out that they do. My office staff were able to secure a Bryson energy grant to put some oil in that lady’s tank in the short term. When people say that pensioners are getting more than ever, I can only think of that wee lady in her cold home, who quite clearly was not. That lady is not the only one. Local churches, such as the House Church and Christian Fellowship Church, make their facilities available to people for food and meals, as well as to come and read—or “sit and knit”, as they call it—in their warm facilities in Newtownards town. I am greatly encouraged by people’s goodness, so I am thankful for the churches and the voluntary sector that step up when the Government fail. I want to clarify one final issue, although I am very conscious that somebody else wants to speak and I do not want to take up their time. A further issue of concern for pensioners are the letters that come from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with no explanation, and ask women in their 80s to go online, fill out a tax application and pay back taxes. I have one lady whose husband’s pension is £50 per month and that puts her over the threshold. Honestly, I get so frustrated, and I know that wee lady was even more frustrated than me. She had to pay back a tax bill of £280, and of course, she said, “Look, take my husband’s pension. I don’t want it any more. It’s only giving me bother. I don’t know how to fill the forms in.” So there is an issue about pursuing that, and we have to reach out and help people who get those sudden letters. I conclude with this: my party has sought to divert some of the block grant as a small help for pensioners in fuel poverty, recognising that they need that help. I understand that the Government cannot pay all of the fuel bills, but I believe that we can do better, and help more, and I look to the Minister to do just that.

15:20:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate, and indeed for his strong speech. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), or “strapping of Strangford”, as I think we are going to have to call him now. As other hon. Members have alluded to—not only alluded to; it has been stated quite openly—it is appalling that not a single Labour Back Bencher is here to defend the Government’s policy. That is because, thus far, I have not heard any credible defence from the Labour Benches for the removal of the winter fuel payment. I remember the Minister from Oxford, and I know he is a doughty champion of all things socialist, so I look forward to an equally strong defence of this policy. I say to him gently that it is clearly the wrong policy, and I am afraid that he has been given a hospital pass, to be frank, to have to come here today to try to defend it. Under the last Government, more than 20,000 pensioners across my constituency of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages received Government support to assist them financially with energy bills and daily costs through the most challenging of times, such as covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. Now, since only 1,200 pensioners in my constituency are eligible for pension credit, nearly 19,000 pensioners have been left in the cold by the Government. At a pension credit surgery that I held in October to assist with pension credit applications for those who might not have access to the right technology, I met Diana. She told me that the extra money from the winter fuel payment was essential to heating her home—for her and for her husband, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Now that it has been withdrawn, Diana told me that she has to choose between heating her home and eating food. The scale of this issue is hugely concerning. Age UK has reported that 82% of all pensioners living on or just above the poverty line will lose that payment—a total of 2.5 million people. Independent Age has confirmed that raising the pension credit take-up from 60% to 100% would raise 440,000 pensioners out of poverty. Energy costs continue to rise under this Labour Government—by 10% in October, when I was running that pension credit surgery, and again in January—meaning that pensioners are paying, on average, an extra £170 since the beginning of this Labour Government. It is remarkable that the Government are not taking advice from industry experts and from charities on how to reduce the healthcare strains and increase the welfare of our pensioners. Currently, our pensioners are having to make difficult choices, as other hon. Members have said, including opting to stay at home to ensure that they are not taken ill by the cold weather, or indeed choosing not to eat at all for days. I have heard that at first hand, through a survey that I ran to assess the impact that the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment is having on pensioners in my constituency. I am not going to go through every single response, but Sheila, a talented craftswoman, told me that the cold is forcing her to have to sit in multiple layers of jumpers and is heavily affecting her ability to sew and knit, with the cold worsening her arthritis. Now that my constituents are unable to rely on Government support, I am routinely attending local pensioner support groups across my constituency, including those run by the brilliant Farnham Assist and the Hindhead lunch club, which brings people together fortnightly to provide them with a hot meal, conversation and the opportunity to socialise in a warm community hall. As someone who spent their career prior to becoming a Member of Parliament working in the healthcare system—including, latterly, in NHS England—I am hugely concerned about the pressure that withdrawing the winter fuel payment is putting on our NHS. The Labour party’s own assessment of the issue when it was in opposition said that it would cause 4,000 deaths. When I pushed the Health Secretary on that figure at the Health and Social Care Committee some weeks ago, he could not give me an answer as to why those 4,000 deaths were suddenly not going to happen. On top of that, we know that the £10.6 billion that the Government allocated to NHS England in the Budget will be eaten up by national insurance rises, inflation and pay increases for staff. Not a single penny of it will go to improving patient care, including patient care for pensioners. Last October, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) asked the Department of Health and Social Care what the potential impact of introducing means testing for the winter fuel payment was on hospital admissions. The Minister’s response pointed him to the extra funding given to the household support fund in the October Budget. However, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, the Minister has since admitted in a letter that the fund was not designed to support pensioners. If the Government are unsure on the impacts of the household support fund in my constituency, perhaps I can help them. The south-east receives the second-lowest funding amount from the household support fund at £30.57 per pensioner per year, whereas the winter fuel payment gave pensioners up to £600 depending on their circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how pensioners such as Diana and Sheila can be supported through the loss of the winter fuel payment when they are not eligible for pension credit.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Order. I remind the Member that she came into the debate very late. I do not wish to embarrass her in any way, but if she wants to intervene, she needs to be here at the start of the debate.

