Welsh FM accused of doing ‘nothing' to protect pensioners from winter fuel cut
Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, called for Eluned Morgan to apologise to the pensioners affected by the change last winter, arguing the Welsh Government should have stepped in to support those in need.
Speaking during First Minister's Questions on Tuesday, Mr Millar said the cut had forced vulnerable people to choose between heating and eating.
Baroness Morgan, leader of the Welsh Labour Government, said she was 'absolutely delighted' that the UK Government had reversed the cut for many.
The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners, with anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year now getting the payment automatically.
The decision last July to restrict the winter fuel payment to the poorest pensioners was intended to save around £1.5 billion a year, with more than nine million people who would have previously been eligible losing out.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, announced the partial U-turn on Monday, following significant backlash from charities, opposition MPs and the Government's own backbenchers.
Speaking in the Senedd, Mr Millar said: 'Yesterday we saw a screeching U-turn on the winter fuel allowance by Rachel Reeves, after considerable pressure from the Conservative Party.
'You will know that over half a million Welsh pensioners were deprived of their winter fuel payments last year, leaving some very vulnerable people with the unenvious choice of having to choose between heating and eating – it's an absolute disgrace.
'You are meant to stand up for Wales but what did you actually do in terms of this winter fuel allowance? You did absolutely nothing.'
Mr Millar argued Baroness Morgan should have implemented a Welsh winter fuel payment or stood up to Sir Keir Starmer and demanded the payment be restored sooner.
Baroness Morgan responded that she was 'absolutely delighted' that Sir Keir Starmer had listened to pensioners in Wales and across the country.
'I'm really pleased that because we have made representations to the Prime Minister on this issue that he has changed his mind and that will make a difference to hundreds of thousands of pensioners across Wales this winter, in a country where we do have more older people and housing which is more difficult to heat.
'I don't think that it's bad to listen to people and then to make sure that you respond to them.'
Baroness Morgan had previously pushed back against the cut, having called for a 'rethink' in early May, saying it was something 'that comes up time and again'.
At the time, the Government said there would 'not be a change to the Government's policy'.
On Monday, Ms Reeves suggested that the 'stability we've brought back to the economy' meant the Government was able to change the eligibility threshold for winter fuel payments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Spending war of words will only heat up as Holyrood election looms
The battle lines have been well and truly drawn ahead of 2026 Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It didn't take long for the traditional war of words to kick off between ministers north and south of the Border. The Chancellor's spending review was a blizzard of big numbers. Rachel Reeves said it would deliver an average block grant for Scotland of £50.9 billion per year over the next three years. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution was introduced, she said. UK ministers said it amounted to an extra £9.1 billion for the Scottish Government over the review period. Chancellor Rachel Reeves | PA 'That's more money than ever before for them to invest in Scottish public services like our NHS, police, housing and schools,' said Scottish Secretary Ian Murray. Keen Holyrood watchers will not be surprised to hear that Shona Robison, the SNP's Finance Secretary, took a different view. She insisted Scotland was yet again being treated 'as an afterthought'. 'Today's settlement for Scotland is particularly disappointing, with real terms growth of 0.8 per cent a year for our overall block grant, which is lower than the average for UK departments,' she said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Had our resource funding for day-to-day priorities grown in line with the UK Government's overall spending, we would have £1.1 billion more to spend on our priorities over the next three years. 'In effect, Scotland has been short-changed by more than a billion pounds.' Analysis by experts such as those at the Fraser Of Allander Institute (FAI), attached to Strathclyde University, helps cut through some of the noise. The wider UK picture, it said, is one of 'largesse in the short-run' followed by cuts in future years. On the day-to-day spending side, the Scottish Government's funding does indeed grow at an average of 0.8 per cent a year after accounting for inflation. This is lower than forecast by the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission last month. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We have seen some Labour MPs and MSPs describing this event as increasing the block grant by £9.1 billion over the spending review period,' experts at the FAI wrote in a blog post. 'While it is true that Barnett consequentials add up to this figure (across different periods for resource and capital), this doesn't seem like a particularly transparent or helpful way of describing the changes. 'It essentially assumes that no additional funding would have been made available for the Scottish Government in cash terms relative to that in 2025/26 – which is not a credible baseline. 'A much more insightful – though perhaps less cheery – conclusion from looking at the SFC's forecast is that by 2028/29, funding will be £0.7 billion lower than their central estimate published on 29 May.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad David Phillips, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the increase in the Scottish Government's day-to-day funding was frontloaded, at 1.2 per cent in 2026/27, then 0.6 per cent and 0.7 per cent in subsequent years. 