Winter fuel payments to be restricted as Reeves says there is £22bn spending shortfall – UK politics live | Politics


Reeves says winter fuel payments to be restricted to poorer pensioners

Reeves says pensioners not in receipt of pension credit will no longer get the winter fuel payment.

That means it will only go to poorer pensioners.

She says this is not a decision she wanted or expected to make.

But this is an urgent decision she has to make.

UPDATE: Reeves said:

This level of overspend is not sustainable. Left unchecked, it is a risk to economic stability and, unlike the party opposite, I will never take risks with our country’s economic stability.

So, it therefore falls to us to take the difficult decisions now to make further in-year savings. The scale of the situation we are dealing with means incredibly tough choices.

I repeat today the commitment that we made in our manifesto to protect the triple-lock but today I am making the difficult decision that those not in receipt of pension credit or certain other means-tested benefits will no longer receive the winter fuel payment from this year onwards.

The government will continue to provide winter fuel payments worth £200 to households receiving pension credit or £300 to households in receipt of pension credit with someone over the age of 80. Let me be clear, this is not a decision I wanted to make, nor is it the one I expected to make – but these are the necessary and urgent decisions that I must make.

Share

Updated at 

Key events

Cutting winter fuel payments ‘feels like Tory austerity’, says SNP

In the Commons Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson, focused mainly on criticising the last Tory government in her response to Rachel Reeves. She said:

The outgoing Conservative government will go down in the history books as one of the most damaging administrations our country has seen and today’s statement has thrown that picture into even more stark relief.

It wasn’t just their catastrophic mini budget, we saw a vicious cycle of stagnation and recession driven by years of chaos and uncertainty.

Over the last parliament we saw the Conservative Party raise taxes on hardworking households again and again just to pay for its own mistakes.

But Pete Wishart, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, told MPs that cutting winter fuel payments felt like Tory austerity. He said:

Everybody and their granny knew that there would be a multibillion pound black hole, only the chancellor seemed to be deaf and blind to the situation, but we knew she was going to be here explaining the sheer scale of it.”

Isn’t it the case that cutting winter fuel payments to all pensioners seems and feels like Tory austerity? And what discussions has she had with the Scottish government? Because she will know obviously that this is a devolved responsibility.

Senior civil servants will receive a pay rise of 5%, Georgia Gould, the Cabinet Office minister, has told MPs in a written statement.

In the Commons Rachel Reeves has now finished her statement. After she wrapped up three Conservative MPs used points of order to say that the supply and appropriation (main estimates) bill was presented to the Commons on Thursday last week and it was based on the pre-election spending figures, not the new ones announced today. They argued that, if Rachel Reeves know on Thursday those figures were problematic, she was misleading the Commons.

The “estimates”, as they are called, are how parliament approves public spending. On Thursday the bill was passed without a debate. (The statement from Reeves today shows why “estimates” really is the right word for these figures.)

In the Commons Caroline Nokes, the new deputy speaker who was in the chair, dismissed the points of order, saying it was for the government to decide how it presented the estimates.

Teachers in England to get pay rise of 5.5%, Bridget Phillipson, education secretary, says

Teachers in England will get a pay rise of 5.5%, Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has said. In a written statement Phillipson said:

I am today announcing that we are accepting in full the independent School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB) recommendations for 2024/25, implementing a substantial pay award for school teachers and leaders of 5.5% from September. This award will apply to maintained schools across all pay points and allowances, and in practice, will also be implemented in many academies at their discretion. I want to thank the STRB members for their careful consideration of the evidence presented to them.

Police officers in England and Wales to get 4.75% pay rise, Home Office says

And police officers in England and Wales will get a pay rise of 4.75%, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has announced. In a written statement she says:

Both the PRRB [Police Renumeration Review Body] and SSRB [Senior Salaries Review Body] recommended a consolidated increase of 4.75% to all police officer ranks and pay points with effect from 1 September 2024. The government is accepting the recommendation in full. The Home Office will provide £175m additional funding in 2024-25 to forces to help with the cost of the pay increase.

