Winter Fuel Payment

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

This afternoon, we have heard some fantastic speeches in which Members have set out heartbreaking real-life stories from their constituents about the situation older people have found themselves in this winter. Pensioners have been forced to choose between eating and heating as a result of the Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel allowance from around 10 million of them. That was compounded by shocking delays in processing pension credit claims. Along with those who have just missed the threshold to receive support, it has meant that many, many people who are desperately in need have missed out on hundreds of pounds that would have made a real difference to them this winter.

As has previously been said:

“Although the poorest do receive some help through cold weather payments, they go only to those on income support, who generally have to wait until after the cold weather for help to be available. The payments are no help at all to most pensioners, including…those on the margins of poverty”.

The individual continues that they were

“simply not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating, even on the coldest winter days, because they do not know whether they will have the help they need for their fuel bills.”—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 779-80.]

Those were the words of the former Labour Chancellor and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who brought in the winter fuel payment. It is a great shame that his successors in a Labour Government today have taken a very different view on support for pensioners.

The choice made by the Labour Government—almost their first choice in office last July—is as cruel as it is unnecessary, and it has real-life consequences for vulnerable people. Like many other Members, I suspect on both sides of the House, I have met my local branch of Age UK and other local charities. They all tell me about how hard their services—services vitally important to pensioners, such as GPs, hospices and pharmacies—will be hit by the Government’s jobs tax, the NICs hike. Alongside that impact on services pensioners rely on, this Government have slashed the winter fuel payment for so many. Understandably, pensioners are asking what the Labour party has against them—or, for that matter, against farmers or businesses.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

Let me just complete the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only come into the debate relatively late, but I will take an intervention from him afterwards.

The message is, under this Government, do not run a hospice, a pharmacy or a care home. Do not be a farmer. Do not run a business and, heaven forbid, do not get old.

[Jonathan Davies]

We on the Government Benches are disappointed to have had to make this decision, but it is a symptom of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I just remind the shadow Minister of something. I understand that he stood in the 2017 general election. Some of the policies in the Conservative manifesto at that time were to means-test the winter fuel allowance and to reduce the triple lock to a double lock.

[Edward Argar]

I will make a number of points to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to come on to his first point, but I will happily do so now. He seems to be alluding to the mythical so-called black hole that is so often bandied around. The OBR pointedly declined to validate that or back it up in its assessment, and it cannot be deemed a rationale for doing this.

[Luke Myer]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I want to make a little progress.

We have seen a real black hole emerging following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s disastrous Budget. It is also not the case that the Government can claim they have saved the pensions triple lock, which was introduced by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government back in 2010. The previous Government had already committed themselves to it, in that election’s manifesto and others. Pensioners could rightly bank on the uplift from the triple lock coming through. What they have seen now, however, is a real cut in what they were receiving, and what they had a right to expect, with the slashing of the winter fuel payment.

[Luke Myer]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the OBR. I wonder whether he has read the report in which it states:

“The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL”

— resource departmental expenditure limits—

“about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down”.

I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for that extraordinary fiscal failure.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I mentioned earlier, I have read the report, and he will know, having also read it—he is gently waving it at me from the other side of the Chamber—that the OBR pointedly declined to back up the claim about the so-called £22 billion black hole.

As we have heard, the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, initiated the winter fuel allowance, announcing it in 1997 and introducing it in 1998; but it is worth remembering that, even in the challenging circumstances of the time, George Osborne did not cut the allowance, despite the appalling financial and economic inheritance in 2010. Why not? Because it was a cost-effective benefit, and because it genuinely made a difference.

[Mark Ferguson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Argar]

Let me just make a further point. I am about to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s own points, as he will find if he pauses for a minute, but he may want to intervene at that moment.

George Osborne did not cut the winter fuel allowance because it gave pensioners the confidence to turn the heating up those extra few degrees, knowing that the money was coming. I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Ferguson]

I salute the right hon. Gentleman’s quest for clarity. Will he provide others with that clarity? Would his party reverse this policy?

[Edward Argar]

I was about to be quite nice to the hon. Gentleman, because I have to say that, during a debate that has, perhaps, produced a lot of heat and not always a huge amount of light, he addressed the issues before us in a measured way. I did not agree with everything he said, but he was reasonable and made some valid points. Let me gently say to him, however, that our record speaks for itself. We did not get rid of the winter fuel allowance. The fact is that Labour Members are in government, and have a large majority, and, as they are discovering, to govern is to choose. They must be accountable for the choice—the choice—that they have made.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

UK pensioners are not fools, so I am sorry that Labour Members want almost to insult their intelligence by repeating the debunked claim about the so-called black hole, or the debunked claim that the triple lock was in some way under threat and has been saved by the current Government. Let me also gently remind them that pensioners are unlikely to forget. They feel let down by Labour; they feel that the trust that they placed in Labour Members when they voted for them has been betrayed, and within a month of Labour’s taking office. So I ask again, why did this Government make the political choice to introduce these cruel, unnecessary cuts?