I am sure that I would have agreed with whatever point the hon. Lady was about to make. Other hon. Members have mentioned the hypocrisy of this Government telling pensioners prior to the election that they were going to be fine—indeed, they were told that things would get better for them. Instead, things have become markedly worse. As other hon. Members have also mentioned, we have also seen that with WASPI women. To be frank, Diana and Sheila are just the canaries in the coalmine for the larger issue of the Government’s worrying treatment of our pensioners. At my Monday morning surgery, a pensioner asked me, “Why does Labour hate pensioners?” I could not give her an answer. I have no idea why the Government have decided to punish pensioners—perhaps we can understand that from the text messages of the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne). That is why the Government must listen to the experts in the industry, in the charitable sector and in the health and social care sector who are raising the issues and presenting them with the figures. The Government must reverse this treatment of our elderly and vulnerable and ensure that this winter, next winter and every winter that this terrible Government are still in power, every pensioner is warm, safe and looked after.

15:28:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. My constituency is home to 18,164 people aged 65 and over. Whether under the Conservatives or Labour, Britain’s pensioners have been a political football for successive Governments to mistreat, kick around and turn their back on. That has been the case from the winter fuel allowance under this Government to the betrayal on the triple lock by the previous Government and the failure to compensate WASPI women by both the Conservatives and Labour. Pensioners are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They have worked hard all their lives, and they should have an opportunity for some much-deserved rest and relaxation. Instead, they are forced to stress about finances and to make impossible decisions that threaten their health. I am sure every MP of every political party will have received casework or correspondence about older people being forced to choose between heating and eating. Fuel poverty is a blight on our nation and a sign that our welfare state is failing—and it will get worse. The energy price cap is forecast to rise for the third consecutive period in April 2025, and the average energy bill is already 57% higher than it was in 2021. The Chancellor’s cuts to winter fuel payments have only exacerbated the problem that poor pensioners face. The Government are attempting to clear up the horrific mess the Conservatives left the economy in, and they have picked up the pieces—but they have dropped them all over again. In October 2024, a YouGov poll commissioned by Independent Age found that 43% of older people who had lost their winter fuel payments would go to bed earlier to avoid having to heat their homes, while 23% said they would not turn on their heating at all. That poses a clear and direct threat to their health, with Independent Age estimating that it would cost roughly £4 billion in increased NHS and social care costs. Locally, that could fund two new Royal Berkshire hospitals. One of my constituents, Philippa, came all the way to Parliament to talk to me about the impact of the cuts. Many of the people with her remarked how few Labour MPs took an interest in meeting pensioners from their constituencies face to face to hear about the effects of the policies they ended up supporting—I will let the evidence speak for itself. Philippa is not the only one who made contact. Mark, Pauline, Maxine and many others all wrote to tell me how worried they were. The Government have made the wrong decision in trying to cut spending, and they should have taxed the banks, social media giants and online gambling companies instead. Liberal Democrat Wokingham borough council has done a great job trying to make the best of a difficult situation. It has encouraged eligible pensioners to sign up for pension credit before Christmas, including by sending 1,000 letters to people identified as potentially eligible. That exercise revealed that, although the DWP knows which individuals are eligible for pension credit, it does not release that information to councils. Having that information would have supported the great effort by Wokingham borough council, so will the Minister commit to changing that policy, to allow councils to inform those eligible for pension credit more effectively? If I am wrong on that, the Minister can write and tell me, but I do not think I am. What steps are the Government taking to support people with their energy bills who are above the threshold for pension credit and other means-tested benefits? Will the Minister commit to launching an emergency home energy upgrade programme to provide free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households? When many pensioners were already suffering through the loss of the winter fuel allowance, the Government decided to turn their back on hundreds of thousands of WASPI women. It was a shameful decision to betray millions of pension-age women, who were wronged through no fault of their own, and to ignore the independent ombudsman’s recommendation. The ombudsman concluded that just 43% of people knew that the planned change to the state pension age would affect them personally. The Liberal Democrats pushed the Government for years to compensate WASPI women fairly. That tone-deaf decision cannot be allowed to stand. Will the Minister state precisely why he does not believe that WASPI women are owed compensation? Will he do the right thing and agree to a parliamentary vote on this issue? On a related matter, my constituent Alan sadly lost his wife recently. She was one of the many women affected by the increase in pension age. To add to that injustice, there was a change in 2016, and Alan has been told that he is no longer entitled to any form of widower’s state pension. Therefore, he is losing money that his wife received, even though his normal living expenses are pretty much the same. I wrote to the Minister some months ago, and I still look forward to a response. I hope he will be able to dig further into this matter and send me a reply soon. Finally, let us not forget that the Conservatives have failed pensioners, both when they were in government and, more recently, outside of government. The Leader of the Opposition has many low moments to point to from her first 100 days, and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) must rub his hands together excitedly after Prime Minister’s questions most weeks. For me, however, the most obvious low moment was when the Leader of the Opposition decided to go after the triple lock on pensions. One moment, when it is politically convenient, the Conservatives are all for means-testing benefits, but suddenly, when they are starved of new ideas, they are against it. The Conservative leader promised not to have too many policies, yet one of her first was to advocate slashing the state pension. The Liberal Democrats are proud that we introduced the triple lock for pensions, and we will fight tooth and nail against any attempt by the Conservatives to weaken it, or if the Minister and the Labour Government decide to do what the Tories did in 2022 and temporarily suspend it. Will the Minister commit today to never make that mistake?