While the recommendation for a consolidated award of 4.75% is significantly above what had been budgeted for in the 2021 spending review, it is right that we accept it in full. Police officers have a crucial role to play in delivering the government’s manifesto commitments to make Britain’s streets safe and increase public visibility through neighbourhood policing.

Share

Updated at 

Members of armed forces to get 6% pay rise, MoD says

The main pay award for members of the armed forces is worth 6%, the Ministry of Defence has said, although new recruits will get more. In a written ministerial statement John Healey, the defence secretary, says:

Along with various forms of support, accommodation, and pensions, pay plays a vital role in rewarding our people for the work they do. To recognise the commitment and service of our armed forces personnel, we are announcing today that we will be accepting in full the 2024 Pay Award recommendations made by the independent Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB) and Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). This year’s award provides a targeted and significant pay uplift for new recruits alongside a large headline increase of 6%.

Prison officers to get 5% pay rise, and judges 6%, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood says

Prison officers will get a pay rise worth 5% for 2024-25, Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has said in a written statement to MPs. She says:

All Prison Service staff play a vital role in helping to rehabilitate prisoners and keep the public safe. I am grateful for their hard work and dedication. Acceptance of these recommendations reflects our priorities in ensuring the recruitment and retention of Prison Service staff to deliver this essential frontline service and recognises the valuable service they deliver every day.

The award will deliver a pay rise of at least a 5% base pay increase for all prison staff between Operational Support Grade and Governors (Bands 2-11), with a targeted focus on the lowest paid.

And judges will get 6%, she says. Explaining the difference, she says:

The SSRB [Senior Salaries Review Body] recommended a pay award of 6% for all judicial office holders within the remit group for 2024/25. I have decided to accept this recommendation in full, which will be applied equally to all judicial office holders for whom I have responsibility and will be backdated to April 2024.

I recognise the SSRB’s concerns regarding persistent recruitment and retention issues affecting parts of the judiciary. I look forward to working alongside the judiciary to understand how we can start to address these shortfalls through system-wide reforms going forwards.

Share

Updated at 

Jill Rutter, a former Treasury official who know works at the Institute for Government thinktank, has backed up Nick Macpherson’s point. She posted this on X.

Nick is right.. Jeremy Hunt would have been apoplectic if HMT officials had shared their view of spending pressures with the Shadow Chancellor before the election as he suggested (unless he authorised it…) https://t.co/VzsD6rjCi0

— Jill Rutter (@jillongovt) July 29, 2024

Nick is right.. Jeremy Hunt would have been apoplectic if HMT officials had shared their view of spending pressures with the Shadow Chancellor before the election as he suggested (unless he authorised it…)

In the Commons Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is still taking questions. She has just told MPs that, although she has been talking for an hour and 40 minutes, she still has not hear any Tory MP apologise for the situation they left.

Jeremy Hunt, the shadow chancellor, also claimed that Rachel Reeves should have know about the pressures on spending because she had the chance to speak to Treasury officials ahead of the election in access talks. (See 4.04pm.)

Nick Macpherson, a former Treasury permanent secretary, says Hunt is wrong about this. Officials aren’t allowed to discuss matters like that in access talks, he says.

I feel for HMT officIals. The rules precluded them sharing spending pressures with Ms Reeves ahead of the Election; the current framework precluded them discussing the realism of spending plans with the OBR. The changes to the OBR charter announced today are a big step forward.

— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) July 29, 2024

I feel for HMT officIals. The rules precluded them sharing spending pressures with Ms Reeves ahead of the Election; the current framework precluded them discussing the realism of spending plans with the OBR. The changes to the OBR charter announced today are a big step forward.

Jeremy Hunt, the shadow chancellor, said in the chamber earlier that Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, rejected Rachel Reeves’ claim that she did not know about the state of the public finances before the election. (See 4.04pm.)

