New plans to provide Winter Fuel Payments to more pensioners could be due next week
An update on Uk Government plans to issue the heating payment to 'more pensioners' could be given on June 11.
Keir Starmer reveals partial U-turn on Winter Fuel Payment cut
Details on when Winter Fuel Payments could be restored to more pensioners could be announced next week. The Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, recently indicated the Spending Review by Chancellor Rachel Reeves on Wednesday, June 11 could be when an update is given.
Limiting the annual payment of up to £300 to only those in receipt of a qualifying means-tested benefit such as Pension Credit or Universal Credit (for mixed age couples), was one of the earliest moves made by the Labour Government when it set out plans to deal with what it called a £22 billion 'black hole' in the public purse left behind by the outgoing Conservative government.
Sir Keir Starmer recently said at Prime Minister's Questions that he wants to restore Winter Fuel Payments to 'more pensioners,' claiming the UK's improving economic prospects could allow for the move at the next 'fiscal event'.
Many in Westminster took the PM's comments to mean the Budget in the Autumn, but Ms Rayner suggested it could come sooner during a recent appearance on Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips on Sky News.
She said: "I think that we've got the upcoming Spending Review, and I'm sure that the Chancellor will set it out when we've got the opportunity, at the first opportunity, she will set out what we'll be able to do.'
Asked if this means details on the Winter Fuel Payment will definitely be announced at the Spending Review, Ms Rayner added: 'I don't know, but I hope so.
'I mean, the Prime Minister has announced it, so logically to me that indicates that the Prime Minister wants to do something in this area. And if the Prime Minister wants to do that, I'm sure the Chancellor is going to look at how we can achieve that.'
Ministers are reportedly considering restoring the payment to all but the wealthiest pensioners, according to the Sunday Times, but could face delays rolling it out this winter due to ageing computer systems.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called for the immediate restoration of the Winter Fuel Payment when she appeared on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, on May 25.
She said: "We need to restore it right now. We would never have taken the winter fuel (payment) away. We kept it for 14 years - we brought in the Triple Lock - we look after pensioners.'
By contrast, the Scottish Government announced earlier this year that all 1.1 million pensioners living north of the border would receive at least £100 this winter.
First Minister John Swinney confirmed to the Daily Record last month that payments of either £100, £203 or £305 would be issued by St Andrew's Day on November 30.
Options to reintroduce Winter Fuel Payments
Full reversal
One option would be a full reversal of the decision to strip the benefit from millions of pensioners.
The decision to make it available only to those who claim pension credit last year meant those claiming Winter Fuel Payment fell by almost 90 per cent and saved around £1.5 billion a year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates.
Undoing last year's policy change would make some 11 million more households eligible and of course wipe out the £1.5 billion in savings.
Create a specific threshold for Winter Fuel Payments
Creating a new threshold and means test would allow households not on Pension Credit to apply directly for Winter Fuel Payments.
Raising it 20 per cent above the Pension Credit threshold would cost around £100 million and see payments go to around 400,000 more families, according to the Resolution Foundation.
One option would be to model this on Child Benefit by allowing all pensioner households to claim but then require those above a certain income level to pay some back via a self assessment tax return, the IFS notes.
But there is a risk to adopting 'a clunky bureaucratic mechanism for what is, ultimately, a relatively small payment', IFS associate director Tom Waters warned.
Expand entitlement to those who get disability or housing benefits
Some 1.8 million more households could get Winter Fuel Payment at a cost of around £500 million per year if entitlement is extended to those on disability benefits, the IFS estimates.
However, this would be more complicated to put in place in Scotland, where disability benefits are devolved.
Extending eligibility to include those on housing and disability benefits would give support to 1.3 million more pensioner families at a cost of £300 million a year, the Resolution Foundation estimates.
This would be an 'affordable' and 'sensible way forward', chief executive Ruth Curtice said.
Pay Winter Fuel Payments to individuals, not households
One difficulty in allocating the Winter Fuel Payment is that it currently goes to households rather than individuals.
Changing this would mean the UK Government could do a means test on an individual basis and use information that it already records for income tax purposes.
It would see pensioners with a low income but with a high-income spouse get the winter fuel payment.