15:36:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. It is the second on this topic today, but it puts a particular focus on the support that the Government should be providing. I also thank hon. Members for the many contributions that we have had, and I will briefly touch on a couple that raised points that I was not planning to raise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) highlighted the lack of notice that pensioners had about the change to the winter fuel payment. That highlights the fact that nobody could be expected to do any planning, as well as the lack of a wider impact assessment of what this change would actually mean for real people’s lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but he talked about the council tax increase that many pensioners will also face in the coming months. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) highlighted the knock-on impacts of the change to winter fuel payment on our health and social care systems. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) talked about the impact on 44,000 terminally ill patients. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the lack of heating in damp homes. It is interesting to note the cross-reference to the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, where there was a huge emphasis on tackling mould. Yet what we have here is the knock-on impact of the challenges faced by pensioners, which may instead lead to an increase in mould in their homes. Finally, I will just highlight the rather humorous point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who I think will go down in history for coining the phrase, “Strapping of Strangford”, which could well be the highlight of this whole debate, alongside the lots of equally great points that he made about his constituency. Sorry— I digress. What has really been highlighted this afternoon is Labour’s broken promises, particularly to pensioners. They fought the election claiming that they were on the side of pensioners, but this entire debate has highlighted that that may not be the case. Actually, I should also refer to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who made a whole load of claims about the Conservative party and who seemed to forget the successes that I am about to highlight. I also wholeheartedly refute his claims about what has been happening since the election.

I am not the MP for Swansea West; I am the MP for Wokingham.

