Energy bills: Millions eligible for £150 Warm Home Discount
The Warm Home Discount scheme, which helps households in the UK with the cost of energy bills, will be extended to another 2.7 million homes.
This brings the number of households eligible for the warm home discount up to just over 6 million, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has confirmed after a consultation.
The changes remove some restrictions on eligibility and mean every bill payer on means-tested benefits will qualify.
Some 900,000 families with children and 1.8 million homes in fuel poverty are set to benefit from the payment.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: 'I know families are still struggling with the cost of living, and I know the fear that comes with not being able to afford your next bill.
'Providing security and peace of mind for working people is deeply personal to me as Prime Minister and foundational for the Plan for Change.
'I have no doubt that, like rolling out free school meals, breakfast clubs and childcare support, extending this £150 energy bills support to millions more families will make a real difference.'
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: 'Millions of families will get vital support with the cost of living this coming winter, demonstrating this government's commitment to put money in people's pockets through our Plan for Change.'
Recommended reading:
Amazon launches new Haul service but only for some UK shoppers
Martin Lewis: How to stop a banking scam with just three digits
What is Amazon Subscribe and Save and is it worth doing?
Simon Francis, Coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented: 'Expanding the Warm Home Discount is a welcome step that will help more households this winter.
"But the scheme still leaves out some of those most at risk, including people with long-term health conditions, disabilities and those on non-means tested benefits who often face the highest energy costs.
'With bills still hundreds of pounds higher than in 2020, millions will continue to face unaffordable energy and cold, damp homes this winter.
'Alongside the energy efficiency investment announced in the Spending Review, the government must commit to a permanent social tariff and reform energy pricing to ensure every household can benefit from cheap renewable energy.'
The Conservatives criticised the move, saying energy prices are expected to keep climbing overall.
Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow energy secretary, said: 'Labour promised to cut everyone's energy bills by £300 but they have increased by £280 and are forecast to keep going up.
'Energy bills need to come down but this announcement will cut bills for just a quarter of households whilst increasing them for everyone else.
'Kemi Badenoch and I have been clear that net zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting Britain and making hard-working families worse off.'
The Warm Home Discount Scheme is a one-off discount on your electricity bill worth £150.
The money is not paid directly to you but is taken off of your energy bills between October 2024 and March 2025.
You may be able to get the discount on your gas bill instead of your electricity bill if your supplier provides you with both and you are eligible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer's start as PM worse than Liz Truss, claims expert
Leading historian Sir Anthony Seldon has described Sir Keir Starmer 's start as prime minister as the most inept in a century, suggesting it is even worse than Liz Truss 's brief tenure. Mr Seldon criticised Sir Keir for lacking a clear plan, not consulting previous prime ministers, and having an unclear purpose for his leadership. Polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice agreed, stating it has been the "worst start for any newly elected prime minister, Labour or Conservative". Sir Keir recently admitted he was slow to address a growing rebellion over welfare reforms as he was focussed on foreign affairs like G7, Nato summits, and Middle East tensions. Despite significant backbencher opposition, Starmer is expected to win a crucial vote on welfare reforms on Tuesday.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Cutting personal independent payments: potentially devastating or justified?
As predicted (Starmer offers 'massive concessions' on welfare bill to Labour rebels, 26 June), an attempt has been made to salvage the welfare bill. Discontented MPs and disabled people alike will welcome the assurance that people currently receiving personal independence payments (Pip) or the health element of universal credit will be protected from changes. But the episode is damaging, has caused thousands of disabled people needless worry, and may come to be seen as pivotal in Keir Starmer's tenure. There is something deeply invidious about having two classes of benefit recipients – the protected current recipients, and those making future claims. At the same time, it is clear that the benefits system does need reform and, in particular, needs to support people into work rather than taking a punitive and brutal approach to cost saving. How Starmer has ended up in this position is fascinating, if it were not extraordinary for a government with such a majority and the potential to make radical and equitable change to be repeatedly wrongfooted. U-turns look weak and messy, and presenting them as a response to active listening is unlikely to convince anyone. Starmer claims not to be ideological, and there is the issue; policy is being shaped not by a coherent strategic vision and principle-driven aspirations for better lives, opportunities and genuine equality, but by economic necessity and caution. It's a flawed model, certain to intensify divisions between ministries, Labour members, taxpayers, benefit recipients and the wider electorate. There is major learning and reflection needed by the government; the optics have gone badly wrong, but the welfare reform chaos is a symptom of a much deeper political Melanie HenwoodHartwell, Northamptonshire I am a social worker and I support cutting Pips. I have encountered a number of young adults trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency, unemployment and chaotic lifestyles. They share a belief that the state must fund every aspect of life, and a lack of understanding that benefits come not 'from the government' but are redistributed from taxation of the population. Pip is often claimed on the basis of anxiety or depression, but the idea of working to support oneself, or seeking training or education to make work more attainable, is absent from their thinking. The answer? Probably a combination of education, early interventions and nudges towards culture change, including reducing the availability of Pip. In the long term the status quo won't help the young people I work and address supplied What is not being made clear in government statements and coverage of the cuts to disability benefits is the personal independence payment's relationship to work. Pip is paid to help with the additional costs arising from disability. It is paid to people in work and out of work. It is crucial in enabling people to stay in work, paying for technical and personal support, health needs, travel and other costs. It also enables people who cannot work full-time to