Winter fuel payment U-turn in numbers
The government's decision to largely reverse its cuts to winter fuel payments has raised questions about its spending and savings plans - and its fiscal rules.BBC Verify has been looking at the the key numbers.
What has changed on winter fuel?
At the time Labour won the 2024 general election, the Department for Work and Pensions was projecting that 10.8 million pensioners in England and Wales would be eligible for winter fuel payments in 2024-25.The payments are worth either £200 or £300 per household. The new government, in order to save money, decided that only pensioners in receipt of pension credit (a separate benefit aimed at low-income pensioners) would receive winter fuel payments that winter - and said that would reduce the number of individual recipients to 1.5 million.Now the government has changed course - after widespread criticism - and said that, from 2025-26, all pensioners will get it, although it will be clawed back in the following tax year from individuals earning £35,000 and above.It claims this means about 9 million pensioners will now be eligible..
The effect of this is largely to undo the impact of its initial policy in terms of the numbers affected.
How much will this cost?
The government estimated that the cost of the winter fuel payment system it inherited in 2024-25 would have been £1.9bn.It estimated that its initial reform last year would cut this bill by £1.4bn in 2024-25 (rising to £1.5bn in 2025-26) taking the cost of the system down to £0.5bnNow the government says the cost of the system after its latest change will be £1.25bn - a saving of £450m relative to a system in which all pensioners were eligible to receive the payments.The government added that this £450m saving has not yet been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - the government's official forecaster.But, if it transpired, this saving would be only a third of the original £1.5bn savings target.
And some analysts think the overall net saving for the government could actually be lower still.Under Labour's initial 2024 reform, winter fuel payments were only available to those in receipt of a separate benefit aimed at low-income pensioners, called pension credit.Last year, the government initiated a campaign to encourage the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit, but who do not claim it, to start doing so.The latest data shows almost 60,000 more pension credit claims were awarded than otherwise might have been, likely because of the government's awareness campaign.
With each annual pension credit claim costing the government £3,900 a year on average, the former Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb has calculated that the total annual cost of these new claims could be about £234m.That additional cost would offset around half of the £450m savings claimed by the government for its latest changes to winter fuel eligibility.
How can the government afford this U-turn?
When Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the tightening of winter fuel payments in 2024, she said the £1.5bn per year savings were needed to stabilise the public finances.And those savings were entered into the OBR's budget calculations. Now the savings will only be £450m per year - or even lower - a gap of at least £1bn will open up in the government's finances.The Treasury said it will address this gap in the next Budget in the Autumn of 2025 and said "it will not lead to permanent additional borrowing".Assuming the OBR does not raise its GDP growth and tax revenue forecasts in the Budget, giving the government more money to fill the gap, this will imply ministers would either have to raise additional taxes or cut spending elsewhere to close this roughly £1bn gap .However, it should be noted that £1bn is a relatively low sum in the context of the public finances.In 2025-26 the government is projected by the OBR to spend £1,347bn and to borrow £129bn.It is also worth noting that the projected savings from the government's working age welfare reforms, announced earlier this year, are considerably higher than the savings from changing eligibility for winter fuel payments.The changes in eligibility for personal independence payments and the cuts to universal credit incapacity payments are projected by the OBR to save the government £4.8bn a year by 2029-30.
If the government were to reverse or water down those reforms, as some Labour MPs are urging, it would create a considerably larger financial headache for the chancellor in terms of meeting her fiscal rules.Those rules specify that she has to be projected to be on course to balance the government's day-to-day spending budget (which excludes spending on infrastructure) by 2029-30.In March 2025, the OBR projected that she had just £9.9bn of "headroom" against this rule, a very small amount of leeway given the size of overall government spending and borrowing.Reversing the welfare cuts would wipe out around half of it.And many economists expect the chancellor's projected headroom to be further eroded by the OBR in any case in the Autumn Budget as a result of downgraded growth forecasts and an increase in government market borrowing costs in recent months.
What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Nottingham Forest write to Uefa over Crystal Palace Europa League concerns
Nottingham Forest have written to Uefa to express their concerns about Crystal Palace qualifying for the Europa League with a decision expected by the end of this month as to whether they should be expelled. There have been suggestions that Brighton & Hove Albion, who would enter the Conference League in place of Forest if they are therefore promoted, have also complained to European football's governing body. But Telegraph Sport understands this is not the case. Uefa are set to inform Palace whether they are in breach of their multi-club ownership rules by June 30 – although the matter may then be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport which would delay a final verdict. The FA Cup winners met Uefa officials last Tuesday in a two-hour meeting in an attempt to avoid being barred from European competition because John Textor, the American businessman who has a 43 per cent stake in the club, also owns French club Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League. Palace insist there are no sharing of information or staff or facilities with the French side. The club argue that despite Textor's shareholding he has no say in the day-to-day running and has just 25 per cent of voting rights. Indeed Textor has previously spoken about his annoyance at the lack of say he has at Palace and has been trying to sell his shares. Textor reiterated this after last week's meeting in Nyon. However, Forest have now written a letter to Uefa expressing their position and asking for clarification over whether Palace will be involved. However, in a further complication, Palace's Europa League place could also depend on whether Uefa decides to allow Lyon to take part in the competition next season. Uefa's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) disqualified Lyon from European competitions in December but allowed them to continue after the club met certain demands. However, Lyon are being 'carefully monitored' by the CFCB and if they are deemed to be in breach of a settlement agreement they could be disqualified