Warm Home Discount scheme to benefit thousands in Wales
An estimated 110,000 households across Wales will receive the £150 Warm Home Discount next winter under a Labour government scheme.
The scheme forms part of a wider plan to ease the cost of living for families across the UK.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, MP for Torfaen, said: "This announcement from Labour will make a real difference to families in Torfaen."
The expanded scheme will see nearly 2.7 million additional households across the UK become eligible for the discount, bringing the total number of recipients to 6.1 million.
Mr Thomas-Symonds said: "Labour is determined to secure our energy system, protect it from the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets and give working people the security they deserve.
"Through our mission for clean power, and the support announced today, this Labour government is putting money back in the pockets of working people."
In addition to the Warm Home Discount expansion, the government plans to accelerate the introduction of a debt relief scheme aimed at tackling unsustainable energy debt built up during the energy crisis.
The scheme will target households struggling with energy arrears and help reduce the overall cost of servicing bad debt, which currently affects all bill payers through higher energy costs.
The new measures are part of the Labour government's broader mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, improve energy security and permanently lower household bills.
The Warm Home Discount scheme currently provides eligible low-income and vulnerable households with a one-off discount on their electricity bills during the winter months.
The planned expansion and complementary debt relief scheme are intended to offer immediate support while also addressing longer-term energy affordability and sustainability.
The plans follow Labour's commitment to deliver clean, secure and affordable energy for all.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour whip resigns over proposed welfare cuts
In a letter informing the Prime Minister of her resignation, the MP for Lewisham North said she understood 'the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill' but did not believe the proposed cuts 'should be part of the solution'. She said: 'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the Government and fight for change from within. (1/2) With a heavy heart, I have written to the Prime Minister to tender my resignation as a whip. Whilst I will continue to support the government in delivering the change the country so desperately needs, I cannot vote in favour of the proposed reforms to disability benefits. — Vicky Foxcroft 💙 (@vickyfoxcroft) June 19, 2025 'Sadly it is now (sic) seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see. 'I therefore tender my resignation as I know I will not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip – or indeed vote – for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances.' Ms Foxcroft, who previously served as shadow minister for disabled people, is the first frontbencher to resign over the proposed benefit cuts, and the second to go over policy issues following Anneliese Dodds' decision to quit as development minister over cuts to the aid budget. Rebel Labour MPs welcomed her decision, with Hartlepool's Jonathan Brash saying he had the 'utmost respect' for her 'principled stand' and Crewe and Nantwich's Connor Naismith saying it 'must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles'. Responding to Ms Foxcroft's resignation, a Government spokesperson said: 'This Labour Government was elected to deliver change. The broken welfare system we inherited is failing the sick and most vulnerable and holding too many young people back. It is fair and responsible to fix it. 'Our principled reforms will ensure those who can work should, that those who want to work are properly supported, and that those with most severe disabilities and health conditions are protected.' Sir Keir Starmer has faced a backlash from some Labour MPs over proposals to reform the welfare system expected to save up to £5 billion a year. Legislation introduced into Parliament on Wednesday includes a tightening of the criteria for the main disability payment in England, personal independence payment (Pip). Ministers also want to cut the sickness related element of universal credit (UC), and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim it. The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'. Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition. The latest data, published on Tuesday, showed 3.7 million people in England and Wales claimed Pip, up from 2.05 million in 2019, with teenagers and young adults making up a growing proportion of claimants. Around 800,000 people are set to lose out on the benefit under the Government's proposals, according to an impact assessment published alongside Wednesday's legislation. The impact assessment also confirmed a previous estimate that some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, are likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/2030, although the Government repeated that this does not take into account the potentially positive impact of £1 billion annual funding by then for measures to support people into work. Changes to universal credit are expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. But the Government said around 3.9 million households not on the UC health element are expected to have an average annual gain of £265 from the increase in the standard UC allowance. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the legislation 'marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity'. But Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole and one of the backbenchers opposed to the change, said the Government was 'rushing through' the changes and urged ministers to think again.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Iraq made Blair a pariah – Starmer risks the same with Iran
Then, as now, America was acting as virtually a rogue nation giving no thought to the different opinions of its allies. Then, as now, the American president had a skewed vision of the situation in that part of the world and no clear idea of the forces which would be unleashed by his actions and how to restore peace. Then, as now, Labour were in power and had demonstrated they were willing to support America in any course of action they decided upon no matter what the consequences might be. Today those consequences look even more terrifying than they appeared when America, with support from Britain's armed forces, invaded Iraq in 2003. This time the threat of nuclear annihilation hangs more heavily in the air. READ MORE: Casual threats of annihilation from Trump are not reality TV stunts And this time America's president is even more unpredictable and reckless than George W Bush, even more unlikely to apply logic to any decision as to his future course of action. Bush's justification for taking action against Iraq had nothing directly to do with the terrorist atrocity of 9/11. There was no suggestion, far less evidence, that Iraq was in any way linked to the plane hijackings which led to the demolition of the north and south towers of the World Trade Center in New York. America was so desperate to take action – any action – in what it had dubbed the 'global war against terror' in the aftermath of 9/11 that it alighted on the claim that Iraq had in its armoury weapons of mass destruction that posed a potential threat to the US and its allies. There was, in fact, no evidence to back up that claim. Most of the Western world regarded Bush's claim with justified scepticism. However, Britain pledged its support. It's important to remember that in Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, in which the president started to put together the case for action to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, he railed against the so-called 'axis of evil' which included Iran as well as Iraq. The US grudge against Iran has deep roots so it's no surprise that it could one day lead to the possibility