Johnson himself says that, at least in regards to spending on asylum matters, people were kept in the dark. But he has restated his point about Reeves knowing the overall position was bleak. And he has said that accepting pay review body recommendations in full was a discretionary decision. He posted this on X about an hour ago.

1 Last govt left public finances in bad state; 2 it does appear that funding for eg asylum was not provided

but 3 c. half of spending “hole” is public pay over which govt made a choice and where pressures were known; and 4 overall challenge for spending was known and remains

— Paul Johnson (@PJTheEconomist) July 29, 2024

1 Last govt left public finances in bad state; 2 it does appear that funding for eg asylum was not provided

but 3 c. half of spending “hole” is public pay over which govt made a choice and where pressures were known; and 4 overall challenge for spending was known and remains

Ben Zaranko, another IFS economist, sounds a bit more sympathetic to Reeves. He says the finances are in a mess and Reeves is entitled to be cross.

Need to see the detail, but I think Rachel Reeves has grounds to be cross. The in-year funding pressures do genuinely appear to be greater than could be discerned from outside. The £9bn contingency ‘reserve’ has seemingly been spent several times over. It’s a mess.

— Ben Zaranko (@BenZaranko) July 29, 2024

Need to see the detail, but I think Rachel Reeves has grounds to be cross. The in-year funding pressures do genuinely appear to be greater than could be discerned from outside. The £9bn contingency ‘reserve’ has seemingly been spent several times over. It’s a mess.

OBR launches inquiry into whether Treasury gave it misleading information about cost of Tory spending plans

The Office for Budget Responsibility seems to be backing up Rachel Reeves’ claim that the last government was not open about the cost of the measures it was committed to. Richard Hughes, the OBR’s chair, has announced that he has set up an inquiry into the accuracy of the figures the OBR was given.

In a letter to the Treasury committee explaining the move, Hughes says:

In my testimony before the Treasury committee and other parliamentary committees, I have expressed my concerns about the transparency and credibility of the existing arrangements within government for forecasting, planning, and controlling the 40 per cent of public expenditure within DEL [departmental expenditure limit]. In our semi-annual EFO [economic and fiscal outlook] reports (including the March 2024 EFO) and in our August 2023 working paper on the OBR’s forecast performance, the OBR has highlighted potential overspending against the DEL plans set by the Treasury as one of the most significant risks to the fiscal outlook.

The document published today by HM Treasury entitled Fixing the foundations: Public spending audit 2024-25 identifies £21.9 billion in net pressures on the DEL budgets set by the Treasury for the current financial year 2024-25. We were made aware of the extent of these pressures at a meeting with the Treasury last week. The Treasury document also sets out its plans for further managing down these pressures over the remainder of the financial year. If a significant fraction of these pressures is ultimately accommodated through higher DEL spending in 2024-25, this would constitute one of the largest year-ahead overspends against DEL forecasts outside of the pandemic years.

Given the seriousness of this issue, I have initiated a review into the preparation of the DEL forecast in the March 2024 EFO. The review will assess the adequacy of the information and assurances provided to the OBR by the Treasury regarding departmental spending and report to Baroness Sarah Hogg, chair of the OBR’s Oversight Board, and Dame Susan Rice, chair of the OBR’s Risk Committee.

This is drafted in OBR jargon, but the message is a strong one; Hughes is suggesting the OBR was mislead by the Treasury about the true cost of the Tories’ spending plans.

Hughes has expressed his concerns about the accuracy of Treasury future spending figures in the past. In January he told the Treasury committee they were worse than a work of fiction because “someone’s bothered to write a work of fiction, whereas the government hasn’t even bothered to write down what its departmental spending plans are underpinning the plans for public services”.

In the Commons a few minutes ago Rachel Reeves said this letter was “incredibly serious”. In response to a question from Labour’s Mark Ferguson, Reeves said the letter “can leave no one in this chamber under any doubt about the seriousness of the situation”.

I have updated some of the earlier posts with with longer, direct quotes from Rachel Reeves’ statement. You may need to refresh the page to get them to appear.





Source link

Leave a Comment