Sir Keir Starmer last night admitted his Government had not carried out an assessment of the risks of taking Winter Fuel Payments away from an estimated 10 million pensioners.
The Prime Minister insisted there was no report on my desk despite widespread warnings - including by Labour when in opposition - that the deeply unpopular move could lead to thousands of elderly people dying.
He was asked by reporters as he travelled to Washington if he could produce the impact assessment, a type of report usually carried out by civil servants on the potential risks and benefits of major policy decisions, on the controversial means-testing of energy bill subsidies.
The PM said the impact would be mitigated by low-income pensioners receiving pension credit but admitted: There isnt a report on my desk which somehow were not showing.
Pressed on whether that meant there was no impact assessment, he repeated: There isnt a report on my desk.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer laughs as he speaks to journalists on board a flight to Washington DC last night
In 2017, Labour claimed Conservative plans to means-test the winter fuel allowance could lead to almost 4,000 deaths (Stock Image)
Told that legally the Government had to carry one out, Sir Keir said that was not actually true.
The PM added: I know you think theres a report on my desk but there isnt one.
No 10 has said there is no obligation for departments to carry out impact assessments of policies that cost less than £10million to implement.
However, the Guardian reported that an assessment had been carried out of the potential impact by race, gender and age on the axing of Winter Fuel Payments for those not on benefits.
Ministers have a legal duty to consider the equalities implications of any policy development that happens to assess the proportion of protected characteristics, such as age and gender, (of those) who claim winter fuel payments.
That exercise is part of routine advice that ministers consider as part of their policy development, and that happened in the usual way, a Downing Street spokesman said.
A Downing Street spokeswoman said some statistical work had been done, but nothing on what impact the change might have on vulnerable pensioners.
There are clear rules on this that we followed carefully and, for policy changes implemented through secondary legislation, like the change to winter fuel payment eligibility, departments are required to make regulatory impact assessments if the cost of the legislation exceeds £10 million and so an assessment was therefore not required for the change to winter fuel eligibility.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves insists Labour have been forced into the controversial policy by a black hole in the public finances
The Chancellor has been warning of more pain to come in the Budget next month
There was a legal duty to consider the equality implications of any policy development and that happened in the usual way to assess the proportion of protected characteristics, such as age and gender who claim winter fuel payments.
And there was also an official statistical publication which set out the estimated number of households in fuel poverty.
But the spokeswoman confirmed there had been no work on how many people affected by the change might have health difficulties or might be vulnerable or at risk as a result of the change.
Asked whether an assessment should have been done to work out whether elderly people might die as a result of the change, the spokeswoman said: The Government will be ensuring that those who are most vulnerable and should be receiving support are receiving it, and thats why there is a huge effort to try and convert people onto pension credit.
And also, we want people to be applying for the wider support, which is also there for the most vulnerable.
Our approach is to ensure that those most vulnerable are receiving targeted support, and weve had to take that tough decision to rebalance the books, given the state of the public finances.
In 2017, Labour claimed Conservative plans to means-test the winter fuel allowance could lead to almost 4,000 deaths.
Meanwhile in the House of Lords, a motion regretting the controversial move to strip the allowance from 10million pensioners was passed by 164 votes to 132.
Former Brexit Party MEP Baroness Fox of Buckley said the debate over curbing winter fuel payments had led to boomer bashing.
A motion regretting the controversial move to strip the allowance from 10million pensioners was passed by 164 votes to 132
The non-affiliated peer said: In this instance, the nice party, Im afraid, is in danger of having stirred up quite a lot of antagonism and hatred to a generation who deserve better – ordinary working people, who just happen to be old.
The House of Lords backed by 164 votes to 132, majority 32, a so-called regret motion, proposed by the Tories.
The administration had earlier seen off a Conservative backbench bid in the unelected chamber to scupper the measure outright by 138 votes to 30, majority 108.