It’s nice, isn’t it? The quiet.[1]
And by “quiet” I mean some of the worst civil unrest I have seen in Britain in my lifetime and by “nice” I mean “awful”.
At the time of writing, the new Labour government of the UK have been in power for a little over a month. It’s early days yet but they have already taken some fairly drastic measures to reduce the “22-billion-pound hole” in public services.
In fairness, I’m in favour of some of these measures e.g. giving a substantial pay rise to junior doctors.
Other, seem to make no sense, both from an ethical or economic viewpoint. One such measure is the removal of the winter fuel allowance to any pensioners in England and Wales not receiving tax credits or other means tested benefit.[2]
Previously, the fuel allowance was non means tested, (i.e. available to all pensioners or people claiming certain benefits regardless of income or savings), it will now only be available to those on the lowest incomes. And while I would be in favour of placing some kind of restriction on those who received it, I think the threshold for receiving the allowance needs to be considerably higher than the £218 per week (or £332 per week for a couple) that would make a pensioner eligible for tax credits.[3]
Naturally, this move has already been hugely unpopular. Age UK have estimated that 2 million pensioners will now struggle to keep warm this winter. Additionally, as Dan White of the Disability poverty campaign group points out, many of the pensioners who will have the benefit removed are also disabled and will have higher energy bills due to powering essential equipment.[4]
While the exact amount fuel or energy needed to maintain a basic standard of living does vary with many factors (including how well a house is insulated, what medical equipment a person needs and how cold the winter is), many of the most vulnerable people are more likely to have higher average energy needs. Reasons might include…
· Reduced mobility within their home.
· Reduced ability to leave their home.
· Less likely to be able to afford energy saving measures e.g. extra insulation or double glazing.
· Needing electricity to power vital equipment such as adjustable beds and chairs, electric wheelchairs, assistive technology etc.
Even before the loss of the winter fuel allowance, it was estimated that around 50% of people with disabilities were struggling to pay their energy bills, compared to 33% of non-disabled adults.[5] In 2023 the charity Scope estimated that a household with at least one disabled adult or child would need an additional £975 per month to maintain the same standard of living as a household with no disabled members (even after taking benefits like Personal Independence Payment into account). [6]
But is the saving the government will make by reducing the number of people who receive winter fuel allowance likely to be wiped out by increased healthcare costs? It is well established that living in a cold home can make several health conditions worse, with a government report from 2023 stating
“Living in a cold home can worsen asthma and other respiratory illnesses and increase the risk of heart disease and cardiac events. It can also worsen musculoskeletal conditions such as arthritis.
Cold or damp conditions can have a significant impact on mental health, with depression and anxiety more common among people living in these conditions.
Each year, the NHS spends an estimated £1.4 billion annually on treating illnesses associated with living in cold or damp housing. When wider societal costs are considered, such as healthcare, that figure rises to £15.4 billion.”[7]
And last year, when GPs began providing “heating on prescription” to vulnerable NHS patients, research undertaken by Sheffield Hallam University found that “participants were less likely to visit their GP and may need fewer prescriptions or out of hours services.” The analysis of the research indicated “a social return on investment of around £5 for every £1 spent.”[8]
Another reason for ensuring elderly people have warm homes is that events such as falls, which might be a trivial matter for a much younger person, are more likely to result in an elderly person becoming seriously injured (e.g. breaking a hip) and needing to go to hospital. [9] Add to this the fact that elderly people tend to take longer to recover from injury (and surgical procedures require to try and treat an injury) [10],[11]and are at higher risk of complications from general anaesthetic[12] and infections[13] and the benefits of investing a comparatively small sum of money trying to help elderly people stay warm (and therefore stay well) becomes very clear. Not to mention the fact that a significant proportion of hospital beds are typically taken up by elderly patients who are medically fit for discharge but cannot leave the hospital due to lack of adequate care elsewhere.[14]
However, in addition to the economics of taking away the winter fuel allowance being questionable, I also struggle with the political and public relations aspect of the decision. The Labour party was founded in the hope of giving ordinary people a better life and to protect the interests of working people (instead of those with vast inherited wealth).[15] Surely taking away an already barely adequate level of financial assistance from so many people who have worked hard all their lives goes against everything the Labour party stand for?