from next season's Europa League in any case which would automatically earn Palace a reprieve. On the other hand Lyon's involvement, if Palace are thrown out, will heighten the likelihood of the latter turning to CAS. At the same time Forest could also turn to the Swiss-based adjudicators if they are not satisfied with Uefa's decision. It, therefore, appears to be a legal minefield. Palace may well have fallen foul of Uefa's rules because clubs have to establish separate ownership structures before March 1 if they hoped to play in the same competition in the following season. Matters are further complicated because one option for Uefa to consider is to demote Palace to the Conference League as a form of punishment. That is believed to be unlikely, however, as it may lead to further appeals. Palace have strongly refuted any wrongdoing and have attempted to comply with Uefa's rules as quickly as possible having won the first trophy in their history. Evangelos Marinakis, the Forest owner, who also owns Greek club Olympiacos, diluted his stake by placing his shares in a blind trust to ensure there was no conflict when it appeared they would qualify for the Champions League.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
State is ‘stifling criticism of Islam over fear of violent mobs', says Tory MP
The state is stifling criticism of Islam because of fears of a violent mob reaction, a senior MP has claimed. Nick Timothy, a front-bench Tory MP, issued the warning ahead of his Bill aimed at protecting free speech and the right to criticise religions, including Islam, being presented before Parliament on Tuesday. It follows the conviction of Hamit Coskun, 50, for setting fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. He was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Mr Timothy, who is a columnist for The Telegraph, is proposing a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill that would rewrite the Public Order Act to prevent it being used as a 'de facto' blasphemy law. His bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend legal provisions – which protect the freedom to criticise religion in specific circumstances – to the whole of the Public Order Act. 'The Public Order Act is increasingly being used as a blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. The Act was never intended to do this. Parliament never voted for this, and the British people do not want it,' said Mr Timothy. 'To use the Public Order Act in this way is especially perverse, since it makes a protester accountable for the actions of those who respond with violence to criticism of their faith. This is wrong, and it destroys our freedom of speech. 'We should be honest that the law is only being used in this way because the authorities have become afraid of the violent reaction of mobs of people who want to impose their values on the rest of us. 'My Bill will put a stop to this and restore our freedom of speech – and our right to criticise any and all religions, including Islam.' At Westminster magistrates' court, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kurdish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F---- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Criticising Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long hanker for another plateful
China 's vice-premier He Lifeng, a big yam, is in London and spent his morning with Rachel Reeves. MPs, perhaps sensing that he (that is to say, He) might need a laugh after his ordeal, laid on a Chinese-related show in the afternoon: An urgent question attacking a 'nefarious' plan for a Chinese super-embassy in London. Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Con, Chingford & Woodford Green) led demands that planning minister Matthew Pennycook block the embassy. He and a surprising number of Labour backbenchers argued that the site was a security risk, being bang next to a telephone exchange that serves the City. 'Dark cabling' runs underneath the premises. These may be used for the transmission of delicate material. Our spooks are said to be uneasy about this, as are the Americans and, oddly, the Dutch. Much Beijing-bashing ensued. China operatives might cut those dark cables. National security was at risk. It would cost a fortune to police the site. Criticism of Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long you hanker for another plateful. Moreover, there is now an electoral consideration: Many British constituencies contain large numbers of Hong Kongers, some of whom worry that Chinese diplomats present a mortal threat to them. This is not a concept entirely easy to explain to President Xi, but these Hong Kongers may be swing voters. MPs therefore feel under pressure to deplore the Beijing regime. Comrade Pennycook was a credit to his profession. He stood there and repeatedly said nothing. It takes years in Communist-approved training camps to perfect this verbose art. Mr Pennycook's tongue was tied because this was a 'quasi-judicial matter' on which he, as planning supremo, would allegedly have to pass judgment. 'I cannot comment in any detail,' he regretfully told Sir James Cleverly, a former foreign secretary. 'I didn't ask for any detail!' yelped Sir James. Mr Pennycook shuffled his papers and regretted that that did not alter matters. He still could not dilate. What he possibly meant was that Sir Keir Starmer, diplomatic genius that he is, may already have given Premier Xi an undertaking that the super-embassy can proceed. Sir Iain suggested 'Project Kowtow' was under way – 'a walk of shame for the Government'. Mr Pennycook murmured: 'It would not be appropriate for me to comment.' Unhappy Labour MPs included Alex Sobel (Leeds C), burly Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) and even the House's leading Starmerite greaser, Mark Sewards (Leeds SW). It is almost unheard of for little Sewards to express anything but ravished delight at the Government's behaviour. Whips may need to check his circuit board to make sure a virus has not infected his central controls. We also had an eruption from Marie Rimmer, a magnificent old Labour pudding from St Helens who normally does as commanded by her party. Ms Rimmer, like a runaway truckle of cheese, proved hard to stop once she was rolling. 'China has a record of state-backed espionage,' she cried through some whistly-sounding teeth. 'There has been a massive under-estimation of the risk.' Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani tried to get her to shut up but Ms Rimmer did not notice. Bits of cheese-wheel, or at least her oratory, were by now flying here and there. Words were splintering. Sentences were disintegrating. A nearby MP took a shard of cheddar in the eye and went down like a fallen warrior. Even Beijing's most accomplished code-breakers might have struggled to understand what our Marie meant. At one point she seemed to talk of 'signals contraception'. Did she mean 'interception'? Or something else? Maybe the wheezy dinner-lady routine is a brilliant front. Maybe she is an MI6 ace under deep cover. In other news Torsten Bell, pensions minister, explained the Government's rethink on winter fuel payments. What a twerp! Arrogant young Bell's nose twitched as he pushed his excuses past a set of vegetarian-looking teeth. Rabbit with a quiff. Any pensioner would have been tempted to truncheon him with a furled brolly.
