Major Winter fuel payment U-turn as millions to get up to £300
OAPs with an income of £35,000 or below in England and Wales will receive the benefit this winter. It is a major uplift from the current £11,500 cut-off point.
It means nine million pensioners will now be eligible for the winter support. Around two million pensioners whose income is above £35,000 will have the payment automatically recovered or can opt out from receiving it.
Keir Starmer last month announced he wanted more pensioners to be eligible for the help, which is worth up to £300. The PM faced a damaging backlash after last year introducing a means-tested system for the winter fuel allowance, which had previously been a universal benefit. Around 10 million pensioners lost the support last winter.
The changes announced today will cost around £1.25billion. The Treasury said the new means-testing system is expected to save around £450million, compared to the universal system.
No pensioner will need to take any action as they will automatically receive the payment this winter. Payments of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, will be made.
OAPS with incomes above the £35,000 threshold will have the full amount of the winter fuel payment they received automatically collected via PAYE, or via their Self-Assessment return. Pensioners who want to opt out and not receive the payment at all will be able to do so. DWP is developing a simple system to enable OAPs to opt out if they wish.
Ms Reeves, the Chancellor, said: 'Targeting Winter Fuel Payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest.
'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the Winter Fuel Payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.'
Follow our Mirror Politics account on Bluesky here. And follow our Mirror Politics team here - Lizzy Buchan, Mikey Smith, Kevin Maguire, Sophie Huskisson, Dave Burke and Ashley Cowburn.
Be first to get the biggest bombshells and breaking news by joining our Politics WhatsApp group here. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you want to leave our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Or sign up here to the Mirror's Politics newsletter for all the best exclusives and opinions straight to your inbox.
And listen to our exciting new political podcast The Division Bell, hosted by the Mirror and the Express every Thursday.
At PMQs last month, the PM said with the economy showing signs of improvement he wants to ensure "more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments". The surprise announcement came amid mounting pressure to roll-back the decision to strip the payment from all but the very poorest pensioners - those who receive Pension Credit.
Tensions have been rising in Labour ranks after Reform UK made sweeping gains in the English local elections in May and also won a by-election in the Labour stronghold of Runcorn and Helsby by six votes.
At the time, Ros Jones, who held on as Doncaster mayor by a majority of less than 700, said the Government needs to listen to the public as she hit out over winter fuel and benefit cuts. In a furious message after her narrow victory at the mayoral elections, she said the winter fuel cuts were "wrong".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves admits Labour has ‘disappointed' people while in government
Rachel Reeves admits Labour has 'disappointed' people while in government. The politician said she understood that being Chancellor meant making unpopular decisions. She told an audience at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival that Labour had got the balance right between tax, spending and borrowing. But she said that balancing the books meant making tough decisions, even if the are unpopular. Appearing on the Iain Dale All Talk fringe show, she said: 'The reason people voted Labour at the last election is they want to change and they were unhappy with the way that the country was being governed. 'They know that we inherited a mess. They know it's not easy to put it right, but people are impatient for change. 'I'm impatient for change as well, but I've also got the job of making sure the sums always add up – and it doesn't always make you popular because you can't do anything you might want to do. You certainly can't do everything straight away, all at once.' Ms Reeves pointed to Labour's £200 million investment in carbon capture in the north east of Scotland, which she said was welcomed by the industry. At the same time, Labour's windfall tax, she said, was not liked by the sector. 'I can understand that that's extra tax that the oil and gas sector are paying, but you can't really have one without the other,' she said. Defending Labour's record, she said her party had the 'balance about right'. 'But of course you're going to disappoint people,' she added. 'No-one wants to pay more taxes. 'Everyone wants more money than public spending – and borrowing is not a free option, because you've got to pay for it. 'I think people know those sort of constraints, but no-one really likes them and I'm the one, I guess, that has to sort the sums up.' Ms Reeves said Labour had to deliver on its general election campaign of change, adding that her party did not 'deserve' to win the next election if it does not deliver the change it promised.
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?
Now that Sir Keir Starmer has declared his intention to recognise the imaginary state of Palestine, perhaps he might want to consider affording similar status to one that does actually exist: Taiwan. Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine at the UN next month might have helped to appease his restless backbenchers, who champion the Palestinian cause without having the faintest notion what they are talking about. But recognising a state that does not exist, is incapable of holding democratic elections and where a decent proportion of the population are in thrall to Islamist-inspired terrorism is hardly a blueprint for success. Taiwan, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed independent territory that regularly holds free and fair democratic elections – despite the malign efforts of China's Communist rulers to disrupt the process – where the overwhelming majority continue to uphold their right of self-determination. Apart from being a fully functioning democracy, Taiwan is also a valued trading partner, with total trade between the UK and Taipei currently averaging around £9.3bn. And yet, despite his willingness to offer full recognition to Palestine, an area that has no formal borders, a non-functioning administration and meagre trading options, our prime minister appears strangely reticent on the subject of upgrading our diplomatic ties with a democratic and prosperous ally such as Taiwan. This aversion to addressing the issue is all the more remarkable given that the official policy is to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression, a position that means the Royal Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region – including through the Taiwan Strait – to demonstrate Britain's solidarity. The extent of the UK's military support for Taiwan is evident from the participation of HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy's new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, in the Talisman Sabre exercises currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. The British warship is part of a 35,000-strong multi-national force conducting military exercises aimed at deterring China from launching an attack against Taiwan. Indeed, Defence Secretary John Healey was at his most bullish when asked about the UK's commitment to defend the region from Chinese aggression, commenting, 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together, and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.' It