Transparency data

Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2025 

Updated 8 December 2025

Chair:

Dr Stephen Brien

Members:

Les Allamby
Bruce Calderwood
Carl Emmerson
Daphne Hall
Professor Stephen Hardy Philip Jones
Jacob Meagher
Dr Suzy Walton

Apologies:

Rachel Chiu

1. Private session

[Reserved item]

2. The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2025

2.1 The Chair welcomed the following officials to the meeting: Andrew Latto (Deputy Director, Devolution, Pensioner Benefits & Carer’s Allowance Policy), Lucy Booth (Analyst), Jonathan Sherlaw (Retirement Services), Paul Phillips, (HM Revenue and Customs) and Paul Randle (HM Treasury). 

2.2 The new measures, which will be introduced for 2025-26, will reinstate a universal Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) to those who are of State Pension age in the qualifying week. The Finance Bill 2025-26, which will be introduced in Autumn 2025, will then allow for the payment to be recovered through the personal income tax system in the financial year 2026-27 if the recipient has annual income of more than £35,000 in receipt of a relevant means tested benefit. People can also choose to opt out of receiving the payment altogether. 

2.3 Introducing the session, Andrew Latto indicated the policy was hybrid in the sense that the level of the means test is being increased to £35,000 through the tax system, whereas in 2024-25 means-testing was achieved inside the social security system by linking WFP eligibility to receipt of Pension Credit (PC) or another qualifying means tested benefit. The departments represented at the meeting noted that they were happy to discuss recovery of the WFP through the tax system, although this would be delivered through the Finance Bill rather than through these regulations. He also informed the Committee that further information relating to WFPs had been uploaded onto the Government website (on 30 June). In addition, a cross-departmental programme between the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and HM Treasury has been established, under a single Senior Reporting Officer. 

2.4 The regulations to re-establish near-universal entitlement to WFPs in England and Wales in 2025/26 will be laid on 22 August, to come into force on 15 September, which is time critical for the qualifying week and to set up payments.

2.5 Committee members raised the following main questions in discussion: 

(a) To ensure the Committee is aware how much time there is to resolve any issues relating to the scrutiny process, will it be around five weeks before the regulations are laid?  

Yes. The legislation for recovery through the tax system will be in the Finance Bill and is not part of these regulations. There will be an accompanying document on this element when that Bill is published.  

(b) Since the accompanying papers were provided with the regulations, it has been announced that the fiscal position is less healthy. Has that had any impact on these measures?  

The regulations are proceeding as planned, as is the process for the autumn budget. 

(c) Is the ability to opt out of the provision a process that is owned by the DWP?  

Yes, there has always been this option, but it has not been promoted widely. If someone opts out, the payments are suppressed until they opt back in.

(d) Has any consideration been given to those who may have income over £35,000 but are still in fuel poverty? Is it possible to do an assessment on those who are over the threshold for PC, have income over £35,000 and are in fuel poverty and what the impact of these measures are?  

These statistics would be held by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). Looking at their last set of statistics, which considered the previous policy to limit the WFP to those in receipt of PC and qualifying means tested benefits, it had no impact on fuel poverty.

(e) The Department has indicated that extra cost benefits are there to assist with additional heating costs that may be needed due to somebody’s health. However, extra costs could be for a number of reasons. In addition, there are those with heating costs that are not eligible for Attendance Allowance (AA) but would have been eligible for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) if they had claimed for it. Has the Department considered non-recovery of the money for those in receipt of Carer’s Allowance (CA), PIP and AA?  

As had been noted in the recent Judicial Review into the 2024-25 WFP changes in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, targeting by disability benefit receipt as well as by income had been considered last year. Ministers had decided against it due to the pressing fiscal imperative. This year, the means test is more generous, but the policy remains to focus support according to income.

(f) Those with deferred pension will have to make a claim for WFP. How will they know? Are there any concerns around clawback through the tax system if they fail to make a claim?   

Deferred pensions are treated the same way as they have in previous years, and all the information is on the Government website. They have until 31 March to make their claim. The clawback is new; however, there will be no risk of HMRC reclaiming the money because the DWP will inform HMRC of who has received a payment. If no payment has been made, HMRC will not be informed. 

(g) Last year it was unlikely that those with deferred pension would be eligible, could there be some form of correspondence sent to indicate that they now need to make a claim for WFP, rather than prompting them to go to the website, which may be too passive?  

The Department agreed to consider this further outside of the meeting. 

(h) At the stakeholder forum, a new PC checker was showcased. This was to help deal with the influx of claims being made last year to help filter out those people who would not be entitled. There appears to be a willingness to integrate this; however, it does not appear to be fit for purpose and there is a concern that it may dissuade people from claiming who are entitled. For such people there would be no backdating of their award if it was later found that they were. In addition, the underlying care element is not addressed with the PC checker. Can this be investigated?  

This is a separate matter not related to WFPs. Andrew Latto nonetheless outlined work on the PC checker (which is being developed to replace an antiquated online calculator) and how stakeholder concerns were being addressed. The prototype seen by the Operational Stakeholder Engagement Forum was far from an agreed or final product. He also referred to the oral evidence provided to the Work and Pensions Select Committee by the Minister for Pensions and officials during its recent inquiry into pensioner poverty, in particular with respect to the carer addition in PC.

(i) During HMRC’s informal consultation, what was the feedback from stakeholders and who did it include? Was the Low-Incomes Tax Reform Group included? 

Yes, they were, as was the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians. There have been discussions around design options, such as how to recover the WFPs through tax, the best time to collect and how to move to a steady state and recover the WFP in the same tax year. There was also consideration of the need to prioritise recovery through self-assessment and to raise awareness of what constitutes total income for the £35,000 threshold; this being total income that is subject to tax, and how that will interact with allowances and where that may fall foul. The recovery process for someone who is deceased was also considered. The model is now with Ministers and awaiting their agreement.

(j) For those doing their tax self-assessment online, the WFP will be included on the form, but that is not the case for paper forms. Is there a risk that those that fill in their tax self-assessment on paper will not realise they need to provide that information?  

Yes, there is.^{[footnote 1]} 

(k) Is there a chance that someone may be late submitting their self-assessment form and could end up having the WFP recovered for this year in July 2027, while also getting the subsequent year’s WFP recovered, resulting in double recovery?  

HMRC agreed that they would provide clarification on this point outside of the meeting.^{[footnote 2]}

(l) How will HMRC know what their income will be? Will HMRC recovery be based on them having income over £35,000, even though they may not in the next year?  

It will be based on estimated income from the start of the year and projected to code out their tax on the basis of them getting that money each month. If someone stops work and is paying tax through Pay As You Earn (PAYE), it will look back and recalculate as someone goes through the tax year.

(m) The assumption is to predict through PAYE and to predict someone would receive a WFP if they had one in the previous year. Recovery would then happen on that basis from April to July and if they then opt out, recovery will reduce?  

Once they opt out the information would go to HMRC, and recovery would be recalibrated based on this information.  

(n) If they opt out, the individual will no longer receive a WFP, but the Department indicated that this is not something that is notified to HMRC? Opting out is therefore not a real time thing.  

The recovery can only be recalibrated once this information is received by HMRC. 

(o) The tax system is based on predictions, but the DWP does not operate on this type of system, so HMRC may not know until the end of the tax year the full situation whereas if the information was sent in real time recovery could be adjusted. Someone will have their income deducted but HMRC would still need to wait until September to see if they receive the WFP. There is a lot of different aspects to consider here. Would it not make more sense to recover in the following year? 

This ties in with the issue over self-assessment and when this is returned and when tax is due, with potentially two sets of WFP being recovered in one year. HMRC may not have control of that but there is going to be confusion over when it is recovered. This represents a lot of complexity for a small amount of money.  

It could then cause confusion because it would not be clear what somebody has been taxed on. For self-assessment a person can ask to have their tax coded out and have it paid through PAYE when they return the form.

(p) What are the administration costs and how does this compare to any savings that will be made? 

Information on HMRC’s administration costs will be published alongside the Finance Bill.  

(q) There appears to be no mention of the £35,000 income threshold on the eligibility page for WFPs on the Gov.uk website. There is also no indication as to which Department owns this policy.  

The threshold should be mentioned.^{[footnote 3]}

(r) Figures presented to the Committee show that a small number of people have opted back in after opting out, why has this happened?  

Given the changes over the past two years, the Department has contacted pensioners in England and Wales who have previously opted out of receiving a Winter Fuel Payment to confirm whether they still wish not to receive it. This has resulted in a small number of pensioners opting back in. There is no requirement for pensioners to tell the Department why they have made that decision.

