Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 869): motion to annul
228Ayes
348Noes
Defeated · majority 120 · Government won70 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 228 · No 348 · DNV 70 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 10 September 2024 on a motion to annul the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024, a statutory instrument (a form of secondary legislation made without a full parliamentary bill) that had already come into force. The motion was defeated by 348 votes to 228. The regulations restrict Winter Fuel Payments to pensioners receiving Pension Credit or another means-tested benefit, removing the payment from an estimated ten million pensioners who had previously received it regardless of income. The practical effect of the regulations was immediate: the universal Winter Fuel Payment, worth up to 300 pounds for eligible households, ceased to be available to the majority of pensioners from the 2024 winter. Because the motion to annul was defeated, the regulations remain in force. The change is projected to reduce public spending significantly. Those who lose the payment are pensioners not claiming Pension Credit or other qualifying means-tested benefits, a group the government argues can manage without targeted support, though critics argued many face genuine hardship and do not claim benefits they are entitled to. The parties divided sharply. All 111 voting Conservatives, all 72 Liberal Democrats, all nine SNP members, and smaller parties including Reform UK, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens voted to annul. Five Labour MPs voted with the opposition, a notable rebellion given the policy was a government decision introduced just weeks into the new Parliament. The broader politics were set by the government's argument that spending restraint required targeting support at the poorest, while opposition parties framed the cut as a sudden removal of a long-standing universal benefit from vulnerable older people.
Voting Aye meant
Support annulling the regulation, opposing the removal of Winter Fuel Payments from pensioners not on means-tested benefits
Voting No meant
Back the government's means-testing of Winter Fuel Payments, arguing it targets support at the poorest pensioners and reduces public spending
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
5
306
50
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
111
0
5
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
71
0
0
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
39
3
Independent
—
7
4
3
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liability; amendments needed to narrow steel undertaking definition, restrict public interest test, require independent assessment and NAO value-for-money check, and limit sunset clause extension.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,988 words) →
Bill's broad powers modelled on Banking Act 2009 and essential for swift intervention in market failure; wide definition of steel undertaking and public interest test provide needed flexibility; government will exercise powers proportionately.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (5,966 words) →
Supports temporary nationalisation as rescue measure but demands parliamentary accountability through statement requirement, affirmative procedure for regulations, stakeholder advisory committee, and jobs transition strategy.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,339 words) →
Secretary of state's powers in clauses 1–3 are too broad; definition of steel undertaking could catch tangential steelmakers, public interest test is undefined and expansible, and indefinite sunset extension negates the purpose of a sunset clause.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,952 words) →
Supports nationalisation and bill's swift passage; opposes conservative amendments as bureaucratic delays that would prevent necessary investment; calls for 10-year strategy, pro-British steel procurement, and blast furnace commitment.Reform UK · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,510 words) →
Supports bill as historic reversal of industry neglect; praises steel strategy and £2.5bn investment; urges government to ensure trade measures do not inadvertently harm downstream businesses and steel stockholders.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,176 words) →
Bill's speed and flexibility are essential; amendments imposing prerequisites would cumulatively hamper swift action; nationalisation means strategic acquisition with independent board, not day-to-day government control; supports transparency balanced against commercial sensitivity.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,772 words) →
Amendment 23 would guarantee protection of Welsh steel jobs and sites; Port Talbot was allowed to close when government could have intervened; Welsh steel deserves equal protection as English and Scottish sites.Plaid Cymru · Voted aye · Read full speech (789 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0