work. What will happen to these working people when they can no longer afford the additional costs? It's clear the government does not understand the role of Pip in enabling BetteridgeManchester As we approach the parliamentary vote on the new welfare bill, spare a thought for the many Pip recipients who received the benefit when it was known as disability living allowance. I suspect, for many, the scars still linger from that government change to the system. What that revealed was that disability allowance was not directed to those most in need of it due to their disability. Rather, receiving the new benefit depended upon one's ability to fill out a 40-page form. Next, it depended on having the physical and mental resilience to challenge the result and take it to a tribunal. This was a protracted and stressful period of time. For many, who made it that far, the tribunal reversed the DWP scoring and people found that they had their old level of benefit reinstated. Just a shame that stress makes many medical conditions far worse for the individual. Many years ago, I believed that the DWP wanted to help those with serious disabilities. These days, I have as much faith in them as they appear to have in disabled people (DWP letters now seem to be written with a subtext of 'you're a fraud and we'll catch you').Name and address supplied Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
After a dreadful first year, Starmer has no hope of fixing the economy
This Friday is the anniversary of Labour's victory at the polls, presenting us with an opportunity to assess Sir Keir Starmer's first year in office. I cannot comment on foreign affairs or domestic social issues. My bailiwick is simply the economy and the Government's influence over it. If a week is a long time in politics, then a year is a short time in the life of an economy. It is perfectly possible for things that have started badly to turn out well in the end and, equally, for things that started well to turn sour. So a judgment this early in a government's tenure must be provisional. We should start by acknowledging all the difficulties the Government has faced. It inherited a low-growth economy, accompanied by a serious fiscal problem. Notably, a deficit of nearly 5pc of GDP and a debt ratio not far off 100pc, and still climbing. Moreover, given the continuing war between Russia and Ukraine, and especially since Donald Trump's return to the White House in January, the international environment has not been favourable. With all that said, how has the Government done? Long ago, Labour's leaders acknowledged that the fundamental problem of the British economy was low economic growth, associated with weak productivity growth. They identified a low rate of national investment as the most important driver. Accordingly, much of Labour's wish list has been about increasing the rate of investment. It has undertaken a number of measures, including redefining the fiscal rules, to enable a higher rate of public investment. The effects of this change have not yet come through. And it has sought to reduce the planning obstructions to building more houses. As regards business investment, however, its approach so far has been woeful. It seems to have believed that, after the leadership chaos and infighting of the last 14 years, merely by not being Conservative, the new Labour Government would engender greater confidence. Things have turned out rather differently. For a start, the underlying problems were always more serious than Labour's diagnosis acknowledged. Moreover, the gloom and doom about the ' fiscal black hole ' relentlessly pumped out by the Chancellor didn't help develop any sense of optimism among business leaders. Then there were three key mistakes. The first was committed more or less immediately after taking office by caving in to the striking rail workers. This gave a green light to other militant groups to act, and it will surely take a long time for the Government to restore any sense of confidence that it will firmly resist militant union pay demands. In a similar vein, it conceded to junior doctors and thereby, in all likelihood, set off a wave of claims and industrial disputes across the public sector. Second, having boxed itself in with a pre-election commitment not to raise the main rates of personal tax and yet feeling that it had to increase some sort of tax to fund its increased spending, the Government then imposed a huge increase in business taxes in the form of increased National Insurance contributions for employers. Moreover, this came on top of a large increase in the minimum wage. To cap it all, the Government is in the process of getting the Employment Rights Bill through Parliament. This will greatly strengthen the bargaining position of workers against their employers. Many small businesses, in particular, are fearful that they will be in a weak position to stand up against rogue employees. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that business leaders feel depressed and are disinclined to invest or take on employees. Ultimately, it seems Labour really doesn't seem to appreciate the private sector or understand what makes businesses tick. Simultaneously, the Government has failed to understand the nature and scale of the problem concerning the public finances. Admittedly, most Labour Party supporters seem to think that we can increase the share of GDP accounted for by government expenditure without incurring any ill effects. Yet anyone reviewing the international evidence will conclude that government spending taking as high a share of GDP as it currently does is doing grave damage. One of the most important drivers of surging public spending is the ballooning benefits bill. Admittedly, the Government has made a nod in this direction by announcing various measures to combat the inexorable rise in welfare spending. But these measures have been pitifully small in scope. They amounted only to a total saving of some £6bn, compared to a projected total welfare bill (including pensions) this year of £326bn. Moreover, the Government has already retreated on some of its proposals. It may be about to abandon the rest of them this week. If you want to be optimistic, you could say that it is still early days. Even Margaret Thatcher's first year in office in 1979/80 was very far from an economic success story. Indeed, she began by agreeing to the pay recommendations of the Clegg Commission on public sector pay (no, not that Clegg). And her monetarist obsession caused interest rates to be jacked up from 12pc to 17pc, prompting the pound to soar and much of the British economy to go down the tubes. The economy picked up two years later, but it didn't really start to motor until after Thatcher's second election victory in 1983. Somehow, though, I don't see this Government's dire beginning leading to any sort of major recovery, let alone a Damascene conversion. With a tailwind from the international environment, things may get a bit better next year. But any sort of economic transformation looks unattainable. In that case, Labour's other aspirations will fall by the wayside. Meanwhile, the Government somehow has to find the wisdom to appreciate the peril that this country faces from foreign aggression – and to muster the political courage to spend what is necessary to defend us against it.
