Scottish pensioners to get ‘at least the same' winter fuel payment as England
Pensioners in Scotland are to receive at least the same winter fuel payment as those in England, John Swinney has promised.
The First Minister previously said that all Scottish pensioners would receive a payment of at least £100 ahead of the 2025-26 winter, regardless of their wealth.
But in a big reversal last week, Rachel Reeves said all pensioners in England and Wales with an income below £35,000 a year would receive a higher sum.
The Chancellor announced that households with a pensioner aged under 80 would get £200, while those with someone over 80 would get £300. However, those with an income of more than £35,000 would receive nothing.
The announcement prompted Labour to demand that Mr Swinney review his plan to ensure that 'no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket'.
The First Minister used a speech on public service reform and preventative public health measures on Monday to confirm Scottish pensioners would not receive less than their English counterparts. However, he failed to provide further details.
Speaking in Glasgow, Mr Swinney said: 'Keeping the winter fuel payment looks after our pensioners, but it also looks after our NHS. That is the sharp financial reality of the prevention principle in action. It is one of the reasons we were so quick to step in to protect pensioners in Scotland as best we could from that wrong decision by the UK Government.
'And now they have seen the error of their ways, my government will once again do right by Scotland's pensioners. I'm very happy to confirm today that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less than they would under the new UK scheme.
'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.'
Asked to confirm whether pensioners with income of more than £35,000 would still receive £100 in Scotland, he said further details would be revealed 'in due course'.
But Liz Smith, the Scottish Tories' shadow social security secretary, said: 'The SNP followed shameful Labour's lead in axing universal winter fuel payments last year.
'And, like Keir Starmer, the Nationalists have been forced into a humiliating U-turn because of the huge public backlash. If cutting fuel payments to pensioners was the false economy John Swinney now claims it was, why did he copy Labour by ditching it in Scotland?'
The Labour Government announced last July the introduction of a means-tested cap to the payment for pensioners in England and Wales. This meant that millions of pensioners were no longer eligible.
Although control over the benefit is devolved, Mr Swinney argued that he had no choice but to follow suit as the cut south of the border led to a £147 million reduction in the SNP Government's funding through the Barnett formula.
The payment of between £100 and £300 went to 130,000 Scottish pensioners in receipt of pension credit and other means-tested benefits last winter – 900,000 fewer than the previous year.
Mr Swinney then used the record Budget settlement the SNP Government received from the Chancellor to announce that all pensioners would receive a payment of at least £100 ahead of the 2025-26 winter.
Only those on certain means-tested benefits were scheduled to receive a higher amount of either £200 or £300, depending on whether they were aged over 80.
Ms Reeves used last week's spending review to hand the Scottish Government an extra £9.1 billion over the next three years.
A UK Government spokesman said: 'It is right that support for fuel costs is targeted.
'The Scottish Government will receive an uplift in their funding to support pensioners this winter.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fury as illegal migrants given free TV licences paid for by YOU along with trips to bowling and the cinema
ILLEGAL migrants have been given free TV licences on the taxpayer, a Reform party probe has found. Nigel Farage's 'Doge' waste-buster team found in 2022 at least £1,000 was spent by Kent County Council on paying small boat arrivals' telly charge. 2 2 They have also been taken trampolining, bowling and to the cinema, according to the party's audit of the town hall they now control. They believe the jollies — alongside spending at JD Sports and PC World — have cost more than £24,000 of taxpayer cash. It comes as dozens of illegal migrants were spotted arriving in Britain on dinghies yesterday, adding to the 16,000 so far this year. Reform's Doge leader Zia Yusuf said: 'For too long, British citizens have been prosecuted for not paying for a TV licence, yet asylum seekers are having theirs paid for by taxpayers. 'The old Tory regime at Kent County Council has a lot to answer for. Reform will fight for taxpayers.' Reform won control of the local authority — and 11 others across the country — from the Tories in May's local elections. Since then they have begun sending in their people to root out waste in an Elon Musk -style cost-cutting drive. The findings risk angering voters as local authorities prepare to raise council taxes again. Town halls are set to hike rates by the maximum five per cent to meet Sir Keir Starmer's plan for more police funding. Yesterday, the Prime Minister passed the buck by blaming any rises that are to be introduced on town halls rather than his decisions. French cops shrug as they stand & watch migrant family almost drown in bid to board small boat He said: 'Council tax rises are obviously for councils to decide, year on year, which is what they all do.' The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that council tax is set to rise at the fastest rate for two decades. Local councils have the power to raise their bills by five per cent a year to pay for their services. They can raise taxes by more than five per cent — but to do that they would have to hold a local referendum to force through the changes.
