THE Scottish Government will have to find around £100 million to mitigate Labour’s cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment, a minister has said.
Ivan McKee, the Scottish Minister for Public Finance, told the BBC that the fact his government had been given only 90 minutes’ notice of the cuts in Rachel Reeves’s speech showed Labour’s claimed reset of devolved relationships “clearly hasn't happened”.
McKee was speaking on Tuesday morning, after Chancellor Reeves told MPs at Westminster how she aimed to make up for a £22 billion “black hole” in day-to-day spending, including cutting the Winter Fuel Payment for people not on benefits.
Reeves also said that departments will be expected to find a total of £3.2bn in savings in order to part pay for above-inflation pay awards for public sector staff.
McKee said the measures were “absolutely austerity, and there's no doubt about that”.
READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn warns 'everyone will pay huge price' with return of Labour PFIs
The Public Finance Minister told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland that the Scottish Government had been expecting to receive around £180m to cover the costs of the Winter Fuel Payment, but that would “clearly be a much lower number now”.
“How much lower, we don't know,” he went on. “We think there'll be at least £100m come out of that that we need to find from somewhere else if we want to continue to pay that Winter Fuel Payment, which we absolutely want to do.
“I think that gets to the nub of it because if you look at this in the broader context, we've got an energy rich Scotland but we've got that fuel poverty exacerbated by the decisions that the UK Labour Chancellor has made.”
Asked if the Scottish Government could guarantee that the Winter Fuel Payment would remain universal north of the Border, McKee said: “Of course, the Winter Fuel Payment is now being devolved to Scotland from this September, so we'll have to very closely look at what we can do.
“We would very much like to keep the universal aspect of that benefit, but we need to look at the numbers very, very closely.
“We only got told about this 90 minutes before it was announced, which is really concerning, given Labour's grand talk about resetting the relationship with the Scottish Government. That clearly hasn't happened.”
McKee pointed to comments from the charity Age UK, which has said that some two million UK pensioners could be pushed into poverty by making the fuel payment means-tested.
READ MORE: 'Utterly unjustifiable': Economist reacts to Rachel Reeves speech
He added: “I think going back to this austerity point is very important. During the election campaign, [Scottish Secretary] Ian Murray said it was ‘mince’ there was going to be Labour austerity and cuts as a consequence of electing the Labour government.
“So when you've got him on your programme, maybe get him to eat that mince because he's been absolutely proved wrong.”
Appearing on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland afterwards, Murray was challenged on those comments.
He responded that McKee was “completely and utterly wrong because he's comparing apples with pears”.
The Scottish Secretary went on: “This is a £22bn in-year overspend by the previous government that they hid from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is the independent body that measures these things, most of the Treasury, and indeed the Budget that [then-Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt] did back in the spring.
“So Ivan McKee's got this completely wrong. It's got nothing to do with the arguments we had during the election campaign.”
The Office for Budget Responsibility said it was only made aware of the extent of pressures on departmental budgets after 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,” its chair, Richard Hughes, said.
“If a significant fraction of these pressures is ultimately accommodated through higher DEL [department expenditure limits] spending in 2024-25, this would constitute one of the largest year-ahead overspends against DEL forecasts outside of the pandemic years.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel