Select committee: Work and Pensions Committee

Conclusion 6

2nd Report - Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations Published 24 Jul 2025 Addressed to Department for Work and Pensions
Conclusion (the committee's words)
The Government says it is taking a cross-department approach to address the challenges faced by older people. We were interested in arguments that it would help to have a strategy where the Government set out its objectives for older people and the mechanisms to ensure that those priorities are reflected in policy across government departments. As an example, the Government wants to take a more preventative model to ill health. However, it is hard to see how the removal of Winter Fuel Payments with little notice from most pensioners in winter 2024/25, aligned with this. (Conclusion, Paragraph 48)

From: Work and Pensions Committee, 2nd Report - Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations (HC 465), 24 July 2025

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 10 November 2025 (deadline 24 September 2025).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government's response commits to monitoring the gender pensions gap and to data-sharing reports to the Committee, but declines to monitor local authorities on benefit take-up or to change mixed-age couple conditionality.

  • On the gender pensions gap, the government is "committed to monitoring" it and will "continue to seek to monitor and publish every 2 years", as the underlying survey data allow.
  • On an Older People's Commissioner for England, the government says it "will consider" the experience and effectiveness of the Commissioner in Wales to inform its "future thinking in England".
  • The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero "will write to the Committee by the end of 2025" with an assessment of the legislative changes needed to enable data sharing for bill support.
  • On a Pension Credit taper, the government argues a taper "would introduce far greater complexity into the benefit". On mixed-age couples, it states there "are no plans to change or explore" the current requirement.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error