Winter fuel U-turn should have come a long time ago, Reeves told
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Monday that nine million pensioners will be in receipt of the payment this year after a cut was announced in the first weeks of the Labour Government last summer.
The initial decision was met with heavy backlash and forced the Scottish Government to delay the implementation of its own devolved benefit.
The Chancellor announced the move on Monday (James Manning/PA)
John Swinney's administration later announced a similar payment for pensioners which would be tapered and see those on the highest incomes receiving £100, compared to £305.10 for those on the least.
Monday's announcement will result in cash being sent to the devolved administration at Holyrood, and Scottish Labour has urged the Government to increase its payments.
But Scotland's Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the decision was 'a betrayal' of pensioners.
'I welcome any extension of eligibility by the UK Government, but this is a U-turn the Chancellor should have made a long time ago,' she said.
'But there is still no detail about how the Chancellor intends to go about that. Unfortunately, it still sounds as if many pensioners will miss out.'
Ms Somerville added that the Scottish Government had not been consulted on the decision and urged UK ministers to 'ensure the Scottish Government is fully appraised of the proposed changes as soon as possible'.
'The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week to urge the UK Government to share its plans with us as quickly as possible, so that we can understand any implications for our own programmes and, crucially, our budget,' she said.
Scottish Labour MSP Paul O'Kane said: 'The winter fuel payment is a devolved payment in Scotland and Scottish Labour has long been clear that we want to see it reinstated for the majority of pensioners up here – but despite their loud spin, the SNP voted against our attempts to do so.
'The SNP must not go ahead with plans that would rob poorer pensioners in order to fund payments for millionaires.
'The SNP must re-examine their own proposals in light of this game-changing announcement, ensure payments reach those most in need, and give a cast-iron guarantee that no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans.'
The Scottish Government's plans were initially to provide a universal payment to pensioners, but the proposals were scuppered by the Chancellor's announcement of the cut last summer, forcing ministers to create a different system for this winter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 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.
The Sun
37 minutes ago
- The Sun
Tinkering with smartphone rules won't save our kids – the damage they do means we must BAN them now
Sophie Winkleman, Actress and campaigner Published: Invalid Date, ARE we finally witnessing the tide turning against kids' use of smartphones? Head teachers are now calling for a limit on children's screen time and the government is considering an 'app curfew.' 2 2 The government's Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he wants to 'break some of the addictive behaviour' of the online world. Okay B+ for effort Peter but could try harder. 'Some' was your downfall. There's no such thing as temperance when it comes to smartphones. They're unputdownable. A two-hour cap on each app is better than nothing but with Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok being just three of children's favourite brain-melters this is already six hours of social media before they've even got out their homework. The idea of a curfew with a 10pm cut-off point is also a good one but come on, go tougher on the app limits - make it a two-hour total - or, grow a pair and illegalise social media for the Under 16s. None of them would miss it and they might actually meet up with a friend, kick a football around or read a book. The 'nanny state' has a bad rap as a concept, and quite rightly when it comes to adults - let us do what we want please. But when children are malfunctioning this seriously a nanny state is exactly what we need. We parents are doing our best, but we just can't do it alone. Peer pressure is immense. What parent hasn't felt cruel denying their child a phone to 'keep up with friends' and ended up surrendering? 'It was so loud,' ex teacher says banning phones transformed school overnight But smartphones are turning fun-loving and inquisitive children into hollow addicts the minute they get hold of them. The premise that smartphones are 'connecting' our children in a positive fashion is false. Because rather than playing with their friends or family they are alone in the rooms with their phones. The Sun's revelation last week that a Year 6 primary school student received 9,000 messages on Whatsapp over a 15 hour period reveals exactly what we are up against. The stats are truly horrific. More than a million British children per year are referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Services, the vast majority suffering from severe depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. Conspiracy theories It is not surprising when they are subject to graphic images of real murders, massacres and terrifyingly violent porn, algorithms feeding on their insecurities and sending them more and more damaging content. Children are encouraged to take part in potentially lethal games and challenges, resulting in many accidental deaths. Girls are told that anorexia is empowering then sent starvation tips and 'how to make mum think you've eaten your dinner' pointers. Children are fed conspiracy theories, radicalising their eager young minds, they're connected to gang members in their area, they're groomed, sextorted, preyed on and they're even told how to kill themselves. While government action is welcome, none of the restrictions suggested go nearly far enough. Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Or the 16 US states which have done the same thing? Or France - where all pornography users now have to verify their age using government ID or a credit card. Britain was meant to lead the way in child safety with the Online Safety Act. But Ofcom, responsible for implementing the legislation, is just not as tough as many international regulators. Or why can't we ban smartphones for the Under 16s and come up with a brand new product - a child-appropriate, safe phone with limited app functionality for things like banking and travel, simple calls and texts? Also UK, just STOP IT with the EdTech (educational technology)!!! We don't want our kids drowning in screen time during class and for their homework!! Sure, teach them how to use AI judiciously in senior school but no more of these silly apps masquerading as educational PLEASE. Doctors advise that children up to 17 should not be spending more than 1-2 hours a day on any form of screen. Schools have a responsibility to heed this advice. Not only is too much screen time bad for children's eyesight but it damages their sleep rhythms, their hormones, their spinal health and their attention spans. Bill Gates himself has admitted that 'devices have a lousy record in the classroom'. Steve Jobs didn't let his own kids have iPads. UNESCO found that children who used computers frequently in the classroom did a 'lot worse' academically than their book-based peers. A massive study by educational researcher John Jerrim showed that students who revised for academic tests by reading books and handwriting outperformed their computer-based counterparts twenty times over - the equivalent of six months of extra school!! Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment' Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment'. Many Big Tech employees in the US send their children to low or no-tech schools such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in California. So why does our government continue to listen to social media and EdTech firms when they argue that their products are good for our children? Where is the clinical evidence? Because few children or parents believe it. I have spoken to countless teens around the country and they all say that they're only on social media 'because everyone else is'. Most would love to be liberated from it all and free to learn, relax, have fun and sleep well. A survey last year found that 77 percent of parents wanted a smartphone ban for under 16s. Saving our youngest, most vulnerable minds from these corrosive devices is a vote-winner. Come on, Peter Kyle. Must do better. Teachers want it, parents want it and children want it. It's time the government wanted it too.
Leader Live
44 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