'With devolved elections looming, this poses a risk: it will be easier to fund any pledges/giveaways around the time of the election than later years,' he wrote on social media. 'Parties need to avoid the temptation to promise unfunded 'goodies'; their pledges will need to be carefully scrutinised. 'While the Scottish Government's budget will increase overall, the NHS could easily absorb all of the increase - necessitating cuts to other spending. 'That's particularly likely from 2027/28 onwards, due to combo of smaller increases in UK funding and devolved tax and benefit forecasts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It's perfectly legitimate for the Scottish Government to prioritise benefits and public sector pay rises - but without further tax rises that will squeeze many services even more than in the rest of the UK.' Of course, there were other big announcements for Scotland in the spending review, not least money for a long-awaited carbon capture project in Aberdeenshire. The Acorn facility, which had previously been overlooked in favour of schemes down south, is in line for 'development funding' from the UK Government, although it is not clear how much money is actually on the table. Ms Robison said the Scottish Government had been provided with no figures and no timeframe. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Elsewhere, the Chancellor confirmed up to £750 million in funding for the creation of a supercomputer at Edinburgh University, which could be one of the most powerful in the world. The plan had previously been scrapped by Ms Reeves in the early weeks of her Government taking office. There was also an initial investment of £250 million over the next three years in the Faslane naval base, the home of the UK's nuclear deterrent, while Glasgow will benefit from wider munitions funding. Increased cash for the NHS and housing in England will see more money flow north to Scotland, and SNP ministers will be under pressure to pass this on. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "What we have done previously is we have passed on health resource consequentials and [then] some, going back years and years,' Ms Robison told journalists in Holyrood. "We haven't just matched health resource consequentials, but we've given more than that. So that has been our pattern of investment in the health service previously." But as the Holyrood election looms next year, it is clear the war of words over spending - and who is to blame for the state of public services - will only heat up. In a briefing for Scottish journalists, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said the spending review will mean £2.9 billion extra for Scotland each year.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set
The consensus has long been that the 2025 spending review would be a defining moment for Keir Starmer's government. For once, the consensus proved spot-on. The government's main priorities were set out on Wednesday in a blizzard of Commons announcements from Rachel Reeves, some economically substantive, others more for show. The upshot is that the shape of the British state, as Labour intends it, is now decided until the eve of the next election. There are further crossroads still to come, some of them major, as the years covered by the review unroll. Taxes are likely to rise, probably as soon as the autumn budget, to pay for Reeves's big ticket boosts on Wednesday for defence, health and housing. Council tax could rise too, with possibly dramatic results. The review's emphasis on capital spending means current spending could be squeezed again, perhaps heralding pay battles. Nevertheless, Labour has set its course. The administrative purpose of the spending review is to define where money is spent in the British state. But the review is also a defining political and cultural moment. It sets out the choices by which the government will stand or fall, and which aim to locate an electoral sweet spot. That spot, still elusive and distant despite Labour's Holyrood byelection win last week, is one in which, as Reeves put it, a sense of renewal 'is felt in people's everyday lives'. Politically, this speech was a moment of truth for the chancellor herself. Reeves has had a tough first year. Some of the grind she will have expected, some of it not. The year has been dominated by the winter fuel allowance blunder, which was not hers alone but which she inevitably owns. She has maintained a dogged commitment to her strict fiscal rules – she repeated it in Wednesday's speech – in spite of new global shocks that might allow her to adapt them. Lacklustre macroeconomic out-turns have not helped; inflation and unemployment have both ticked up. Last summer's donations row and questions about the truthfulness of her personal CV have done her no favours either. The bookies were starting to mark down the Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden, as a potential successor before Reeves spoke. But Reeves did more than enough in her speech to put the lid on that, at least for now. The muttering against her lacks momentum, since it comes from the usual backbench and union critics. Cabinet support, not least from Starmer himself, is meanwhile described as rock solid. 'She is universally popular and respected for being straight,' a minister says. If Starmer removed her he would find himself in trouble too. Even so, when Reeves addressed MPs on Wednesday she had something to prove. If her career was not on the line, her authority was. A well-connected former Whitehall mandarin put it very clearly to me a couple of days ago. 'It really is a pivotal time for her,' he said. 