Forcing rich pensioners to pay back winter fuel allowance would be tax ‘nightmare', Reeves warned
The chancellor is expected to set out Labour 's plans to reverse the controversial policy change at Wednesday's spending review, but fresh questions have been raised over how the government will distribute the payments.
Reports suggest Ms Reeves will from this autumn restore the grants, worth up to £300, to the 10 million pensioners who had lost out. But only those in the bottom half of average incomes will keep the payments, with the top half of earners forced to repay the grant through higher tax bills over the course of the year.
One option for the threshold at which pensioners are eligible is average household disposable income, currently around £37,000, The Times reported.
Such a plan would resemble George Osborne's high income child benefit charge, which sees 1 per cent of total child benefit received taxed for every £100 earned over £60,000. It means that, over whatever threshold Ms Reeves sets for the payments, an amount will be clawed back from those on higher incomes.
The plans could cost around £700 million, with the chancellor vowing to set out her plans to pay for the change at her autumn Budget.
Dennis Reed, of over-60s campaign group Silver Voices, said the plans 'would be an administrative nightmare and would be likely to draw in many more pensioners into the tax system'.
He told The Independent: 'The most cost effective solution is to restore the universal benefit and maybe fiddle around with the higher tax threshold in due course to target 'the millionaires'.'
Mr Reed accused the government of 'casting around for ways to show it has not made a complete U-turn while gaining the political credit for doing so'.
It comes after pensions minister Torsten Bell said there is no prospect of the winter fuel allowance being restored universally.
He said: 'The principle I think most people, 95 per cent of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that.'
Sir Keir Starmer last month announced his intention to give more people access to winter fuel payments, just months after Labour made the previously universal payment means-tested in one of its first acts after taking office.
Speaking in Manchester on Wednesday, Ms Reeves said: 'I had to make decisions last year to restore sound public finances, and that involved a number of difficult decisions around welfare, taxation and also public spending, including the decision to means-test winter fuel payments so only the poorest pensioners, those on pension credit, got it.
'But we have now put our public finances on a firmer footing. The economy is in a better shape, but we have also listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means-test.
'So we will be making changes to that. They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter, and we'll announce the details of that and the level of that as soon as we possibly can.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Who is accountable in privatised Britain?
Illustration by Andy Carter / Ikon Images 'New, unadopted estate.' The Hitchin MP, Alistair Strathern, pointed. Then he gestured to a building site where diggers were enthusiastically getting to work. 'New estate that will be unadopted… Unadopted estate… Unadopted estate.' During the 20-minute drive from Shefford town centre to Hitchin Station, we passed at least six examples of the phenomenon Strathern had invited me to his constituency, which straddles the Bedfordshire-Hertfordshire border, to explore: new-build housing estates their councils have refused to adopt. Much has been written about leasehold, the peculiarly British 'feudal' system in which homebuyers own a property but not the land it sits on, leaving them liable for spiralling ground rent and management fees. After decades of advocacy, some improvements were made under the Conservatives in last year's Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, and Labour has promised to go further with protections for leaseholders in this parliament. But even when new-build homes are sold with the freehold, hidden costs can sneak in. Known as 'fleecehold' housing, the estates Strathern pointed out are those where the responsibility for maintaining the roads, street lighting, drainage and communal areas has not been adopted by the council, as it deems development not to have been completed to a high enough standard. Until a development is adopted, the residents must pay for the services the council would usually provide, in addition to council tax, via yearly fees paid to private management companies. The fees themselves may not sound large – £200-£300 a year. Or, at least, that's the level at which they start out. At a new estate I visited, fees had been hiked by 41 per cent in a year, with vague explanations. Calls and emails to the management company went largely unanswered; correspondence was limited to scarily worded 'final demand' letters. If owners refuse to pay, management companies can go direct to their lender to have the charges added to their mortgage, tanking the owner's credit rating. Residents I met spoke of finding it impossible to determine what they were paying for, or to hold the management company accountable for the work it was – or wasn't – carrying out. Fleecehold is now the norm across the country. Whereas councils used to adopt new estates, the Competition and Markets Authority has found that 80 per cent of new homes built by the 11 largest developers in 2021-22 were sold under the fleecehold system, with £260m in estate management charges paid out in 2022 alone. There are stories of owners being assured their estate would be adopted as a formality, only to still be paying fees a decade on. Meanwhile, the government is pushing through planning reform to meet its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament. The problem may not be as visceral as the issues with build quality that owners of new-builds often face: cracked walls, dodgy plumbing, damp and mould. But the two are inextricably linked. Every owner I spoke to about fleecehold charges also had a horror story of how their 'dream home' had turned into a nightmare of construction faults that developers were reluctant to rectify. One showed me a brimming lever-arch folder of his correspondence with the developer – 200 pages in 20 months. The question is one of accountability. When things go wrong, whose job is it to fix them? What happens if they fail to do so? And how are they seemingly able to charge what they like, with no cap on costs or any obligation to show how the money is spent? Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe You might imagine the council would step in. But, as I found out in Hitchin, cash-strapped local authorities have little incentive to ensure developments are built to standard, as adopting them means adopting additional costs. The developers, meanwhile, have little incentive to come back to complete repairs once the houses have been sold. Strathern, who worked on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill committee, is hoping to change this and has introduced a debate in parliament on ensuring new estates are adopted on schedule. But it's hard to fix a problem most people don't even know exists until after they've bought their homes. Passing the accountability buck can be an art form. In Shefford, I visited Old Bridge Way: a 220m stretch of road through an industrial park connecting an estate of some 1,000 homes to the centre of town and a Morrisons. I stood there for ten minutes watching non-stop traffic navigate a maze of potholes six inches deep. Central Bedfordshire Council says this is not its responsibility, as it doesn't actually own that part of the road. Who does own it is an open question: the company responsible for it was liquidated in 2024, leaving it effectively ownerless. But I noticed double yellow lines along the kerbside. I asked the council if it was issuing parking fines for a road it claimed it had no responsibility for, but it did not offer an answer. A council that won't adopt a thoroughfare used by thousands of people is unlikely to adopt estates full of new homes. Strathern described both situations as 'hollowed-out councils retreating from the public realm'. To me, they resembled what the satirical science-fiction author Douglas Adams once termed a Somebody Else's Problem field, a way of concealing inconvenient things that utilises 'people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain'. For residents placed in fleecehold limbo the issues of rising fees and the lack of accountability are impossible to ignore. For everyone else, they are Somebody Else's Problem. [See also: GMB chief Gary Smith: 'Oil and gas is not the enemy'] Related
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
False online rumours spark protests outside Canary Wharf hotel earmarked for migrants
Protesters surrounded an empty hotel in London's finance district after false rumours online suggested it was being used for migrants from another hotel, where riots have broken out. The Home Office has earmarked more than 400 beds at the Britannia Hotel in the Canary Wharf, which it says it will use to house migrants at a cost of £81 per night per person. Protesters gathered at the site on Tuesday after social media posts claimed migrants were being moved there from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which has been the scene of violent protests over the past few days. So far, 10 people have been arrested in connection with that disorder, which was sparked when an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault this month. Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist, is among those who claimed online that migrants were being transferred to the London hotel from Epping. The rumours sparked protests and counter-protests, with police drafted to the scene on Tuesday, despite the hotel currently sitting empty. Demonstrators had also seized on online claims that migrants were being housed at £400 a night, when the rooms infact cost £81 per night and the government will not be charged until migrants move in. 'Asylum seekers are not being removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping,' a Home Office spokesman said. Reform MP Lee Anderson was accused of further stoking division by attending the protest outside the Canary Wharf hotel and warning of 'an influx of illegal migrants'. 'What are we playing at?' he asked on social media. He posted a clip in which he said he is 'absolutely furious' and that families across the UK would not be able to afford a night's stay in the hotel. Care4Calais head of advocacy Charlotte Khan hit out at Mr Anderson for his video. She said: 'The truth is, MPs should be more responsible than to sow division and hatred in our communities.' She added: 'MPs... who spread misinformation and hate that dehumanises refugees should be held accountable for their role in encouraging violence and racism on our streets.' Nathan Phillips, head of campaigns at Asylum Matters, hit out at the demonstrations which he said had 'morphed into yet more racist violence'. 'In that context, it's clear how disgracefully dangerous and utterly irresponsible it is for an MP to use his platform to identify a site where people are about to be housed and encourage his followers to 'protest' against it. 