Select committee: Work and Pensions Committee
Conclusion 13
2nd Report - Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations
Published 24 Jul 2025
Addressed to Department for Work and Pensions
Work and Pensions Committee Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
The Government conducted a very limited high-level equality analysis of WFP reform, estimating the impact on the number of pensioners in poverty. We heard repeatedly about the possible impacts on their health, as well. While this may be difficult to quantify, a fuller impact assessment, 83 considering the cumulative impact and broader impact of policies and the views of pensioners, might have contributed to a different policy change or more effective plans for implementation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 88)
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.