I now give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The moment may have passed somewhat, but I think my point is still apposite enough to make. If there are any apologies to go round, they should come from the Labour party. In every single election campaign in which I have been involved for at least the past 25 years, the Labour party has run a scare story about the Conservatives scrapping the winter fuel payment, and the moment they get into office, what is the very first thing they do? They remove the winter fuel payment. That is what has upset so many of my constituents so much.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the former Deputy Prime Minister, who has put the case far more eloquently and succinctly than I could have done. He is, of course, entirely right.

An estimated three quarters of a million people are entitled to pension credit, but do not claim it, even after Labour’s pension credit take-up campaign, so they did not receive the winter fuel payment to which they are entitled. Will the Minister—or the Pensions Minister who opened this debate, whom I see back in his place—commit in the name of transparency to publish an official estimate of the number of eligible pensioners the Government estimate did not receive the winter fuel payment this winter? I am conscious of the time, so I will allow the Minister to respond in his wind-up.

The Government’s own modelling shows that 100,000 pensioners will be pushed into poverty as a result of their choices. Now that the first winter has passed, will the Minister commit to publishing data showing the real impact of changes to the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty? The number of over-65s attending A&E increased by nearly 100,000 this winter, despite its being a warmer winter than average. We know that multiple factors have an impact on that number, but this is a very large jump. Again, will Ministers publish official data on the number of hospital admissions they believe to be caused by the winter fuel payment cut and what the cost to the NHS has been?

To conclude, because I am conscious of the time and wish to enable the Minister to respond, this money was genuinely needed by vulnerable people—vulnerable pensioners—this winter. In my Melton and Syston constituency, I get heartrending messages about choices between eating and heating, and we should not forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the impact on rural communities reliant on heating oil and having to pay for that in one bulk payment.

Labour Members have an opportunity this evening to send a message to pensioners. Will that message once again be one of ignoring their concerns, with the Government showing they are deaf to them and do not care, or will they take the opportunity to do the right thing this evening, and back our motion to send the message to their older constituents that they do care and are standing up for them against this cruel and unnecessary cut? This choice, and it is a choice, will tell pensioners in their constituencies exactly where they stand. The Conservatives and other Members on this side of the House are standing up for our pensioners on winter fuel payments. The Conservatives are backing the generation that gave so much to our country. Will Members on the Government Benches have the courage to do the same?

Universal Credit

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

We are debating a number of important statutory instruments, and in the light of the time constraints, I will confine my comments to the measures relating to free school meals.

The benefits of free school meals for those who need them have been set out today and in the past. While it is absolutely right that we debate these new eligibility criteria for free school meals, although it is disappointing that there are no Liberal Democrats in the Chamber, it is also right that we do so with a focus on facts, not inaccurate claims—the Secretary of State made the position clear—that these proposals take away free school meals from children. In fact, as has been set out, it is estimated that by 2022, under the new regulations, about 50,000 more children—more, not fewer—will benefit from a free school meal than under the previous benefit system.

The approach in these regulations not only extends support to more children, but ensures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) made clear, that we target that support at those who most need it and where it will have the greatest impact in changing lives. As he also set out, the Government have always been open and clear that when universal credit was rolled out, there would be new criteria, but that no child currently on free school meals would lose out until 2022, and that those in either primary or secondary school would continue to benefit while in that school.

Much is being made of claims that 1 million children will have free school meals taken from them, but that is simply not accurate. I am not usually one to cite “Channel 4 News”, but on this occasion, like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), I will quote its FactCheck verdict, which reads:

“This is not a case of the government taking free school meals from a million children who are currently receiving them. It’s about comparing two future, hypothetical scenarios, one of which is more generous than the other.”

Both of them are more generous than the old benefits system.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will not, because I am conscious of the time.

