MPs to vote on cutting winter fuel payment for pensioners

Published

1 year ago

September 10, 2024

admin

MPs will vote later on a controversial plan by the new government to remove the winter fuel payment from the majority of pensioners.

The move – which will see around 10 million people lose the payment of up to £300 to help with energy costs – has been defended by Labour, who said “tough decisions” need to be made in light of the £22bn “black hole” in public finances.

But some MPs from their own side, as well as charities and opposition MPs, are calling for a U-turn, saying the policy will leave less well-off pensioners with “a heart-breaking choice between heating and eating this winter”.

Ahead of the vote, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will deliver a speech to the Trades Union Congress (TUC) conference in Brighton, where many in the audience will be in vocal opposition to the policy.

He will attack the previous Conservative government for having “salted the earth of Britain’s future to serve themselves”, but appeal for partnership with the unions to fix it, telling them: “The crisis we have inherited means we must go deep into the marrow of our institutions, rewrite the rules of our economy and fix the foundations so we can build a new home.”

Sir Keir will add: “Economic rules written in the ink of partnership will be more durable and long-lasting – whoever is in power. So it is time to turn the page, business and unions, the private and public sector, united by a common cause to rebuild our public services and grow our economy in a new way.

“We will keep to the course of change, reject the snake oil of easy answers, fix the foundations of our economy and build a new Britain. More secure, more prosperous, more dynamic, and fairer. A country renewed and returned, calmly but with confidence, to the service of working people.”

The winter fuel payment was introduced in 1997 by then Labour chancellor Gordon Brown as a universal benefit, with all people above state pension age entitled to it.

However, the current Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves now wants the payment to be limited to those entitled to Pension Credit – around 1.5 million people – to save public money.

Making the announcement in July shortly after her party won the general election, Ms Reeves laid the blame at the door of the previous Conservative government, claiming they had made “commitment after commitment without knowing where the money was going to come from”.

While she said the decision to scrap the benefit was “difficult”, it was “necessary and urgent” to fix the money problems that had been left behind.

The prime minister has continued to stand by the move, insisting additional “safeguards” are in place for pensioners already on benefits.

He added: “I am determined that we will take tough decisions because the change which is improved living standards, people feeling better off, better public services, dealing with crime and immigration and issues like that, that change will only happen if we fix the foundations now.”

Further potentially unpopular measures, including possible tax rises, are expected next month when Ms Reeves delivers her first Budget.

But Sky News understands as many as 30 MPs are unhappy with the winter fuel payment cut, though they are likely to abstain on the vote rather than go against the party – especially in light of Labour suspending seven of its MPs in July for six months after they rebelled over keeping the two-child benefit cap.

The general secretary of one of Labour’s major union backers, Unite, also accused the party of “picking the pockets of pensioners”.

Speaking to Sky News from the TUC conference, Sharon Graham said the country was “in crisis” and the new government needed to “make very, very different choices” – including introducing a wealth tax “on the biggest and richest 1% in society”.

The Conservatives are among the opposition parties putting forward their own motions to try and stop the cut – though with Labour’s large majority, the government is likely to win the vote.

Former prime minister and Tory leader Rishi Sunak reiterated his accusation that Sir Keir was choosing to “cut vital support for pensioners to fund an inflation-busting pay rise for train drivers”, calling it “unnecessary and wrong”.

He added: “The last Conservative government always made sure to protect our vulnerable pensioners, because we believe that those who have worked hard all their lives deserve security and peace of mind in retirement.

“But within weeks of coming into power Labour are cutting the winter fuel payments, with potentially devastating consequences.

“Labour MPs know this is indefensible – they must do the right thing and force the government to come clean about the impact this punishing cut will have.”

Also speaking ahead of the vote, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the government “should do the right thing and change course” as cutting the winter fuel payment would “put untold stress on pensioners, with many facing a heart-breaking choice between heating and eating this winter”.

Confirming his party would vote against the cut, he added: “While we understand the dire state the Conservatives left the public finances in, now is not the time to be cutting support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

“We cannot stand by and allow millions of pensioners to endure another winter in a cost of living crisis.”

The SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, also urged Scottish MPs on the Labour benches to follow his party’s lead and vote down the change in policy, saying: “The last UK government hammered the economy, public services and household incomes by imposing 14 years of cuts and Brexit.