of military action. Americans have been easily persuaded by presidential warmongering even without any compelling evidence it was needed. Even before that State of the Union address, a survey suggested that 73% favoured military action to oust Hussein. The government was not willing to let the small matter of there being no evidence of the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction deter it from waging war. Then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN: 'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' The British people were less easily fooled, but, alas, the same cannot be said for their government at Westminster. Its Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored the millions in his country marching against the invasion of Iraq and ploughed on regardless. There was some opposition within his own party. Robin Cook, then the leader of the Commons and a former foreign secretary, resigned from Blair's government in March 2003 over Iraq. He said at the time: 'I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.' However, Blair brushed off the resignation and most of his ministers and Labour MPs watched in acquiescence as the invasion proceeded. At the time, the Prime Minister was fond of telling us that if we could see the evidence that was on his desk proving that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction then we too would back his decision. Some time after Hussein was deposed and executed, when the weapons of mass destruction theory had been well and truly dismissed, I watched Blair tell a private meeting of Scottish editors that there was at that time no further evidence of the existence of those weapons but he still supported the invasion anyway. Today I'm still not clear what motivated Blair. READ MORE: The facts are clear. So why won't the BBC report on Israel's nuclear weapons? Did he really believe Iraq posed a threat to the rest of the world, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Or did he support Bush in a bid to cement the relationship between his government and Bush's Republican regime? A Guardian column by Steve Richards queried this interpretation. He suggested that both Blair's support for the invasion and David Cameron's decision to call the Brexit referendum were the result of a lack of prime ministerial depth and experience. Whatever the answer, history will judge. The big question now is whether Keir Starmer will duplicate Blair's blind allegiance to a US president's decision, no matter how crazy. And secondly, will anyone in his government have the guts to advocate standing up to Donald Trump and tell him that joining Israel's bombing of Iran is not only immoral but will move the world closer to nuclear destruction? The answer to that first question looks dangerously close to Starmer hitching his future of Trump's insistence on supporting Israel in all matters, from the unrelentingly inhumane genocide in Gaza to buying into the president's paranoia about Iran's alleged closeness to developing nuclear weapons. That claim has already led to a split between Trump and his director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. The president's annoyance was clear in his dismissal of her opinion this week, when he snapped 'I don't care what she said.' Starmer said on Tuesday that Trump has said nothing to indicate he would direct US missile strikes on Iran. Nothing that is apart from confirming on Wednesday that he has approved a plan to do just that. He told CBS that he has not yet made a decision on whether to enact that plan. The truth is that no one, probably including the president himself, knows what Trump will do next. Things don't look good. According to a 'senior intelligence source', the president has held off from strikes to see how Iran responds to his demands for 'unconditional surrender', which seems to translate as an abandonment of its nuclear programme. The heat was turned up even further yesterday when Israel's defence minister said Iran's supreme leader 'can no longer be allowed to exist' after an Iranian missile attack hit a hospital. It's hard to overestimate the damage done to Israel's claims of moral superiority in this conflict by the damage caused by its missiles hitting hospitals in Gaza. What is clear is that Israel and Iran are nowhere near a solution to their dispute and the pressure is mounting on Trump to make a decision. Starmer has admittedly advocated further negotiations rather than American bombs but if Trump goes ahead with military action it looks more likely that Britain will support him, at the very least by allowing him to use the Diego Garcia UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The record of Labour MPs – and particularly Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament – of standing up to their Prime Minister's folly on other matters is poor. READ MORE: David Lammy heads to US as Donald Trump considers whether to strike Iran The party's leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has urged Starmer to do more for Scotland after its by-election win in Hamilton but any criticism of his performance after major U-turns on election promises has been either missing or heavily coded. That's not going to change if he moves to back Trump's action. Blair's support for Bush moved many former Labour supporters to ditch the party and embrace the SNP and independence because of the urgent need for Scotland to develop its own foreign policy. That urgency has increased rather than faded. John Swinney really has to capture that renewed urgency with real passage and focus, together with an indication of a route to independence, at the SNP's national council meeting tomorrow.
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Iran and Israel conflict can only be settled with cool heads
The conflict between Israel and Iran is deeply worrying for anyone who cares about world peace. Two of the most influential powers in a turbulent region are attacking each other and it is hard to see the end in sight. Israel claims their attacks were designed to snuff out Iran's nuclear ambitions, while Tehran insists they were acting in self-defence. The international community needs to respond to this crisis with cool heads and the goal of de-escalation. What we do not need is leaders of influence inflaming an already delicate situation. President Trump's actions so far are further proof – if any was needed – that he is intent on making matters worse. It has been reported he has approved plans to attack Iran but has not made a final decision to go for war. The US record in the Middle East has largely been one of dismal failure. The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster and Trump has failed to rein in Israel on Gaza. Trump should look to one of his predecessors for lessons on how to handle Iran. President Obama was instrumental in signing a deal that put the brakes on Iran's nuclear programme. He used diplomacy and international muscle to get the deal done, rather than launching rockets into a country. In an act of petulance, Trump ripped up the agreement and relations have been strained ever since. The acts of war need to stop and all parties must get round the table. Jobs blame game John Swinney was accused of doing 'nothing' to save the Scottish jobs at Alexander Dennis. The First Minister was blasted by Anas Sarwar for saying he only found out about the bus manufacting firm's issues despite being warned a year ago. Labour have been blaming the Scottish Government, while the SNP has been blaming the UK Government. There is a huge number of jobs at risk as the factories in Camelon and Larbert are set to close. And this is an area which has already been rocked by the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery. Scotland needs a proper industrial strategy that will provide good jobs and make the things we need. But, instead, what we are getting is politicians pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game. This does nothing to help the workers facing hardship. Our politicians need to knock their heads together and find solutions to keep jobs, like those at Alexander Dennis, in Scotland.
