Winter fuel payment in Scotland to match UK benefit
Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed last week that the payment would be reinstated to the majority of pensioners.
Following the initial decision to cut the universal benefit, the Scottish Government was forced to delay its plans for the pension age winter heating payment, but in December it announced pensioners north of the border would receive at least £100 every year.
Speaking in Glasgow on Monday, the First Minister confirmed the Scottish Government's benefit would at least match that proposed by the UK Government.
Pensioners south of the border who earn under £35,000 will receive either £200 or £300.
'I'm very happy to confirm today that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less than they would under the new UK scheme,' he said.
'Details will be set out in due course by my Government, but the Scottish Government will always seek to do what is best for Scotland's pensioners.'
The changes announced last week will result in further increases in funding for the Scottish Government, which the First Minister later told journalists is expected to be around £120 million.
Speaking at an event on public sector reform on Monday, the First Minister hit out at the initial decision to cut the benefit.
'To be quite blunt about it, I don't believe cutting this winter lifeline was ever going to save a penny,' he said.
'Making millions of pensioners poorer makes them also colder and makes them also sicker, and that in turn puts up the bill for our social services and our NHS.'
He added: 'It's one of the reasons we were so quick to step in to protect pensioners in Scotland as best as we could from that wrong decision by the UK Government.
'But now that they've seen the error of their ways, my Government will once again to the right thing by Scotland's pensioners.'
The power over the payment was devolved to Social Security Scotland in time for it to be paid out last winter. When asked if he regretted not offering it to older Scots, the First Minister said: 'I might have had the power, but I didn't have the money and I can't spend money I don't have.
'If the UK Government cuts a budget, I can't spend it, and what we've done is we've taken a series of hard decisions to allow us, before the Labour Government came anywhere near doing a U-turn on this, to restore winter fuel payments to pensioners because of other hard decisions that I've made.
'So the SNP has kept faith with pensioners in Scotland when the Labour Party has deserted them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
35 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Business News Wales
38 minutes ago
- Business News Wales
A Welsh Perspective from London Tech Week
Mark John, Co-Founder of Tramshed Tech and Board Member of the UK Tech Cluster Last week, I had the privilege of representing Tramshed Tech as a Strategic Partner at London Tech Week, an experience that proved as energising as it was eye-opening. From international roundtables and policy briefings to investor panels and startup showcases, the week was a powerful snapshot of where the UK tech sector is heading and where Wales fits within that evolving picture. What unfolded was not just a packed agenda of meetings and events, but a timely reminder of the growing role regional ecosystems like ours are playing on the global tech stage. Monday Wow… what a way to start. I arrived in London early Monday, armed with an ambitious schedule and a suitcase full of Tramshed brochures, not quite prepared for the sheer scale of what lay ahead. First stop: 'Innovating Beyond Borders' at the Québec Government Office. This was a great moment to deepen ties with our Canadian friends, as well as spark a new connection with McGill University's Dobson Centre. The conversations there reminded me how vital global collaboration is to developing innovation clusters, something we're working hard to lead in Wales. Next, I headed to the Welsh Government offices for the InterCeltic Business Forum, where the room was filled with a real sense of cross-border opportunity. It's always good to be reminded of the cultural and economic ties Wales shares with its Celtic cousins and how those shared values can become a competitive advantage in the global market. The day wrapped with the UK Startup Coalition reception at the Trafalgar St James rooftop. From pre-Spending Review conversations with Chancellor Rachel Reeves to chats with friends from across the UK tech cluster network, it was clear that policy and ecosystem alignment are climbing up the national agenda—and fast. Tuesday–Thursday These days were a full-on tech marathon. Olympia played host to a flurry of meetings, chance encounters, and purposeful introductions. Tramshed's headline moment came on the LTW Startup Stage as we showcased some of Wales' most exciting emerging ventures from green tech to gaming. Seeing our cohort pitch on a global stage, backed by our brilliant Head of Ventures, Sophie Webber, was a moment of real pride. At the Global Tech Advocates breakfast in the City, I spoke on behalf of Tech Wales Advocates and was struck again by how interconnected the global tech community is becoming. Conversations with peers from India, China, the Nordics, and the Middle East reaffirmed that Wales has a genuine opportunity to carve out a place in that global network, if we keep pushing. A standout moment came at DSIT in Whitehall, where I joined a UK Tech Cluster Group roundtable with Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and the DSIT leadership team. We discussed what the Chancellor's Spending Review could mean in practice, particularly the boost to AI and R&D, and the increased remit for the British Business Bank. The details are still to come, but the direction of travel is encouraging: more place-based investment, and more regional autonomy to shape growth. Thursday Evening If there was a single event that summed up the week, it was Invest in Innovation: The Welsh Opportunity, our flagship event at the 23rd floor of The Shard. With stunning views over London, we delivered a full-throttle showcase of Welsh tech excellence. David Stevens, Co-Founder of Admiral, reminded the room exactly what Wales is capable of when the right conditions align. From world-class data talent to unmatched workforce loyalty, his message was clear: Wales works. That theme continued with our investment panel, where the message from investors was unambiguous—Wales is investable, scalable, and open for business. London advisors were told to set up shop. Founders were told to base themselves in Wales. And investors? Start building your Welsh portfolio. The time is now. Friday After a late-night return on what I'll always call 'The Milk Train,' it was straight to Cardiff City Stadium for the Made in the UK, Sold to the World roadshow. As a keynote speaker, I had the opportunity to reflect on the week and its broader message: exporting isn't a bonus for tech companies—it's the beginning. Most of the startups we support at Tramshed Tech are already reaching global markets before they've reached ten employees. Exporting is baked into their DNA. And what London Tech Week reinforced is that Wales is absolutely ready to meet that global demand. Final Reflections London Tech Week was more than a calendar of events, it was a mirror. A chance to see how far Wales has come as a tech ecosystem, and how much further we can go if we back our startups, invest in our infrastructure, and believe in our own ability to lead. As we look ahead to the Wales Investment Summit later this year, the challenge is simple: keep connecting the dots. Global relevance starts with local ambition and last week showed just how much of that we already have.
Glasgow Times
41 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