'It's appalling that there's no accountability for an elected official who actively encourages the exact same sort of 'protests' that have led to violence and arrests in Epping this week.' In Essex, local Conservative MP Dr Neil Hudson warned that the riots were a 'crisis that has reached boiling point'. Essex Police have made 10 arrests, which saw more than 500 gather outside the hotel, with rioters attacking police vans and injuring a police officer. On Sunday night, two security guards working at the Bell Hotel were also attacked at a bus stop, and are recovering in hospital. Giving an update to the media in Chelmsford on Wednesday, Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington said: "I want to thank the people of Epping, I want to thank the people of Essex. "I also want to thank all those who have turned up to protest and express their views peacefully and lawfully, because there have been many of those. "What has been unacceptable has been the people who have come to Epping and committed violence, who have attacked people who work at the hotel, who have attacked officers, who have damaged property and who have caused fear and disruption to the people of Epping. "That is not tolerable, it will not be tolerated, and to that end, we have made 10 arrests." He appealed to the people of Essex to 'help us to do our job and make sure everyone can express their rights and their views safely and peacefully'. The latest demonstrations come a day after Angela Rayner issued an ultimatum to Sir Keir Starmer, warning that the UK faces a repeat of last year's summer riots unless 'the government shows it can address people's concerns'. The deputy prime minister said economic insecurity, immigration, the increasing time people spend online, and declining trust in institutions were having a 'profound impact on society'. And, amid fears this summer could see riots similar to those in the wake of the Southport murders last year, Ms Rayner said it is urgent Sir Keir delivers tangible improvements to living standards. Of the 18 places hit with the worst rioting last summer, Ms Rayner noted that 17 are among the country's most deprived areas. Michael Gove on Wednesday branded the comments about a repeat of last summer's violence 'a big mistake' which could 'tacitly encourage' fresh riots. The Tory ex-minister said she was right to acknowledge concern across the country about immigration and living standards and encourage the government to prove it can deliver. But Mr Gove told ITV: 'I think this is a mistake on Labour, to brief this out, I think it is a big mistake, it reminds me of what happened in the 1970s when [former US president] Jimmy Carter when America was going through difficult times said 'this country is in the grip of a malaise'. 'You do not, if you are the government, accentuate the negative in this way and you certainly don't suggest to people that violence might be about to break out in this way.' A spokesman for Tower Hamlets Council, the authority which is responsible for Canary Wharf, called on the government to ensure 'that there is a full package of support for those staying at the hotel'. 'We are working with the Home Office and partners to make sure that all necessary safety and safeguarding arrangements are in place,' the spokesman added.
The Guardian
4 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves seeks economic heavyweights as advisers reduce roles
In the run-up to her crunch autumn budget, Rachel Reeves will seek to recruit a heavyweight economic adviser after the role of John Van Reenen is reduced. Van Reenen, a well-respected professor from the London School of Economics (LSE) and an expert in productivity, has been chief economic adviser to the chancellor since Labour came to power. His role will be cut from three days to one a week as he returns to the LSE at the start of the academic year. Anna Valero, another member of Reeves's council of economic advisers, is also to depart. Treasury sources said that while Van Reenen's position was in theory part-time, his position at the chancellor's side through a tumultuous 12 months had meant working 'seven days a week'. Reeves is under intense pressure to respond to a deteriorating economic outlook with a fresh round of tax rises in her autumn budget. The chancellor has had a bruising few months after being forced to reverse her decision to remove the winter fuel allowance from most pensioners and take much of the blame from Labour's backbenchers for the botched £5bn in cuts to disability benefits. At a House of Lords committee on Tuesday, the chancellor placed Van Reenen's key insight – the need for higher investment to boost the UK's productivity – at the heart of her economic strategy. The chancellor told peers: 'The key problem is productivity and investment is the answer. Investment in human capital, investment in physical capital and also investment in new technologies. That's why the fiscal rules I set out do treat investment differently.' She declined to rule out taxing wealth more heavily, telling Lord Lamont, a former Conservative chancellor from the 1990s: 'This is, with respect, what you would have done and did do in my position: you rightly said that tax is a matter for a budget and we'll set out our policy then.' Treasury sources said Valero, also an LSE fellow, had always been expected to return to academia but would remain in touch with government, adding that Valero and Van Reenen had worked on key policy announcements, including the industrial strategy and the spending review, which had now been completed. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion A Treasury spokesperson said: 'John and Anna have provided invaluable leadership to the chancellor and will continue to do so in their new capacities.' Whitehall insiders said as lead adviser on industrial strategy, Valero's departure risked leaving the policy without a powerful champion in the Treasury, which could make it tougher for departments tasked with grabbing the chancellor's ear to ensure the policy was implemented effectively. Meanwhile, some Labour veterans have long warned that Reeves lacks a powerful enforcer who can impose the Treasury's will across Whitehall, pointing to the role played by Ed Balls when Gordon Brown was chancellor, and to that of Rupert Harrison, George Osborne's chief economic adviser. Van Reenen's departure comes as Keir Starmer is beefing up his own economic expertise. For some time No 10 has wanted to recruit an economic adviser to provide a counterweight to Treasury dominance in economic policymaking.