Sky News
17 minutes ago
- Sky News
'It's done': Trump and Starmer hail US-UK trade deal signed at G7
Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump have finalised the UK-US trade deal at the G7 summit. The US president told reporters in Canada "We signed it, and it's done", and praised Sir Keir as a "great" prime minister. "It's a fair deal for both. It'll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income," Mr Trump said. Sir Keir said the document implements the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, describing it as a "really important agreement". "So this is a very good day for both of our countries - a real sign of strength," the prime minister added. Earlier, Sir Keir said he would meet Mr Trump for "one-on-one" talks to get the US-UK trade deal completed after it was agreed in May. He added the agreement "really matters for the vital sectors that are safeguarded under our deal, and we've got to implement that".
Sky News
17 minutes ago
- Sky News
'I don't feel safe living here': UK residents raise alarm about freehold estates
Imagine owning your own home only to find yourself subject to regular costs, strict rules and extra fees when you try to sell. Welcome to the world of freehold estates - a type of housing development that property experts have told Money is becoming increasingly common. With thousands already built across the country, families moving into them are often left with confusing terms and big bills, with the government already taking action to intervene. What are these kinds of properties? Unlike with most other freehold properties, shared areas and facilities on a freehold estate are not owned or looked after by the local council. Instead, a private management company or homeowners themselves, via an estate management firm, take on the responsibility. Andrew Bulmer, CEO of The Property Institute, said this is done by councils to avoid the expense of maintaining new housing developments. Residents are required to pay the management company for the upkeep of the communal spaces, as well as their council tax to their local authority. Costs increasing every year A report by the Competition and Markets Authority published earlier this year found that the amount charged by estate management companies per household per year varies greatly, from around £60 to just under £1,000 in 2022. It found that charges had been increasing significantly year-on-year. In some cases, they doubled or trebled if a new management company was appointed. "Projecting these costs over a 25-year period, without accounting for future price rises or increasing prevalence, affected households would pay the equivalent of more than £4.4bn," it found. Bulmer said residents on smaller estates could be left with "astronomical" fees because management companies have to split the costs between fewer people. Not only do they need to cover the costs of maintaining the property, but also the running fees associated with it. For example, an out-of-hours call line, accountants, insurance, and risk assessments, he said. 'I don't feel safe - we are stuck with incompetence' "As long as they are getting their money they don't give a damn about anything else," Thame resident Jane Morton Driscoll said about her management company RMG. The 40-year-old bought her home six years ago but has been left feeling "unsafe" and "infuriated" by a litany of problems on her housing development. While she knew about the required fees when she bought her home, she expected to get a better level of service for her money. Morton Driscoll explained that broken equipment in the children's play area has never been replaced, 25% of the street lamps don't work, tarmac has melted, trees and plants have been left to die, and site managers have failed to upkeep the communal gardens. "The estate is not being managed well at all. They have left parts to just get wrecked," she said. "As a woman, I don't feel safe walking home at night. It doesn't feel safe at all, and it's really quite scary." Despite this, her annual management fee has increased. "It is really irritating. It is a feeling of hopelessness that this is what we are stuck with. We are stuck with incompetence," she said. 'Absolutely atrocious' customer service Morton Driscoll showed Money a copy of the income and expenditure account sent to her by the management firm, which shows £20,773.24 was spent on grounds maintenance, £3,373.20 was assigned to playground costs, and £3,106.80 went on tree surgery. Nearly £19,000 was spent on various "professional fees". But she struggled to see how any of that money had been spent on improving the estate. "My perception is that it doesn't cost £3,000 to remove and not replace a children's roundabout, and not fix a swing," she said. "I have no problem with paying for gardening if it is being done, but it isn't." She was also disappointed to see the amount spent on "professional fees" when she had received "absolutely atrocious" customer service. "Things just keep disappearing off their records. Why should we have to keep chasing them up?" she asked. 'We encourage residents to get in touch' RMG, the management firm of Morton Driscoll's estate, told Money: "We take all resident feedback seriously and remain committed to making meaningful improvements across the development." The company said the children's roundabout was removed after failing a safety inspection, and it is working to reinstate all equipment "as soon as possible". It is also working with residents to identify faulty streetlights so repairs can be carried out efficiently, and it's "actively progressing discussions with both the developer and contractors to resolve the tarmac issue". "We recognise that some issues have taken longer than expected to address and are taking steps to improve our communication and responsiveness. Further conversations with residents are being arranged to better understand their experiences and ensure everyone feels listened to and supported," it added. "To date, we have no record of any complaints being lost or disregarded. All concerns are tracked internally, and we encourage residents to get in touch if they feel an issue remains unresolved." 