is unlikely that we would ever see Healey, or any other Labour minister, making such robust comments about defending a future Palestine state – assuming, that is, that one ever materialises. The Starmer Government's desire to steer clear of any serious military entanglements in the Middle East was evident during the recent confrontation between the US and Iran. While the US deployed its aircraft carrier groups to the Gulf in anticipation of war with Tehran, the Prince of Wales, which was sailing through the region at the time, continued on its passage to Australia, out of harm's way. If the Government is so determined to defend Taiwan's right to exist, even risking the prospect of war with China by doing so, then it begs the question: why, having recognised a non-state like Palestine, will it not make the same commitment to Taipei? Ever since the leadership of the original Republic of China fled from the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, successive British governments have sought to adopt a neutral position in its dealing with the territory. While the UK is perfectly willing to maintain lucrative trade ties, as well as providing declarations of military support, ministers have been reluctant to upgrade Taiwan's diplomatic status for fear of causing offence to China, its more powerful and prosperous neighbour. Since 1972, when London eventually recognised the People's Republic as the sole government of China, the view in Whitehall has been that the future status of Taiwan should be a matter for the Chinese to decide. A number of recent factors have made this compromise appear less satisfactory, not least Chinese President Xi Jinping's pronounced determination to reclaim Taiwan as Chinese sovereign territory. Having declared that the ' reunification' of China with Taiwan is a cornerstone of his aim of achieving the Chinese dream of nation rejuvenation by 2049, Xi has authorised the Chinese military to engage in a massive build up, with some Western military analysts predicting a Chinese invasion could take place by 2027. The gathering storm clouds over China's territorial ambitions towards Taiwan have already resulted in significant changes to British policy to the region, most notably the 2021 Integrated Review that proposed an Indo-Pacific 'tilt' in our military and security outlook. Apart from sending an aircraft carrier to participate in joint naval exercises, the Royal Navy is also committed to upgrading its 'persistent presence' in the region to include the rotational deployment of nuclear submarines from 2027 as part of the recent Aukus agreement signed between the UK, US and Australia. If the UK is preparing to defend Taiwan's sovereignty, it makes sense for Starmer to give serious consideration to offering the Taiwanese people the same level of recognition that he is prepared to give to the Palestinians. Otherwise the UK could one day find itself in the invidious position of fighting for a people whose sovereignty it does not even acknowledge.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Chancellor's attempt to intervene in car finance scandal branded ‘disgraceful'
Rachel Reeves' efforts to intervene in the supreme court case on the car finance scandal were 'unprecedented and disgraceful' and send a 'really bad message' to consumers that the government is willing to defend wrongdoing by banks, Treasury committee member and Lib Dem MP Bobby Dean has said. While the supreme court largely sided with finance companies on Friday – helping lenders avoid a £44bn compensation bill – Dean said the chancellor had gone too far to show she was on the side of business. That included a controversial bid to intervene in the supreme court hearing in January, in which she urged judges to avoid handing 'windfall' compensation to borrowers. That attempt was ultimately rejected. 'I thought it was pretty unprecedented and pretty disgraceful,' said Dean, who sits on an influential parliamentary committee which scrutinises City firms, regulators and the Treasury. The chancellor had also been considering overruling the supreme court's decision with retrospective legislation, to help save lenders billions of pounds, in the event that it upheld the entirety of October's court of appeal ruling, the Guardian revealed last week. 'What message does it send to consumers that the industry can do wrong, the courts can support the claim that they've done something wrong, but the government is ready to intervene and defend the industry that's done wrong, instead of defending the consumer? I think that's a really bad message to put out,' Dean said. 'I feel like this government sometimes is too keen to demonstrate it is on the side of business, and is sometimes not understanding the rights of consumer,' he added. Reeves intervention efforts followed intensive lobbying by the car loan industry, which feared that the supreme court would uphold last October's shock ruling by the appeal court. That October ruling suggested commission payments paid by lenders to car dealers were unlawful, unless explicitly disclosed to borrowers. It could have opened the door to billions of pounds of compensation claims against companies including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander UK, Barclays and Close Brothers, and result in a redress scheme that rivalled the £50bn payment protection insurance saga. Lobby group the Financing and Leasing Association (FLA) – which represents car lenders – had warned the government that a big compensation bill could push some lenders into failure, while others would offer fewer or more expensive loans to claw back their losses. That could restrict options for borrowers who relied on credit. City bosses were also warning the Treasury that ongoing uncertainty over the scandal was deterring international investment in the finance industry, and was therefore putting the UK's economic growth at risk The FLA's head of motor finance Adrian Dally said that the lobby group was 'pleased' with the supreme court's ruling, and felt its concerns had been heard by Treasury and regulators. He confirmed the FLA had been speaking with the Treasury nearly every week in the wake of the court of appeal ruling in October, including about its concerns on the car finance case. However, he rejected suggestions the Treasury had prioritised the industry over consumers. 'We absolutely disagree with that because, ultimately, this [car finance] industry is a vital part of the nation's infrastructure, and enables millions of people to get to work, to get to school, and that was put at risk by these court cases. And ultimately, we believe the industry's interests and the consumers' interests are aligned on this.' 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 But Dean said government interventions set a 'really bad precedent if you're going to intervene on cases of consumer redress on the basis that it might damage industry, because then almost every consumer redress case would fall,' Dean said. Dean added that compensation schemes can give consumers confidence to borrow and invest, knowing will be protected when companies take advantage of customers. 'Obviously, the best industry is one where these redress systems are not needed in the first place, because people play by the rules.' The Financial Conduct Authority is due to confirm whether or not it will press ahead with a compensation scheme before the stock markets open on Monday morning. A Treasury spokesperson said: 'It is vital that consumers have access to motor finance to enable them to spread the cost of a vehicle in a way that is manageable and affordable. 'We respect this judgment from the supreme court, and we are working with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted, and we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act.'