Sorry, I meant to say Wokingham. I had circled “Swansea West” in my notes; I was trying to be clever—forgive me. Anyway, I will go back to my notes; that would be much better. In the same way that the Government are coming after farmers, with the family farm tax, they have also gone after pensioners right across the country—and all of that on the back Labour wiping £118 billion off the value of people’s pensions the last time it was in government. So, many of these pensioners have already seen their pensions being devalued. At the same time, the Government are finding the money to launch the vanity project GB Energy—if we are lucky, we will see lower energy bills by 2030—and pouring money into public pay packets, with no expectation of improving productivity. Pensioners and farmers seem to be the easy targets, and some Labour members seem to believe that that is the case—or perhaps I should say former members, given that they are perhaps less likely to vote Labour. Labour has come to power against the backdrop of a Conservative record of improving dignity in people’s retirement. We protected the triple lock; uprated the state pension by £3,700; drove up pension credit applications earlier in our time in office; and abolished the pension lifetime tax allowance, which we need some credit for, because it incentivised more experienced workers, including GPs, to stay in work for longer. The Resolution Foundation, which the Minister previously worked for, has confirmed that pensioners are £1,000 better off since 2010, thanks to the decisions made by successive Conservative Governments. As other Members have said, among the more disappointing policy decisions the Government have made since they came into office is the decision to scrap winter fuel allowance for pensioners who are not in receipt of pension credit—that is the key point. The decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance has seen 10 million pensioners lose access to payments they were previously eligible for. I note the excellent research published by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), which shows that my constituency of South West Devon is likely to be among the hardest hit. Previously just over 22,000 people received winter fuel allowance, but now only about 1,600 would be eligible through pension credit. Some 21,301 pensioners in my constituency would lose out. Many of us have had representations from constituents, and I want to particularly highlight single pensioners, who are the hardest hit in many cases. We have heard that some earning as little as £11,344—less than £1,000 a month—are no longer eligible for winter fuel payments. There is also an undue hit on the disabled and those whose modest savings lift them out of the bracket. That is completely immoral.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon; I promoted her there, but I am sure that it is only a matter of time. Does she agree that when a political choice such as this is put in place, it removes the incentive from working people to get on in life, do well, do the right thing and save a little, because they know they will get kicked by a Labour Government?

Yes, absolutely, and I think we see that right across the piece of DWP benefits. That is one reason why we think getting people into work, in particular, is so important. The lack of notice, particularly for those with savings, who are doing the right thing, but who are now having to choose whether to do work on their home or heat it, is definitely not a good move. It was projected that 880,000 pensioners eligible for pension credit, but not yet claiming it, would lose access to the winter fuel allowance when the policy was first announced. By November 2024, the Government had improved pension credit uptake by only 81,000, so the debate will have been put to good use if they commit to take further steps to raise awareness to increase those numbers. Equally, it would be great if we could see the number of applications per constituency, because many of us cannot find that data at the moment, so it would be good if it could be released in due course. Lastly, I want to highlight the household support fund, which is a very welcome pot of money instituted by the previous Conservative Government. However, it is not enough to tackle the gap between those who receive winter fuel payment and those who do not because, as we have heard time and again this afternoon, it is there for the entire community, not just pensioners. As has also been highlighted, there is a real disparity across the country, and my region receives the smallest amount if the funding is split per pensioner, with just £30.10 in the south-west, compared to £66.73 in London. I want to give a shout-out to the warm, welcoming places in my constituency, such as the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub, the Sir Joshua Reynolds pub, Plymstock library and Hooe Baptist church. They all do a great job to provide those spaces but, ultimately, if that is all we can do in the south-west, it is just not fair that that funding is not split across the board. Finally, I have a couple more questions. Will the Minister look at why the household support fund is distributed so unequally, whether to pensioners, working families or individuals?  It is particularly difficult for our rural communities, which will be the hardest hit because their heating costs are even higher, so the lack of the £300 or £600 that they would have got will be felt even harder. Will the Minister commit to delivering a credible plan to ensure that all eligible pensioners can secure pension credit and the services that go with it, which I have mentioned? As we have heard, it is a gateway benefit: if someone can unlock it, they get a whole load of other support. Finally, will the Minister commit to a long-term focus to make sure that we think clearly about what we do for those who might be just outside the brackets at the moment? In 1997, when the previous Labour Government introduced student fees, they did so with no notice; that was just put on people, with no expectation that it was going to happen. Within two years, students went from no fees to full fees, and if we do not think ahead, this policy risks leaving us in exactly the same situation.