'It was pretty dangerous if my little boy stepped out' Nigel Betterton was shocked to find that on top of his £600 a year management fee, he also had to pay extra costs when he looked to sell. He moved from Germany to his estate in Burgess Hill in West Sussex with his partner and three-year-old son in 2018 but ended up feeling like he was the victim of an "elaborate con". The 64-year-old's home was on a bridal pathway, which appeared on sat navs as a road, causing cars to drive very close by. "It was pretty dangerous if my little boy stepped out. I insisted we did something about it and wanted boulders put at the end of the bridal way, but other residents thought it was a waste of money," he said. He tried to talk to the council, who cared for the houses behind his garden fence, but he was told they didn't know anything about the estate and couldn't help. "It was horrendous. You just didn't know what was happening," he said. Residents were also required to stick to strict rules, so Betterton was stopped from building a gate at the front of his own home. In other cases, an elderly neighbour was forced to tear down her car port and people were banned from parking caravans in the driveways, he said. £700 fees just to sell After six years of arguments with his management company HML, Betterton decided to sell and move to Cardiff, and that's when he discovered there were more fees to pay. During the process, management firm Harper Stone took over the estate from HML in October 2024. "We had to pay £350 for a sale package, which was just information about the house," he said. "Then the management company changed, and I had to pay another £350 for the same information." A sale package, also known as a management pack, contains important information about the property for potential buyers. This usually includes documents like accounting information, fire risk assessments, and details of any future maintenance works. For the seller, it also sets out any requirements or fees payable to the management company for the transaction to be able to go ahead. This could include any delayed bill payments, a fee for receiving a notice of transfer, or a charge for providing a certificate to comply with a restriction against selling without the management company's consent. "It was ridiculous," Betterton said. "I'd never, ever, ever consider living in one [a freehold estate] ever again," he said. How Betterton's management firms responded Harper Stone said it was not involved in any of the issues raised before it took over management of the estates. "Any concerns or requests regarding installations or alterations falling under the restrictive covenants would have been addressed appropriately during our period of management," it told Money. It was responsible for issuing the sales pack Betteron needed. "Harper Stone acted in accordance with industry best practice, maintaining transparency and clear communication. Preparing a sales pack is an administrative task that involves care and due diligence to ensure accurate disclosure to prospective buyers," it said. It added: "While we cannot act beyond the scope of our authority, we are committed to ensuring that all residents' enquiries are dealt with respectfully and that requests for consent are relayed appropriately to the freeholder/ freehold company." HML told Money it could not comment on information provided to Betterton at the time of his property purchase in 2018. "All covenants, are stated in the legal documentation for each property, either in the Lease or Transfer document (TP1), to which Nigel Betterton would have signed upon legal completion and the purchase of the property, including restrictions on vehicles/caravans and fencing being erected as specifically mentioned by Nigel Betterton," it said. "The bridle way referenced was not part of the estate managed by HML. It is owned and maintained by the local authority and council and serves as a designated route for right of access and emergency right of way if required." What needs to be done? Freehold estates aren't new, and the government has already intervened with the Leasehold and Freehold Act 2024. This aims to bring greater transparency over charges and more power to residents to challenge unfair costs. Bulmer said: "A better intervention would be to avoid creating these private areas in the first place and make local authorities adopt them. "It is easy to understand why councils don't want them, but that is a poor solution that creates long term costs for homeowners. Some complex estates do need those private areas but they should be avoided where possible." He explained that one of the big issues is that management firms are not putting sufficient funds into reserves to pay for future big bills. "It saves money for homeowners in the short term, but future owners will be unhappy," he said. What should you look out for? Bulmer said residents should make sure they are clear on costs and check what they are buying before going ahead with their purchase. "Ask your conveyancer to give you advice on what you are buying, and explain the implications, above and beyond simply providing information for you to figure it out by yourself," he said.