'It has been a really difficult first year. The inheritance was genuinely bad. But the response has blunted her reputation and her options. The main problem is that the government has still not successfully made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create. If she is to make that vision clear, then this is the time she absolutely needs to do it.' To understand Reeves, it is important to go back to her record as shadow chancellor. Much of her approach was set out in two speeches. The first, given in Washington DC in May 2023, launched the idea of 'securonomics', which she echoed on Wednesday. The Washington speech was the historically bolder of the two. It amounted to an obituary for the era of borderless economic globalisation. It placed national economic security, both for the country and for the public, at the centre of strategy. The second, Reeves's Mais lecture in March 2024, filled this out more watchfully, because the election was nearing. It emphasised the active role of the state in curbing economic decline and inequality, and emphasising the centrality of growth. The connection between those speeches and the announcements this week is clearly umbilical. The spending review's main focus – defence, health and levelling up – is rooted in the securonomics approach. Reeves may be one of Labour's most pragmatic ministers. But this absolutely does not mean that she is merely a technocrat without priorities. Indeed she has described herself, in my hearing, as a social democrat. I am reasonably certain she still would. Her record and her priorities bear it out. So did Wednesday's speech. Her reform of Treasury policy towards growth outside London is a striking example. Few in the cabinet have such a visceral commitment to social and economic mobility. For her, as she made clear on Wednesday, this is personal. Nevertheless, some of what Reeves said in opposition is simply no longer valid. In particular, the assumption in both speeches that the US shares Britain's values and is a partner for stability has been comprehensively trashed by Donald Trump. Nor, despite the fact that they were given after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, do Reeves's speeches from opposition contain any hint of the much higher priority now earmarked for defence spending. True, Reeves is not a chancellor who panders to the parts of the Labour coalition whose priorities are unchanged since the middle of the last century. But, as the railways and energy already show, she is open to different ownership models. She was quick to settle with the unions on pay last summer. And she absolutely does not believe, as Liz Truss did, that the key is for government to get out of the way. Ever since she became chancellor, many have been uncertain about whether Reeves can pitch a vision strongly enough to connect with the wider public. She allowed herself to be dubbed an iron chancellor, but she then got involved in the donations furore. Why does she insist on such a tight policy at the Treasury, some ask? The answer is either that she and Starmer think they have no alternative in the circumstances; or, it's that they are doing it this way because they actually believe in it. Yesterday's Commons speech was clearly an attempt to show that it is the former not the latter, and given fewer constraints the outlook might be very different. Reeves said repeatedly that her choices were 'Labour choices'. So often was this claim made that it all became a bit insistent, but the purpose was clear. It was to stake out distinct centre-left ideological ground for tackling the hazards of the 2020s. Though some will dispute it, it is the thread that runs through the whole of Reeves's career. The test now is whether that essentially social democratic approach of growing the economy and then redistributing the proceeds will work in today's world, especially given the entrenched imbalances of the British economy and the increasing volatility of British politics. Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Russell George MS supports Wales' 'bold' farming manifesto
A Montgomeryshire MS has shared his support for a 'bold' farming manifesto that has been unveiled. Russell George, MS for Montgomeryshire, has welcomed the launch of the National Farming Union (NFU) Cymru's election manifesto, Welsh Farming: Growing Forward. The manifesto was revealed at the Senedd on Tuesday, June 10, as part of Welsh Farming Week. The launch event, a key feature in NFU Cymru's celebration of Welsh food and farming, highlighted the central role agriculture plays in Welsh communities. The manifesto, which outlines ambitious priorities for the upcoming Senedd election, calls for recognition of the importance of food and farming to every Welsh constituent. It urges candidates and parties to commit to a farm-to-fork food strategy, to back policies that underpin food production, and to promote the sourcing of Welsh produce within the public sector. Additional priorities identified in the document include combatting bovine TB, improving water quality, and securing a protected, multi-annual budget for Welsh farming. After attending the event, Mr George said: "Farming is the backbone of our rural economy. "I was pleased to attend the launch of NFU Cymru's new manifesto and hear first-hand the priorities of Welsh farmers. "It's clear that a strong, sustainable food and farming sector is essential not just for rural Wales, but for the whole country. "I fully support efforts to place food production at the heart of policy-making and to ensure farming communities receive the recognition and support they deserve. "The industry is at breaking point, with farmers being asked to do more for less, with reduced support and increasing environmental demands. "My view is that the UK Government's family farm tax will lead to the breakup of family farms. "Many families will simply have to sell off parts of their farm, making the business less viable. "Rural economies depend on the farming industry. "The consequences of family farms dwindling away is that we will become more reliant on food supplied from outside of the UK. "The Welsh Government also needs to do so much more to tackle the devastation that bovine TB causes. "I believe that a holistic approach to defeating the disease is required; working in partnership with farmers and vets to eradicate the reservoir of infection within herds, eliminate inter-herd transmission and the targeted removal of infected wildlife, who themselves suffer a painful death due to TB."