15:45:00

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain, in a debate on such an important topic. We owe thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing it, and I thank everybody who has contributed to it. Recent years have been difficult for pensioners. They, along with the rest of Britain, have had to wrestle with a cost of living crisis, inflation in double digits for the first time in four decades, food prices rising even faster, and energy bills that have shot up—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, before he mentioned that he is approaching a significant birthday. The debate is focused on whether it is 40 or 50, but we will celebrate whatever it is, as well as celebrating his form-filling success. Everyone who has spoken in the debate will have spoken to constituents about the challenges posed by the cost of living crisis. I have certainly spoken to some of the 17,000 pensioners in Swansea West. This is an important debate and, as well as responding to the points that Members have raised, I will cover: what lessons we can learn from the past, celebrating some things that have worked and recognising where they have not; what the Government are doing today to support pensioners, covering lots of the points raised by Members; and, briefly, our future priorities, as requested by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). First, I will address the good news. In the 1990s, pensioner poverty was rampant. Almost 30% of UK pensioners were living in relative poverty. The old and the young—children—bore the brunt of the rise in poverty in the 1980s and early 1990s, but under the last Labour Government, not only did rates of pensioner poverty fall, but they had halved by the 2010 election. That did not happen by accident. Policy—including the introduction of pension credit, which we have discussed today—drove lots of that change, especially for women and older pensioners, and higher private pensions and employment rates further boosted pension incomes. But no one, of any party, thought that it was job done at that point, and I am sure that none of us thinks that today, not least because, in recent years, progress on pensioner poverty has stalled and relative pensioner poverty has risen by 300,000 since 2010. Even though today the UK has a lower rate of relative poverty among pensioners than the OECD average, the fact remains that, as Members have said, pensioner poverty is still too high. It is 16% in Wales, and it is especially high for renters. Almost 40% of all pensioners in poverty are renters, and with growing numbers of private renters, the challenge looks likely to grow, reinforcing the point that the hon. Members for South West Devon and for Mid Bedfordshire made about the need for long-term planning. There is another lesson from the last decade and a half: when growth stalls, the reductions in absolute pensioner poverty that we all used to take for granted slow or even grind to a halt, so growth matters for pensioners as it does for workers.

Does the Minister not agree that, from 2010, the previous Government secured a 200,000 reduction in the number of pensioners in absolute poverty? I do not have details of what the figure might have been otherwise, but it is important to put that on the record, because nearly a quarter of a million is still a significant number.

I am loath to do this, but the honest answer is no—it is far too small a reduction. Absolutely poverty should be falling every year, very significantly. We should really only need to debate relative poverty measures because, in a growing economy, we should all be taking it for granted that absolute poverty is falling. I hope that we can agree on two things: first—I think we do agree on this—that we must do better, and secondly, and more positively, that there are lessons to learn from what has worked over the last quarter of a century. While we are on a positive note, I can agree with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) about the importance of community groups that support our pensioners, through Ageing Well in Swansea and, I am sure, lots of other devices around the country. I am not under any illusions—even if I was, I could no longer be after the last hour and a quarter—about hon. Members’ views on the Government’s decision to target winter fuel payments at those on the lowest incomes. I will not rehearse all the arguments for that policy, but our dire fiscal inheritance is no secret. We owe it to the country—to all generations, young and old—to put that right, and that has involved wider tough decisions on tax and spending. I say gently to Members who oppose not just the targeting of winter fuel payments, but every tax rise proposed, that that has consequences. If they oppose every tough choice, they propose leaving our public finances on an unsustainable footing, and leaving our public services in a state that far too often lets down those who rely on them, not least pensioners. Although we can no longer justify paying winter fuel payments to all pensioners, it is, as all Members have said, important that we do more to make sure pensioners receive the support they are entitled to. In recent months, we have run the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, because, although around 1.4 million pensioners currently receive pension credit, too many are missing out. I urge all pensioners to check whether they are entitled to support. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the complexity of the pension credit form. I have considered that, and there is more that we can do to simplify it. All I would say is that in our messaging to pensioners, we should be clear that most of the questions do not need to be answered by the people filling in the form. Currently, 90% fill in the form online or over the phone, and the average time taken to fill it in online is 16 minutes.

I am grateful to the Minister for providing that clarity, but it took me longer than 16 minutes, so perhaps I am not as articulate as others.

It is the average.

Does he agree, though, that the 10% who cannot do it themselves in that way are potentially really losing out? There is also a group of pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and done the right things, but are too proud to apply for pension credit, let alone to go online to fill in a form.

