CUTTING the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) for over 10 million pensioners strikes me as a reckless and reprehensible move by the new Labour UK Government.

In early 2023, Labour pledged to freeze the energy price cap.

Its recent manifesto pledged to “cut bills for good”, although no specific timeframe was provided.

We now know the Ofgem price cap will rise next month by a further 10 per cent, with the average household paying an additional £149 for gas and electricity each year.

The WFA was introduced by Labour in 1997 as a one-off payment each winter to help with fuel costs for those of state pension age, in addition to payments from the cold weather scheme.

Older people were targeted due to their vulnerability to the cold and the greater likelihood of being on fixed incomes.

The WFA payment was generally paid automatically for those of state pension age in November or December at the rate of £200, or £300 for those aged 80 or over.

The government’s draft regulations, which will soon go before the House of Commons, would 'means test' and restrict eligibility for the WFA for those in receipt of Pension Credit and certain passport benefits.

Pension Credit provides a minimum guaranteed income of £218.50 per week as a single person.

The hypocrisy in all of this is that we’ll have Members of Parliament (MPs) on almost £92,000 per annum voting on restricting the WFA to those living on around £12,000 per year.

And MPs can and do put all of their fuel bills on their expenses for a single property in London or their constituency, which taxpayers have to pay.

Age Concern estimates that as many as two million pensioners who find paying their energy bills really difficult will be seriously hit by this cut.

That includes those who miss out on Pension Credit because their weekly incomes are slightly too high for eligibility – often women who have a small occupational pension.

Another group affected will be those with high energy needs because of disability or illness.

Then we have almost one million pensioners who don’t receive Pension Credit, even though they are eligible.

You have to apply for Pension Credit and the low take up with many social security benefits is a long-standing problem in the UK.

The decision to cut the WFA was made by the new Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, and announced on July 29 – just over three weeks after the General Election.

There has been a dearth of public or parliamentary consultation or notice about this significant policy change.

Last week, the House of Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published its report on the WFA regulations and was highly critical of how the cuts are being rushed through by the government.

The committee was "unconvinced by the reasons given for the urgency attached to laying these regulations".

In its view, it is poor practice to implement major policy changes during a Parliamentary recess – the regulations were published on August 22.

The committee’s primary concern is "the Regulations may cause potential inequalities between low-income pensioners claiming benefits and low-income pensioners not claiming benefits, and it is not clear whether DWP has assessed this risk".

There can be little doubt the government is rushing through a flawed policy. It has set eligibility for the WFA far too low and failed to consider how this ill-judged policy will impact those with low and modest incomes.