“The last thing the UK needs now is more cuts from the Labour Party – and pensioners will face a bitter winter if these cuts go ahead.”

UK

Prince Andrew insisted on ‘gag order’ to stop allegations spoiling Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims

Published

2 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Prince Andrew insisted on 'gag order' to stop allegations spoiling Queen's Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims

Prince Andrew insisted his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, her memoirs have claimed.

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening.

It came after discussions with King Charles, in consultation with the Prince of Wales, both of whom wanted to bring an end to the long-lasting scandal.

But, according to The Telegraph, Ms Giuffre’s book, which is due out on Tuesday, is focusing further attention on the sexual assault allegations and the prince’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to the royal’s downfall.

She tells how Andrew’s “disastrous” Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis was like an “injection of jet fuel” for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of “subpoenaing” his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.

The Telegraph also reports Ms Giuffre’s claims that she got “more out of” Andrew than a reported £12m payout and $2m (around £1.4m) donation to her charity because she had “an acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again”.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 17, after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew continues to vehemently deny her allegations.

Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her platinum jubilee in 2022 – the first British monarch to reach the milestone – as the civil case against her son was gathering pace.

It was settled nine days after she reached the 70th anniversary of her accession.

According to the Telegraph, Ms Giuffre, who died in April, reveals in her book: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”

In January 2022, a US judge ruled the civil case against Andrew could go ahead, and the Queen went on to strip him of his honorary military roles, with the prince also giving up his HRH style.

‘Devastating’ interview

His 2019 Newsnight interview, which he hoped would clear his name, backfired when he said he “did not regret” his friendship with convicted paedophile Epstein, who trafficked Ms Giuffre.

Andrew also said he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Ms Giuffre and added he could not have had sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter Beatrice on the day in question.

Ms Giuffre, whose book is called Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.

“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”

‘Amazed he was stupid enough’

She also told how Andrew had “stonewalled” her legal team for months before settlement discussions began moving very quickly when his deposition was scheduled for March 2022.

Ms Giuffre also wrote she was “amazed” that a member of the royal family would be “stupid enough” to appear in public with the convicted paedophile, after a photo of the pair walking in New York emerged.

Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family”.

He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.

UK

Why William and Camilla likely had influential roles in decision over Prince Andrew’s titles

Published

2 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Why William and Camilla likely had influential roles in decision over Prince Andrew's titles

It’s not the first seismic statement I’ve had to deal with from the Royal Family late into the evening.

But what I have learnt from past experience is that when they do come in this way, it’s because the decision has been made to act now and act fast.

Which inevitably has us all wondering, why now?

The latest stories about Prince Andrew and his email to Jeffrey Epstein were again a sign of just how close he’d been to the convicted paedophile, and an extract released from the late Virginia Giuffre’s book was heartbreaking and excruciatingly seedy.

And yes, the full book is released on Tuesday.

But in some ways, we have heard a lot of these lurid details before, albeit allegations that Prince Andrew denies.

Which is why it feels like this time, the family had just had enough.

It’s framed as a personal statement from Andrew, but the involvement of his relatives could not be any clearer: “In discussion with the King, and my immediate and wider family,” he writes, followed up by, “with His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further”.

It has always been hard to get a full picture of how much the King has engaged in the problems with his brother.

Speak to those who know the family well and they’ll tell you our current monarch “doesn’t like confrontation”, just like Queen Elizabeth II.

And while there has always remained “a warm familial feeling between the two brothers” which we’ve seen through Andrew’s appearance at family events, it is “tempered by the King’s responsibilities as head of state to be entirely separate from the perceived, real or alleged activities of the Duke of York”.

In the end, as head of the institution, and not as his brother, the King would have had to lead the discussions about the Andrew problem, but I suspect with heavy involvement from his eldest son and wife.

William, only in recent weeks, has told us there will be change when he becomes monarch, his advisors stressing he isn’t afraid to question why the Royal Family continues to do things in a certain way.

His very visible unease at standing next to Prince Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral showed us how uncomfortable he felt about his uncle being there at such a public moment.

His involvement in those discussions behind the scenes and making sure the institution was seen to be taking action against Andrew is likely to have been considerable.

I know that Queen Camilla is also a quiet but hugely powerful influence behind palace walls.