The right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the case of those who might need support to complete the form. That is why one of the elements of the campaign we have run this year is targeting not pensioners directly, but friends and family, to encourage them to help people to apply for pension credit themselves.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I want to make a bit progress, and then I will take some more interventions. I will be updating Members later this month on the impact of the campaign so far. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about constituency-level data on winter fuel payments. We will be publishing that in the usual way in September. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked about the DWP and councils working closely together to drive pension credit uptake. He was completely right to do so. I will write to him on the specific point he raised, because it is not true, but on the generality, he is completely right that the onus is on the DWP to work with councils, and on councils to work with the DWP. Wider support is also available for pensioners: direct financial help through cold weather payments in England and Wales, and help with energy bills through the warm home discount, which we expect to benefit over 3 million households, including over 1 million pensioners, this winter. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and several others raised the need for energy efficiency in homes. They were completely right to do so, but I note very gently that there was a 90% fall in energy efficiency installations in the early years of the previous Government. Someone wanted to “cut the green”—and that was the result. We are trying to do better than the previous Government did on that front. We are committed to maintaining the triple lock on the state pension throughout this Parliament. The hon. Member for South West Devon rightly noted that that was introduced under the previous Government.

The Minister promises to maintain the triple lock, but the Government have broken promises on WASPI women and on farmers, so how can anybody believe that they are going to keep their promise on this?

We will be maintaining the triple lock throughout this Parliament, as promised in our manifesto. In April, the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.1% and 12 million pensioners will see a concrete increase—whether Members believe it or not—of up to £470. Several Members mentioned the need for long-term planning. That commitment to the triple lock means that spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion this Parliament. At the individual level, that translates into the new state pension being on track to rise by up to £1,900 a year, and the basic state pension —the pension that is relevant to those who hit the state pension age before 2016—by £1,500. But the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners.

In my contribution I hinted that attendance allowance might be another method of giving benefit entitlements to qualifying pensioners. Not every pensioner would qualify, but many would. I suggest a concerted campaign by the Government to make every pensioner aware of all the benefits. As the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, sometimes they are shy, sometimes they are independent, and sometimes they do not know they are entitled to things.

The hon. Member raises an important point. Attendance allowance would entitle a pensioner to extra income to pay for extra costs, including heating if required, but it would also lead to a higher threshold for qualification for pension credit. However, he is right that we need to see people applying for those benefits. As I was saying, the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners, and that returns on private pension savings matter too. We are undertaking a comprehensive pensions review to ensure that the pensions system is fit for the future, building on the success of auto-enrolment, which was introduced under the last Government and has seen over 11 million employees saving into a workplace pension. That is one of the big areas of progress in the pensions landscape in the last 25 years. The Government are committed to further reforming our pensions landscape, so that it drives up both economic growth and returns to savers, via the upcoming pension schemes Bill. We need bigger and better pension funds investing in productive assets such as infrastructure. We need to help individuals consolidate small pension pots and have sight of them via the pensions dashboard, so that they can plan for security in retirement. The measures in the Bill could help the average earner who saves over their lifetime have over £11,000 more in their pension pot when they come to retire.

The central justification that the Government give for taking away winter fuel payments is the fiscal position, but then they say that they want people to take up pension credit, which comes at a cost. Could the Minister say how many people would need to take up pension credit to cancel out the fiscal benefit? If that were to happen, it would undermine the central premise on which he is putting forward the policy.

That argument is made a lot. All I would say is that all of us should want all pensioners to receive the benefits they are entitled to and to drive pension credit take-up. We are confident that this policy will deliver significant savings, and the costings put into the Budget in the autumn take into account an increase in pension credit take-up. For most pensioners I speak to, concerns about the state of the health service are front of mind. The biggest betrayal of pensioners today is the state of our NHS—run down in England and undermined in Wales, with the capital budgets handed down by the UK Government to the Welsh Government not remotely sufficient to maintain the NHS estate or to invest in badly needed diagnostic equipment.

Will the Minister give way?

No. That is why this Government are investing £22 billion in the English NHS this year and next, with consequentials for the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan)—

Will the Minister give way?

No. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East rightly says that society will be judged on how it treats its pensioners, particularly with regard to the NHS, but in Scotland we have now seen five new NHS recovery plans announced in four years. That is not a tribute to our older generations. Supporting pensioners in the 2020s is about more than opposing every tough choice—

On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. Is it orderly for me to point out that the NHS is suffering from a number of over-65s who sadly have a high level of mortality—

Order. I do apologise to the hon. Member, but that is not a point of order, and she knows it. I call the Minister.

Thank you, Dame Siobhain. Supporting pensioners in the 2020s is about more than opposing every tough choice that the Government have to make. It means directly raising pensioner incomes via the state pension and pension credit, but it also requires us to reform our private pension system, grow our economy and rescue our public services—

Order. We are out of time, but I want to make a public apology to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). I should have allowed her to intervene, and I certainly meant no discourtesy to her. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).