(s) Is there a risk that any communications on the clawback of the WFP may cause concerns to those who are elderly, vulnerable and may not have the cognitive ability to understand the clawback mechanism. Is there anything the Department can share in relation to the user testing with regards to communications to help with this issue?  

Accessibility is always considered, and there are arrangements across the benefit system for appointees and for home visits. These are not specific to WFPs, and the Department undertook to consider further what might be needed for those not in receipt of another benefit such as AA or PC, which can already be used as proxies for a risk of vulnerability.^{[footnote 4]}

(t) With regards to those in receipt of disability benefits, has their income been considered to see how many have income over £35,000? In addition, pensioner Housing Benefit (HB) is means tested, so it is likely they would not have income above the threshold. It may be easier to exempt them from the clawback and offer reassurance, given they are the most likely to be concerned? 

The £35,000 figure relates to taxable income. Additional-needs disability benefits are not taxable. Pensioner HB of itself does not give rise to an exemption because the amount a household receives is based not only on financial circumstances but also on the amount of their rent. Households in receipt of HB can also go higher up the income distribution than those in receipt of PC.

(u) Will penalties be added to any outstanding amounts owed and who is to recover, will it be DWP or HMRC?  

If someone misrepresents their residency in England or Wales and/or their age in the qualifying week, it would be a fraudulent claim. 

(v) Looking beyond those who may have provided false statements to the wider population of pensioners who have received a payment, has the Department recovered any WFPs over the past 18 months? 

In 2024/25, if someone was not entitled to PC or another qualifying means-tested benefit or tax credit, and a WFP had been paid, it would have been recovered as a benefit overpayment unless this was due to official error. 

(w) If someone has gone into a care home, is no longer eligible and has not reported it, would it now become recoverable through the tax system rather than DWP? Will tax penalties apply or will DWP apply penalties?  

WFPs will be recovered automatically through PAYE, so would have no penalties. For those doing self-assessment, if it is done online, the form will automatically include the WFP so again there would be no penalties.^{[footnote 5]}

(x) If someone does their tax assessment on paper and does not include the WFP, they would be subject to tax penalties. It may also be the case that their children or other people have to complete the form for them. What about those with Alzheimer’s who may not be aware of what payments they have had? The Department is freely giving them money and then potentially implying tax penalties and possible compliance issues. How will these situations be dealt with? Will there be communications released to mitigate this situation?^{[footnote 6]}  

[Redacted]^{[footnote 7]} 

The Department agreed to consider these points further and come back to the Committee outside of the meeting.

(y) There are several issues that need to be addressed in the equality analysis, most notably: 

• It indicates that everyone eligible for a WFP will receive one, when those who defer their pension will not receive one unless they make a claim. 

• It has not been highlighted that these measures will discriminate against younger people, despite it only benefitting those over 65. 

• Older pensioners have been highlighted to gain because they are less likely to have income over £35,000, compared to younger pensioners. Younger pensioners is likely therefore have more hassle in having to make the repayment. This differential by age should be made clearer. 

• On ethnicity, the opening sentence does not make sense because it indicates that a large number of every ethnicity will be a cash beneficiary, but does not indicate what this large number is compared to? In addition, it has not been made clear if white pensioners are less likely to benefit than those from other ethnicities because they are more likely to have income over £35,000. 

• On pregnancy, no mention has been made that these measures would not benefit pregnant women, given that evidence easily found online by the Committee suggests only one woman has given birth in the UK over the age of 66. It has been indicated that the Department does not hold data on this, when it should be rationale to consider other sources of information on this aspect.  

• On disability, why has the Family Research Survey definition of disability been used? This definition could be used for anyone self-reporting that they have a condition that “affects them a little or a lot”. There is a definition under the Equality Act which should be used. By doing this it is not relevant to this cohort of people, so the analysis is not relevant. 

There needs to be a demonstration of the issues the Department has worked through rather than a focus on what data is available. There needs to be a shift away from a production mindset and start from the legal Public Sector Equality Duty and the issues to be solved. This should have identified that a simple means test is not the best way to target assistance for fuel poverty. A discriminatory policy can be pursued as long as it is proportionate and has a rationale with all factors being considered. The Committee needs to see that the Minister has been informed and advised about all these aspects and then decided to pursue that policy. That does not appear to be the case here.  The Department thanked the Committee for its comments and noted the broader work underway on equality analyses. It would review the equality analysis for this policy in light of the Committee’s feedback.