However, it could also see couples get twice as much winter fuel payment as single people, where at the moment a single person would get the same amount as a couple sharing a household.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Ministers fight over scraps as reality bites on spending review
At cabinet on Tuesday morning Sir Keir Starmer expressed his gratitude to ministers for their work before next week's spending review. For several of those sitting round the table the prime minister's words might have rung a little hollow as they grapple with deep cuts to their budgets. The next few days will have far-reaching implications for their departments and their political aspirations. The parlous state of the public finances means that unprotected departments — those outside the Department of Health and Ministry of Defence — are facing real-terms cuts in the spending review on June 11. The run-up to this year's spending review, which will set out departmental funding, has been particularly bloody and, with a week to go, three ministers have yet to reach settlements with the Treasury. Given that the bulk of government departments have now settled, the remaining ministers find themselves locked in a battle for an ever-diminishing pool of resources. They include Yvette Cooper, the home secretary; Angela Rayner, the housing and communities secretary; and Ed Miliband, the energy and net-zero secretary. Even Wes Streeting, the health secretary, whose funding is ring-fenced and who will enjoy the lion's share of money in the review, has yet to reach a settlement although officials acknowledge that the dispute — over drug prices — is of a different order. Wes Streeting's department of health has its funding ring-fenced LEON NEAL/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES The negotiations have been tense and there has been an extraordinary level of lobbying, both inside and outside Whitehall. Reports that Rayner and Miliband stormed out of a meeting with Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, have been denied but there are claims that secretaries of state are refusing to deal with him and demanding instead to speak to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, directly. Rayner, the deputy prime minister, was said to have been left 'very, very frustrated' by the spending review process. A source said negotiations with the Treasury became so fraught that she ended up holding meetings past midnight with officials to discuss strategies. For the ministers still locked in discussions with Reeves, one of the fundamental concerns is that the government is failing to put its money where its mouth is. Between them they are responsible for delivering some of Starmer's biggest priorities — halving knife crime and violence against women and girls; recruiting 13,000 additional frontline police officers; building 1.5 million homes; and using clean energy to power the electricity network by 2030. All of these announcements have been repeatedly put up in lights by Starmer, made in a succession of laudatory press releases and speeches and promoted with countless leaflets and social media posts. Ministers now find themselves being asked to deliver on these same pledges with significantly less money. The tense atmosphere has been exacerbated by some extraordinary lobbying. Last week The Times disclosed that police chiefs and the deputy director of MI5 had written to the government to warn that its plans to release thousands of prisoners early posed a risk to public safety. On the same day seven police chiefs including Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, wrote an article in The Times warning that failing to increase their budget would put Starmer's pledges at risk and represent a return to austerity. They have since gone further. On Friday Rowley and other police chiefs cut out Cooper and Reeves and wrote to Starmer directly, saying negotiations between the Home Office and Treasury were going 'poorly' and that they faced stark choices about which crimes to deprioritise. For a law-and-order prime minister, their letter is unlikely to have gone down particularly well. The challenge for Starmer is that behind their warning lies a tacit threat. Should they be unable to deliver on Labour's promises, they are willing — both publicly and privately — to point the finger of blame at government. It is a similar story in other departments. Green groups and charities are alarmed by proposed cuts to Miliband's £13.2 billion warm homes plan. Farmers are raising the alarm over plans to slash a big land management scheme. Developers are warning that the failure to invest in affordable housing will lead to homebuilding targets being missed. The ministers will all ultimately settle — they have no choice in the matter. But the process itself points to the fact cabinet is increasingly emboldened in questioning the chancellor. While Reeves was once arguably the dominant figure in Starmer's Labour, she is now a relatively diminished one after a public backlash over the decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance. The prospect of further tax rises has not helped matters. A government source said: 'The word that keeps coming up about Rachel is 'captured' — people think she's just been absorbed by the Treasury orthodoxy. There's no imagination. There's no theory of growth.' This is categorically rejected by allies of Reeves, who say the spending review will be focused on improving living standards. At the root of the problem is that, after two years of relatively generous spending fuelled by big tax rises, Reeves is now determined to apply the squeeze. Real-terms spending will grow by an average of 1.2 per cent a year over the three-year spending review period, well down on the 2.5 per cent over Labour's first two years. But ministers have already promised a big increase in defence spending and if the NHS budget increases in line with the long-term average of 3.5 per cent, then other departments face real-terms cuts of 1 per cent a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned it will be 'impossible' to fund all the priorities without 'chunky tax increases'. Reeves does have a good news story to tell. She will use her budget to announce £113 billion of capital funding, including investment in 'shovel-ready' transport and infrastructure projects in the regions to fend off Reform UK. There will also be an announcement on Sizewell C, a nuclear power plant in Suffolk that will produce enough energy to power six million homes, and the green light for mini nuclear reactors. But officials acknowledge that the cuts will dominate the headlines. In a week's time the battles that have raged behind the scenes will be laid bare in black and white. The winners and losers who emerge from this fraught process could have a defining role in Labour's prospects at the next election, for better or worse.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
