THE cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment is “not going to be the last” announced by the Labour government, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has said.
Labour MP James Murray said his party had not wanted to take the decision to cut Winter Fuel Payments for people not claiming benefits, but was forced into it by the economic inheritance they’d been left by the Conservatives.
On Monday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that Labour had found a £22 billion overspend in the in-year departmental projections, and announced sweeping measures to plug the gap, including the Winter Fuel Payment cuts, cuts to departmental budgets, and cuts to infrastructure projects.
Speaking to GB News, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Murray suggested further cuts would be coming down the road.
READ MORE: Scottish Government 'will need to find £100m to mitigate Labour cuts', minister says
“I want to be really honest with you and say that that decision about the Winter Fuel Payment was a really difficult one,” he said. “It's not one any of us wanted to take. It's not one the Chancellor was expecting to take coming into office.
“But having sound finances, being fiscally responsible, having economic stability, is not an optional extra for us. It's at the heart of what we want to do in government, and that's why we're having to take difficult decisions.
“This is not going to be the last difficult decision we're going to have to take to get the public finances back under control.”
Murray further claimed that the £22bn “black hole” in the public finances had been hidden from the public before the election.
“It's absolutely outrageous that the government let this happen without telling anyone,” he told GB News.
“They covered it up by not being straight with the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility], not being straight with the British public talking about this in the election campaign.”
The comments come after shadow chancellor Jeremy Hunt wrote to Cabinet Secretary Simon Case – the UK’s most senior civil servant – demanding an “immediate answer” to “conflicting claims” which risk “bringing the civil service into disrepute”.
Hunt said either the spending plans in estimates signed off by senior civil servants while he was in government were incorrect, or the document the Chancellor produced to the Commons on Monday was incorrect.
READ MORE: 'Utterly unjustifiable': Economist reacts to Rachel Reeves speech
In a letter to Case, the top Tory said: “After the statement made in the House of Commons today, I am writing to follow up with deep concern over some of the conflicting claims that have been made which risk bringing the civil service into disrepute.
“It is deeply troubling that the Chancellor has today chosen to make claims about the public finances to the House of Commons which directly contradict the documents and legislation the new Government put before Parliament, signed off by senior civil servant accounting officers.”
Hunt asked Case to confirm that senior civil servants signed off on the main estimates and “if the estimates are wrong, will accounting officers be sanctioned for signing off departmental spending plans for this year which are based on a forecast of requirements that are incorrect?”
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