(z) The supporting paperwork indicates: “If a pensioner has lived in a care home continuously for 13 weeks or more by the end of the qualifying week and is in receipt of a means-tested benefit such as Pension Credit, they are not entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment. This is because people receiving a means-tested benefit are assumed to have their care and accommodation costs met by the local authority.” Can the Department guarantee that everyone will have care costs paid by the local authority?  

If it is based on 13 weeks, they may not be in full time residential care and may have their main home elsewhere. In addition, for those who are just over the threshold of PC and get local authority funding, they would receive a WFP. This is discriminatory against those receiving a means tested benefit and results in a cliff edge.  

In some cases, the families or charities are having to top up the fees, with local authorities being unable to cover all payments. Does this need some reflection?  

If someone is in receipt of PC, they would be below the threshold where the local authority pays for their care costs. But it is possible that they may be contributing themselves on top of that, The Department undertook to consider this further for future years.

(aa) It appears the cost of recovery and administration, as well as the intrusion into people at that time in their life is not worth the amount that is to be awarded through the WFP. Making these people exempt from recovery would assist with the number of overpayments, with the net cost of tax recovery unlikely to be large if not recovered.   

Noted. 

(bb) Why would a couple who live in a shared care room receive less than a couple who live in their own home when costs might be higher in the former. For those sharing a room or ward in their care home/hospice there is no correlation to the cost of care and the decision to award them the shared rate.  

The WFP does not vary on the basis of outgoings. It is based on date of birth, place of residence, household formation and (in case of recovery through the tax system) income.

(cc) For those who are living at home and have over £35,000 of income but spend tens of thousands of pounds on care, what is the justification for them not receiving the WFP when they are likely to be in fuel poverty? Something could be built into the tax system to have an allowance for care costs. For those doing self-assessment, they could indicate these costs in their tax return and have it subsidised back. There is an argument that WFP should be more targeted towards those in receipt of PC and PIP as opposed to those in receipt of PC who do not have care costs. Therefore, resulting in high care costs being an allowance against the WFP tax recovery.  

WFPs will be made to nearly all pensioners. The WFP income limit relates to an individual’ total income but does not consider outgoings as personal expenditure, such as care costs, as these are not deductible against income tax. 

(dd) There is an assumption that those who have a high income are not in fuel poverty, which is a false assumption.  

High fuel costs, low income, and low energy efficiency are all relevant to the risk of fuel poverty. It is possible a household with disposable income over £35,000, with high fuel costs, and living in a low energy efficiency property could be in, or at risk of, fuel poverty.^{[footnote 8]} However, as expressed previously, the policy is to recover the WFP from those above an income level.

(ee) What about those who are in receipt of financial support from the National Health Service Continuing Healthcare (NHSCH)? Someone in receipt of NHSCH could receive around £60/70,000 a year and would get a WFP, but those funding it themselves will not get a WFP. There appears to be a discriminatory element here.  

The means test is based on income alone and does not take account of outgoings. The NHSCH is not recognised as income because it is not subject to tax. 

(ff) For Working Age claimants, income is going to be a sole proxy although there may be other elements to consider, such as children. For those who are older in age, income is not a good proxy given there may be large outgoings, such as care costs. Income is a rough tool, and the Committee is encouraging the Department to think about the identifiable edge cases where some simple rules could eliminate most of the challenging aspects. Why punish those who need care by withdrawing their WFP? This is quite a miniscule payment, and it would be good public relations to support them.  As indicated, the policy is to means-test the WFP on grounds of income alone.

(gg) This time last year the point was made that PC was the gateway to get a WFP, and the uptake of PC would reduce poverty caused by the removal of the WFP. In the broader context of the lack of a WFP the poverty would be reduced by the uptake of PC. PC is still a gateway but not a technical gateway, so there is no longer a need to claim PC to receive a WFP; therefore, the drop of poverty to cause the steady state is without incentive. Last year it was worthwhile for the Department to indicate that poverty would be reduced because of the uptake, and it was legitimate to do so. Now it needs to unwind the numbers and the claims on poverty because that incentive no longer exists. Where comments are made about poverty and the impact of providing more income to lower income pensioners, this needs to be amended. It was beneficial to indicate the reduction in poverty last year but to maintain that intent and logic is not consistent.  

