Politics
Pensioner couple go to court over Starmer’s winter fuel payment cut
Two pensioners are seeking to take the Scottish and UK governments to court over Labour’s cut to the winter fuel payment.
Peter and Florence Fanning, from North Lanarkshire, have raised proceedings against the Scottish Government and the UK Work and Pensions Secretary over the policy.
Following Labour’s election landslide, emboldened Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the winter fuel payment – which had previously been universal – will only be available to those on pension credit or other means-tested benefits this year.
The decision led to the Scottish Government – which was due to take control over a similar payment through the devolved Social Security Scotland but has since announced a delay – to follow Prime Minister Keir Starmer‘s lead.
The judicial review – which has been raised at the Court of Session – now requires a judge’s approval to move to a hearing on the merits, with the Govan Law Centre – which is helping the Coatbridge couple in their case – seeking to ensure a decision can be handed down before the winter.
Peter and Florence Fanning, from North Lanarkshire, are seeking to take the Scottish and UK governments to court over Labour’s cut to the winter fuel payment
Following Labour’s election landslide, Sir Keir Starmer’s government announced the winter fuel payment – which had previously been universal – will only be available to those on pension credit or other means-tested benefits this year
Joining the couple at a press conference today, former First Minister Alex Salmond (left) said: ‘The Scottish Government, instead of meekly accepting this, should have challenged it’
The Fannings’ case asks the court to rule on whether the cut was unlawful, which would then allow the petitioners to ask the court to, in effect, set aside the policy and restore the winter fuel payment to all.
Speaking at a press conference in Edinburgh today, Mr Fanning, 73, said: ‘We intend to sue both the London and Scottish governments, since both are guilty through action and inaction, of damaging the welfare of pensioners.
‘We are hoping to be successful, given the manifest injustice involved, however, my work as a trade unionist and shop steward has taught me that some battles are worth fighting regardless of the outcome – I believe this is one such battle.’
The case’s argument rests on the accusation both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age on the change and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes.
A freedom of information request revealed an abridged version of such an assessment had been carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), with the UK Government arguing a full study was not required.
Former Scottish first minister and current Alba Party leader Alex Salmond was instrumental in putting the Fannings in touch with the Govan Law Centre ahead of the action being raised.
Joining them at the press conference he said every person in Scotland ‘should be grateful’ to the Fannings for raising the action, which he said should have been taken forward by the Scottish Government in the first instance.
Pointing to analysis by the Labour Party in 2017 – which suggested 4,000 people could die if the winter fuel payment was cut – Mr Salmond claimed it would be ‘reprehensible’ for the UK Government not to undertake an equality impact assessment because such a figure would be made public.
He added: ‘The Scottish Government, instead of meekly accepting this, should have challenged it.
‘They should have stood up for pensioners and stood up for the people as opposed to meekly towing the line that was coming from Westminster.’
The former first minister added that while it would be ‘the most enormous humiliation’ for the governments to lose the case: ‘I wonder is that as bad as the humiliation if the health service in Scotland and England can cope with the health impacts of what they’re doing?’
Rachel Moon, the instructing solicitor and a partner at Govan Law Centre, said: ‘Quite simply, [government] should have considered this rigorously.
‘This policy and the decisions taken affect those with protected characteristics, including age and disability, and it affects 10 million people.’
The legal challenge follows unions voting against the party at Labour’s annual conference. Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham is seen making her speech against the bill
But insisting MPs ‘don’t have the luxury of ducking the difficult choices and decisions’, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the government would plough on with the policy
The legal challenge follows the government being embarrassed at Labour’s annual party conference, where trade unions said they want to axe the bill in a non-binding vote.
However, Sir Keir ignored the internal party revolt as he rounded off the conference week.
Despite the humiliating vote result, party chiefs and Cabinet ministers insisted the government would plough on with the policy.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he and fellow Labour MPs ‘don’t have the luxury of ducking the difficult choices and decisions’, as he blamed a £22billion ‘black hole’ left in the public finances by the Tories.