UK's steel industry spared Trump's new 50 per cent tariffs – but exemption deal still not in place
The UK appears to have been spared from the immediate hit of Donald Trump 's 50 per cent steel and aluminium tariffs – although an exemption deal is still not in place. The US president has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK after an agreement was struck between the US president and Sir Keir Starmer last month. Levies will remain at 25 per cent for imports from the UK, according to a version of the order confirming the tariff increase posted by a White House X account on Tuesday – however Britain could still be subject to the higher 50 per cent rate from July. The UK government said it is 'pleased' the UK will not be subject to the additional tariffs as it vowed to secure the removal of the 25 per cent levies too. Sir Keir 's trade deal with the US, struck last month, included an exemption on the steel and aluminium tariffs, but the implementation has not yet been finalised. Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds met White House trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. According to the Department for Business and Trade, Mr Reynolds and Mr Greer discussed a desire to implement the deal struck as soon as possible, and committed to working closely to make it happen. According to the text of the order released on Tuesday, Mr Trump has 'further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of 8 May, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminium articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom'. The order later says that rates will for now stay at 25 per cent and adds: 'On or after 9 July, 2025, the Secretary may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminium consistent with the terms of the EPD, or he may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if he determines that the United Kingdom has not complied with relevant aspects of the EPD'. The 50 per cent tariff rate more widely is due to come into force from 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, which is shortly after 5am in the UK. A government spokesperson said: 'The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change. 'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. 'We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed.' The general terms for the agreement between the UK and US were published in May when the deal was announced, and outline the intended plans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if there was a text of the full deal ready to be released, and told reporters on Tuesday: 'There 's most definitely text with this deal, there is language that this side has seen. 'You'll have to ask the UK parliament why they haven't seen it from their own government, I obviously can't answer that question.'
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
UK appears to have been spared immediate hit of Trump's 50% steel tariffs
The US President has decided to 'provide different treatment' to the UK after a deal that was struck between Washington and London last month. Levies will remain at 25% for imports from the UK, however Britain could still be subject to the higher 50% rate from July, according to a version of the order confirming the tariff increase posted by a White House X account on Tuesday. According to the text of the order, Mr Trump has 'further determined that it is necessary and appropriate to allow for the implementation of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal of May 8, 2025 (EPD), and to accordingly provide different treatment, as described below, for imports of steel and aluminum articles, and their derivatives, from the United Kingdom'. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. The order later says that rates will for now stay at 25% and adds: 'On or after July 9, 2025, the Secretary may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminum consistent with the terms of the EPD, or he may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if he determines that the United Kingdom has not complied with relevant aspects of the EPD'. The 50% tariff rate more widely is due to come into force from 12.01am Washington DC time on Wednesday, which is shortly after 5am in the UK. A Government spokesperson said: 'The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change. 'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. 'We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed.' Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's trade deal with the US, struck last month, included relief on the steel and aluminium tariffs, but the implementation has not yet been finalised. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds met White House trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. According to the Department for Business and Trade, Mr Reynolds and Mr Greer discussed a desire to implement the deal struck between London and Washington as soon as possible, and committed to working closely to make it happen. The general terms for the agreement between the UK and US were published in May when the deal was announced, and outline the intended plans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if there was a text of the full deal ready to be released, and told reporters on Tuesday: 'There 's most definitely text with this deal, there is language that this side has seen. 'You'll have to ask the UK Parliament why they haven't seen it from their own Government, I obviously can't answer that question.'