There is no longer a link between PC receipt and WFP entitlement, and – all things being equal – this reduces the incentive to claim PC compared with 2024/25. But the Department continues to promote take-up of PC to reduce pensioner poverty.^{[footnote 9]}

(hh) Because PC is no longer required as a gateway to receive a WFP has the Department fully considered the potential impact on pensioner poverty given the contrast in position from last year and the lack of incentive to claim PC? Have the figures been revised to factor in the change in policy; specifically, where references are made to poverty impacts and providing more income to low earning pensioners?  

[Redacted]^{[footnote 10]}

(ii) There is a potential for confusion and misinterpretation with the communication strategy, which may leave a door open to fraud, through inappropriate claims, or scams against benefit recipients which may need another level of scrutiny. There is a risk that this is an example of incremental policy that is providing a sticking plaster rather than addressing the real concerns. It is important that where that is the case, officials hold the truth to decision makers and responsibility it taken. But, at the same time, it is also important to consider the generosity and success of this policy.   

Noted.

2.6. The Chair thanked officials for attending and for the constructive and candid discussion. The Committee said that it would be happy to continue a discussion, and to provide feedback, on aspects of the EA.

2.7. Following a subsequent private discussion, the Committee agreed that the regulations would not be taken on formal reference. Nonetheless there were a number of issues identified during the scrutiny on which the Chair would write to the Secretary of State.^{[footnote 11]}

3 to 5. Private sessions

[Reserved items]

6. Next meeting

The Chair noted that the next meeting was scheduled to take place on 10 September.

Annex A: Attendees

Guests and Officials

Item 2:

Andrew Latto (Deputy Director, Pensioner Benefits Policy)
Luke Staniland (Grade 6, Social Researcher) 
Jonathan Sherlaw (Grade 6, Retirement Services) 
Lucy Booth (Grade 7, Analyst)
Paul Phillips (HMRC) 
Philip Batchelor (HMRC) 
Paul Randle (HMT) 

Secretariat:

Denise Whitehead (Committee Secretary)  
Kenneth Ashworth (Assistant Secretary) 
Robert Cooper (Assistant Secretary) 
Lauren Shields (Analyst)

1. HMRC have subsequently advised that guidance will be provided to help people understand what they need to put on their tax return. ↩

2. Further clarification provided by HMRC following the meeting: Nobody should register for Self-Assessment if they only need to report their Winter Fuel Payment. For customers who are already registered for Self-Assessment and file a tax return online, HMRC will automatically include their 2025 payment on their 2025 to 2026 tax return.  For customers who are already registered for Self-Assessment and file a paper Self-Assessment tax return, they will need to include their winter 2025 payment on their 2025 to 2026 tax return, which is due by 31 January 2027. Recovery through the tax system will begin at the start of the relevant tax year. ↩

3. The Department subsequently informed the Committee that this information is on the Government website.  It is on the overview page, which is prior to the eligibility page for WFPs: Winter Fuel Payment: Overview - GOV.UK ↩

4. HMRC confirmed following the meeting that they will look to undertake user testing to check what can be done to help vulnerable customers understand the tax recovery of WFPs. ↩

5. Further clarification provided by the DWP and HMRC following the meeting: If the WFP should not have been paid, it will – as in previous years – be for DWP to recover it as an overpayment, unless it was made as a result of official error, in which case it is not recovered. From 2025-26, DWP will inform HMRC that such payments (whether recovered or not) should be treated as not having been made. If the WFP had been paid correctly, and the recipient has income of more than £35,000, the WFP will be recovered automatically through PAYE, so would have no penalties. For those doing self-assessment, if it is done online, the form will automatically include the WFP so again there would be no penalties. ↩

6. The Committee noted that section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 will apply for an overpayment where there is a representation. Section 71Z allows for the recovery of an overpayment as a result of official error, subject to the discretion in DWP guidance. In contrast, HMRC has compliance procedures without any discretion. The difference in discretion in both systems being the key issue in this discussion ↩

7. Unpublished information that was shared with the Committee in confidence has been redacted at the request of DWP. ↩

8. Under the Low-Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) metric, used in England. ↩

9. Unpublished information shared with the Committee in confidence has been redacted at the request of DWP. ↩

10. Unpublished information shared with the Committee in confidence has been redacted at the request of DWP. ↩

11. The exchange of correspondence between the SSAC Chair and the Minister for Pensions is available here: The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2025 - GOV.UK ↩