She is her husband’s listening ear, sounding board, but also not afraid to tell him when she believes there needs to be change.

Her own work to break taboos around sexual violence and encourage survivors to speak out must have made it even more difficult for her to read the stories about Andrew’s links to Epstein, and the sexual allegations against her brother-in-law, even though he has always vehemently denied them.

And then there are those closest to the Prince.

You have to have sympathy with his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Did they tell their father that he needed to do something for their sake to try and shut down the noise?

His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has also been burned in recent weeks by her association with Epstein – a spectre who, despite his death, has continued to haunt the royal family.

So what of Prince Andrew? How will this impact him?

Any sense he might have a chance at returning to some kind of public life has truly evaporated. We wait to see if, with time, he is again allowed to appear at least for family occasions.

I’ve always been told “he is robust and self-contained and always has been”.

Interpret that how you will – arrogance that he could ride it out, or a very strongly-held conviction that he has never done anything wrong?

Either way, he clearly believes he has been unfairly punished by the court of public opinion.

One thing a source did tell me is that there is a sense he’s never really needed the affirmation of his family.

He may not need their emotional support, but in the end, we have again seen how no member of the family is bigger than the institution.

Protecting the reputation of “the firm” has to come first.

Prince Andrew may feel that he has done the right thing, even done his family a favour, by personally relinquishing the use of his titles and honours, but this, in the end, was not just his choice.

No longer to be known as HRH or the Duke of York, he is now Prince Andrew only – ultimately forced to fall on his sword by his own family.

UK

Everything we know about Prince Andrew’s titles decision

Published

2 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Everything we know about Prince Andrew's titles decision

Prince Andrew has announced he is giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York.

The decision is understood to have been made in close consultation with King Charles and other members of the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew said continued accusations against him were distracting from the King’s work.

He had been accused by Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, of sexual assault. He denies this.

Which titles is he giving up?

Prince Andrew is giving up his Duke of York title. Sky News understands this will be immediate.

He will also give up his knighthood as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) and his Garter role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

He will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.

Prince Andrew will also remain a prince, as the son of Queen Elizabeth II.

Why is this happening now?

Ms Giuffre, who was one of billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, alleged Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, and sued him in 2021.

In her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, due to be published on Tuesday, she alleged he was “entitled” and “believed having sex with me was his birthright”.

Prince Andrew has always denied the allegations.

He has also always claimed that a well-known image of them together was doctored. Before her death, which her family said was by suicide, the case was settled outside of court for a sum believed to have been around £12m.

Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale a week after an email emerged showing Andrew told Epstein “we are in this together”.

The email was reportedly sent three months after he said he had stopped contact with the convicted sex offender.

On Friday evening, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the financier’s private jet – the so-called Lolita Express – from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006, alongside Ghislaine Maxwell.

He was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.

The flight logs have been reported on for years but the release may have added to pressure.

“The situation has become untenable and intolerable, and this week in particular, the tipping point had been reached,” said royal correspondent Laura Bundock.

It is understood that the changes will take effect immediately.

The Giuffre family has called for the King to go further and “remove the title of Prince”.

Prince Andrew’s decision to relinquish his titles also comes following increased pressure over his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy.

Will this affect his ex-wife and daughters?

Sky News understands that Andrew will continue to live at the Windsor Estate at the Royal Lodge. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, will also remain living at the Royal Lodge.

But for the second year running, he will not attend the Royal Family’s annual Christmas celebrations at Sandringham, it is understood.

Andrew’s ex-wife will also no longer use her Duchess of York title.

She was dropped by numerous charities last month after it emerged that she wrote to convicted sex offender Epstein, calling him a “supreme friend”, despite publicly disowning him in the media.

The decision over Andrew’s titles will not impact on the position of his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, it is understood.

Sky News royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills says the move may not stop the influx of negative stories about him.

She said: “This ends the questions on what more the monarch could do to show how the family felt about the accusations, the upset and the embarrassment caused.

“Will it stop the stories, the allegations and the interest in Prince Andrew? That is far less certain. But in what is the prince’s first public statement since that ill-fated Newsnight interview in 2019, it is striking that he signs it off by saying, ‘I vigorously deny the accusations against me’.”

What did Prince Andrew say in his statement?

In his statement, Prince Andrew said: “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.

“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.

“As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.