An issue such as this, which is of real importance to many people, quite rightly excites strong passions and strong arguments, but it is important that we stick to the facts. An Opposition who are unable to muster coherent arguments against actual Government policy are instead taking issue with hypothetical Government policy and scenarios. I am committed to ensuring that disadvantaged young people can get a free nutritious meal at school, and I am sure that that is true of all colleagues on both sides of the House, regardless of where they stand on these two hypothetical scenarios. These measures mean that more people will be able to get free school meals than at present, which is why I will be voting with the Government to extend the eligibility for free school meals.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

It is right that we are debating this important issue and, given its importance to all of our constituents, it is right that we do so respectfully, recognising, even where we disagree, the evident strength and sincerity of the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—with whom I do not always agree in this Chamber, but with whom I frequently agree as my fellow co-chair of the all-party group on dementia—made an important point in her speech, highlighting the need to fix our social security system to ensure it functions effectively. Our challenge is not that our historical social security system is badly designed, but that in many ways it was never designed as a whole at all. It has evolved from myriad changes over the decades, and for too long Governments of all shades shied away from this challenge. Universal credit represents a real step forward in addressing this, and in seeking to design a system fit for the 21st century, and it is the right thing to do.

Universal credit represents a progressive change to simplify the system, to tailor it to individuals, and to help to ensure work pays, removing that dreadful 16-hour cliff edge that previously existed.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

In the context of the cliff edge, does my hon. Friend agree that under the old system some claimants lost £9 from every extra £10 that they claimed, and that that is what we are trying to correct?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly and effectively, highlighting, too, the great deficiencies of the previous system. The simple truth is that universal credit is helping to get more people into work, which we can all welcome.

On the call for a pause, the shadow Secretary of State did not set out in detail what she wants to see changed through such a pause. What I did, however, hear this morning in the Select Committee was a Secretary of State who is listening, and who cogently set out how the staged roll-out is specifically designed to allow for lessons to be learned and subsequent roll-out to be refined and adapted where improvements can be made, but without the damage that will be done by pausing the roll-out.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

On the roll-out being staged, does my hon. Friend agree that a situation in which currently 8% of claimants are on UC, and the proportion will rise to only 10% by January, hardly amounts to a precipitate roll-out?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which highlights the point that both the Secretary of State and I have made, which is that this is being done in a very measured way.

I join other colleagues in welcoming the Secretary of State’s announcement in respect of the telephone advice line and the increased highlighting of the advance payments that are available. It is right that this help is in place, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to take a close interest in how well this is working, making changes where necessary, and ensuring that all those claiming are treated with respect and supported. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) set out, universal credit is about treating people with respect and supporting them.

In seeking to ensure that we learn from the roll-out of universal credit and make changes where we can, as the roll-out is designed to allow, we must never lose sight of, or put at risk, the significant improvement of universal credit on previous systems and the significant benefits it delivers in helping people into work and changing their lives.

DWP Policies and Low-income Households

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I have to say, however, that although she said that she was not getting answers from the Government, I know—having read the reports of Westminster Hall debates—that not only are she and her constituents getting answers, but, more important, her constituents are getting jobs as a result of the Government’s policies, as are constituents of Members on both sides of the House.

Welfare reform was a central plank of the election manifesto on which Conservative Members were elected, but building a system that works for all and a country that works for all, and reforming welfare, are part of a bigger package of measures, including increased childcare, the lifting of those on the lowest wages out of income tax, and the introduction of a national living wage. Most important of all, a record number of people are in work as a result of the policies of this Government. As we have heard from Conservative Members, getting people into work is central to improving their life chances and those of their families, and essential to achieving greater social justice. I am a considerable fan of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I was disappointed that she did not focus on that simple, single most important factor: the increased number of jobs that the Government have delivered, which, as I have said, are central to the improvement of life chances.

Welfare reform, of which universal credit forms a key part, is also central to the delivery of our vision of a country that works for all. It is reform that will help to ensure that work always pays more than benefits. It is reform that will help to ensure that our welfare system is financially sustainable and delivers a fair outcome, not just for those who use the system but for those who pay into it. It is reform that helps to simplify what was, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), a byzantine and opaque welfare system. There is more to be done, but this reform takes us a long way down the route, and it is reform that still places care and support for those most in need of it at the heart of this country’s welfare system.

Key to the delivery of reform will, of course, be implementation. Having read reports of debates and listened to Ministers on previous occasions, I have every confidence that the design of this system, and the graduated roll-out, are exactly what we need to ensure that we get it right, and do not repeat the tax credit debacle that we saw under the last Government. This policy has my wholehearted support—and we will get it right.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The IFS figures do not include, for example, the full impact of the increased offer of free childcare. According to the Treasury figures, eight out of 10 working households will be better off as a result of the changes, acting in combination, by 2017.

As a country, we have 1% of the world’s population, we produce 4% of global GDP, and we are responsible for 7% of the world’s welfare payments. That is not right, it is not sustainable and it needs to be reformed. In introducing the reforms, we have set out four principles. The first is protecting the most vulnerable—that is fundamental. It is why we will honour our commitments to uprate the state pension according to the triple lock; we will neither means-test nor tax disability benefits—in fact, all disability benefits are exempt from the four-year freeze of working-age benefits—and we will increase funding for domestic abuse victims and for women’s refuge centres.

The second principle is to expect those who can work to look for work and to take work when it is offered, because work is the best route out of poverty. The third principle is to place the entire welfare system on an affordable and sustainable footing, fulfilling our commitment to run a budget surplus, because that is the best route to long-term economic security.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Given the shadow Chancellor’s and Opposition Front Benchers’ unwillingness throughout the day to comment on Alistair Darling’s remarks, perhaps my hon. Friend will say whether she agrees with the former Labour Chancellor’s reported comments that the Labour party

“is in disarray”

and is

“paying the price of not having a credible economic policy.”

Does she agree with me that, judging by their performance yesterday and today, the search parties for that policy are still out and meeting with very little success?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Even when we announce elements of policies they were campaigning on only weeks ago, Labour Members seem to be unable to bring themselves to welcome the measures.

The Budget is not just about making changes to welfare; it is about ensuring that those who are in work do not face more difficult choices than those on benefits. Full-time benefits should never pay more than full-time work. Those are the principles underlying the welfare reforms. Over the next two years, eight out of 10 working households will have benefited from the measures announced in this Budget, such as our introduction of the national living wage. By 2020, a full-time worker on the national living wage should be earning over £5,200 more in cash terms. The tough decisions we are taking now will lead us into a more prosperous and more secure future.

We enjoyed five maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) has a remarkable distinction that may be in the record books. He succeeded a colleague with a majority of 54 and took the majority up to nearly 3,000, which is a remarkable achievement.

I enjoyed the maiden speeches of the hon. Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer). I understand that there is already a bit of a rivalry between them—they support different rugby league teams—which will be followed closely during their time representing those areas in Parliament.

We heard from Members from two beautiful areas of Scotland. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) spoke eloquently about the Scottish border country, which we all know is exceptionally beautiful. He speaks for his party on agriculture and rural issues. He succeeded the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the Liberal Democrat Michael Moore, and spoke eloquently about his lasting contribution in the form of the 0.7% commitment that he achieved through his private Member’s Bill. That was no mean feat, as I discovered early on in this place. The hon. Gentleman also received something you may have frowned on, Madam Deputy Speaker—a round of applause for his excellent delivery. I will say no more on that because he might get into trouble.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan). I have yet to visit his part of Scotland, but it sounds absolutely wonderful. After he had taught us about the history of the highland clearances, I was sorry that he could not welcome with greater fervour the significant increase in wages for people working in his constituency, which currently enjoys the lowest unemployment in its history.

A range of other issues were raised, and I will briefly go through some of the questions asked. Several Members made the point that the national living wage was different from the living wage calculated by other organisations. I can clarify that the methodology that has been followed is based on the work of Sir George Bain, who wrote the paper “More than a Minimum” for the Resolution Foundation. Labour Members carped on endlessly about the methodology, but none of them welcomed the fact that this represents a 10% pay rise for the lowest-paid 2.5 million working people in the UK.

Several Members raised student finance, and representatives of university towns paid particularly close attention to such points. The former Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), probably remembers that a Labour Government abolished maintenance grants completely back in 1998. He probably had to do some deals in 2004, when maintenance grants made their reappearance. He is chuckling in his place about his memories of that time, so I am sure he had to make many arguments about how wise the policy was when his Government implemented it. I want to emphasise that students from low-income households will not have to pay up front. Over the course of their lifetime, people who go to university will earn more—women who go to university will earn £250,000 more over their lifetime—and the cash they receive through their student loan will be more generous than it was before.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) and other Members asked about support for businesses. I can confirm that we will increase by 50% the amount that businesses can receive through the employment allowance. That will enable the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy to take on four people paid the national living wage. Effectively, it will be kept at the same level: employers will pay no national insurance for four people working full time on the national living wage. Employers will also benefit from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement of a reduction in the corporation tax rate to 18% over this Parliament.

Several questions were asked about housing. I can reassure Opposition Members that there will be consultations on the housing changes, and a lot of exemptions in vulnerable cases.

In the brief time available, I conclude by saying that this is a Budget for the working people of Britain. It is a Budget that supports Britain’s working households not through state subsidies, but through lower taxes and higher wages.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 13 July.