Fund Winter Fuel Payments with MP expenses cut says petition
The petition was started by Yvonne Keegan, who calls for the benefit to be reinstated: "I know first hand the importance of Winter Fuel Payment - it's a lifeline to pensioners during the harsh winter months. Their heating bills can skyrocket, and they end up struggling, trying desperately to keep themselves warm.
"Meanwhile, our politicians are living comfortably with expenses that would be considered extravagant by most standards. We believe that our politicians – who have a stable income, can afford to pay their heating bills and do not need taxpayer-funded expenses to support this aspect of their lifestyle."
Once a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the Government responds, and if 100,000 people sign, a debate in Parliament is considered.
This petition currently has 110,421 signatures. Signatures can still be added here.
How much do MPs get paid?
MPs' basic salary rose 2.8% to £93,904 from April, after Parliament's expenses watchdog linked it to wider proposals for the public sector.
They can also claim expenses including:
Office expenses
Office running costs
Staffing costs
Travel for staff
Centrally purchased stationery
Postage costs
Central IT costs
Communications allowance
They also receive allowances towards having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.
MPs can claim their utility bills, including gas, electricity, other fuel and water bills, on expenses at a single property, either in London or their constituency. This is only available to those who aren't MPs in London, or don't occupy 'grace and favour' accommodation in London.
There is no upper limit on how much MPs can claim back on heating and fuel costs.
Which pensioners will receive Winter Fuel payments after the changes?
The Government has said more pensioners will receive winter fuel payments, but payments will not be universal.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'.
She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.'
My instant response to Winter Fuel Payment news & key message to the Chancellor (I heard while walking to the office, so pls forgive the fact it was done there and then for speed) pic.twitter.com/5t2kxwAkPj — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) June 4, 2025
Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments.
Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that.
'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.'
(Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support.
The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure.
Pension Credit is currently the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment.
The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment.
Recommended reading:
What were the cuts to winter fuel payments, and who currently receives them?
On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances.
This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million.
Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that.
'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves wants to level up your commute. Does she have the money?
'Biggest ever investment in city region local transport as Chancellor vows the 'Renewal of Britain',' trumpeted a government press release on 4 June. It was one of those headlines that feels like it should come with a '[citation needed]' tag. Have they accounted for inflation? When they say 'city region', are they gerrymandering to only count places officially designated by this relatively recent term? The total cash adds up to £15.6bn. There's a risk of apples and oranges here; yet it seems at least worth noting that London's Elizabeth Line cost £18.8bn. But let's hold the cynicism for the moment, because all this looks suspiciously like that rarest thing: good news from Rachel Reeves. The announcement more than doubles the real terms capital funding for nine city regions from 2027/28 to 2031/32: £2.4bn for the West Midlands, £2.5bn for Greater Manchester and so on. The list of 'projects likely to be taken forward by mayors' that accompanies it includes a dizzying number of potential schemes: an eastern extension of the Midlands Metro; new tram stops and a potential Stockport extension for Manchester's Metrolink; new rolling stock and station upgrades on the Sheffield Supertram; and so on. All this is cheering, even if you're not the sort of person who can while away a happy hour looking at public transport maps of cities you've never even visited, because there are reasons to think poor transport is one cause of Britain's economic malaise. Productivity, after all, tends to correlate with city size, and poor connectivity means that our cities are functionally a lot smaller than they look: the transport and economy writer Tom Forth has shown that traffic congestion means that Birmingham functionally shrinks by half in rush hour. It's not just that cities with good public transport are nicer, though they are: it's that, by linking employers with a larger pool of potential employees, they're often more prosperous. It's good news for political reasons, too. So much of what this government is doing – including, probably, the bulk of next week's spending review – feels unnervingly like presiding over decline. This isn't that. It has been pitched as a move towards rewriting the 'Green Book', the guidance the Treasury uses to value potential spending commitments – and which tends, because of London's prosperity and sheer size, to funnel money to the south-east. By allocating money to other regions, between them containing nearly 18 million people – over a third of England's population outside London – it's a baby step towards the levelling up the last government promised but failed to deliver. Not everyone is convinced: plenty warn this all has unnerving parallels with Rishi Sunak's proposals for 'Network North', which was neither a network nor really about the north. (The list of projects included stretched, hilariously, to Plymouth.) But I think that's too kind to Sunak and unfair on Reeves: there is a difference between a rapidly assembled list of unfunded projects press-released to counteract some bad headlines about the dismemberment of HS2 and an actual funding announcement by a sitting Chancellor. Will it be truly transformative? There appear to be a few shortcomings. For example, absent from the announcement is the long-awaited and repeatedly cancelled rebuild of Manchester Piccadilly station, which has long acted as a bottleneck for rail services across the north. Another absence is HS2 itself, which (sing along if you know the tune) would increase capacity on local services by getting fast trains out of the way. These would do wonders for multiple city regions – but they are excluded, presumably either because they are not 'city region' projects but strategic rail ones, or because they just cost too much. The last critique concerns the politics. It's great to see a government breaking with tradition and increasing, rather than slashing, capital funding – but the reason most chancellors tend to cut is because these projects take so long to show any benefits. The suggested timeline for the proposed West Yorkshire Mass Transit is both illustrative and absurd: 'spades in the ground' by 2028, the first services in the mid 2030s. Until then, it won't transform the economy, and may not help much at the next election – it could, in fact, do the opposite, by mobilising opponents who fear disruption to roads. It's good to see a chancellor invest. Let's hope she doesn't regret it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See more: Inside No 10's new dysfunction] Related
Wales Online
6 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
South Wales Guardian
6 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'
