FEARS that thousands of Worcester pensioners could be pushed “into fuel poverty” will be debated by the city council.
More than 15,000 pensioners in the city will be affected by cuts to Winter Fuel Payments, a motion set to go before councillors states.
The motion, which will be debated at Worcester City Council’s meeting on Thursday, September 17, calls on the council to formally oppose the government’s controversial policy.
Put forward by Liberal Democrat councillor Karen Holmes (previously Karen Lawrance), the motion says 89.4 percent of pensioners in the city currently eligible for the payments will no longer be able to claim them.
“Though many agree that universal Winter Fuel Payments are not necessary, council is deeply concerned that many pensioners on lower and middle incomes will now not receive the payments,” the motion states.
“Council believes that the government has set the threshold at which pensioners do not qualify for Winter Fuel Payments far too low.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer update on plans to cut £300 Winter Fuel Payment for millions
READ MORE: Martin Lewis takes aim at ‘aggressive’ council tax collection practices
READ MORE: Pensioners urged to apply for new benefit that could be worth thousands
“Only those receiving a pension of less than £218.15 a week (or £332.95 a week for couples) are eligible for pension credits. This is significantly lower than the living wage rate.”
Cllr Holmes’ motion says the council has an important role to play in making people aware of benefits they may be entitled to, such as Pension Credit.
It also says the Energy Price Cap is due to rise by 10 percent in October, adding that combined with the loss of Winter Fuel Payments, this could “push thousands of local pensioners into fuel poverty”.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer today (Tuesday, September 10) saw off a backbench rebellion in a Commons vote on the winter fuel allowance policy.
MPs voted 348 to 228 to axe the payment for all but the country’s poorest pensioners, rejecting a Tory bid for the policy to be blocked.
However, one Labour backbencher, Jon Trickett, opposed the Government in supporting the Conservative motion, while 53 including seven ministers had no vote recorded.
Having no vote recorded does not necessarily mean that an MP actively chose to abstain – for example, some may be unable to attend due to other commitments.
As well as the ministers, it is understood some on the list had been “slipped”, meaning they were given permission not to attend.
However, 15 of the Labour MPs who signed a motion which called on the Government to delay implementing the cut were among those on the list.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel