Winter fuel payments: Scottish pensioners launch court bid against UK and Scottish governments

Scottish pensioners are to take the UK and Scottish governments to court over winter fuel payment cuts.

Retired couple Peter and Florence Fanning, whose legal challenge is backed by Alba Party leader Alex Salmond, said they had lost out and the move was on behalf of themselves and all those “worse off than us”

Ending universal entitlement to the annual payment was one of the first decisions made by Labour ministers after the general election.

The government said it was acting due to “difficult” financial circumstances and only those in receipt of pension credit would now be eligible.

The Scottish Government criticised the decision but said it had been forced to follow suit.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates that around 10 million people in England and Wales will lose out, as will around 900,000 Scots. Analysis published by Labour in 2017, following a proposal by the then-Conservative government to restrict the payments, found that it could increase excess deaths by 3,850 that winter.

Now the Fannings, from Coatbridge, have instructed Glasgow’s Govan Law Centre to lodge a judicial review against the matter on the grounds that no equalities impact assessment was carried out, and those affected were not consulted.

The petition was formally served on work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall and Scottish ministers yesterday.

Lawyers say the characteristics of age and disability, protected under the UK-wide Equality Act, should have been considered.

At a press conference in Edinburgh, Salmond said “everybody in Scotland should be grateful” to the couple, stating: “Coatbridge is taking on the London and Edinburgh governments simultaneously. My money is on Coatbridge.”

Salmond has previously called for First Minister John Swinney, his former SNP colleague, to take the UK Government to court for failure to carry out the assessment to examine the detailed impact of the policy change.

The Scottish Government has said it was not consulted about the matter prior to the UK Government’s announcement.

Peter Fanning, a former trade unionist, said the couple were ineligible for pension credit, and therefore the winter fuel allowance, due to his occupational pension. The couple, who have nine grandchildren, used savings to meet their £1,700 fuel bill last year.

Mr Fanning, 73, said he had been “encouraged to pay into a pension fund to make my life better when I retire”, but was now being “punished” for making that provision. He said asthma and circulation problems linked to anaemia meant he had to keep his house warm or “go to bed and sleep”, adding: “If the government thinks that is the ideal situation for a pensioner then I’m sorry, I disbelieve you.”

both are guilty, through action and inaction, of damaging the welfare of pensioners

He told journalists: “Florence and I feel strongly about the issue. We are of modest means and we will greatly miss the allowance. We are also aware that many others are worse off than ourselves. We are angry that pensioners should be the first recourse of cutbacks and outraged that the health of many people will be jeopardised by the withdrawal of this money and a further 10 per cent rise in energy bills this winter.

"Florence and I were instrumental in setting up local food courts and credit unions in our area when we were volunteers, we still are volunteers. We are well aware of how tough things are for the many households who have to count every single penny. The fact those decisions are being made by politicians who will never have to worry about turning on their heating makes matters even worse.

"We intend to sue both the London and Scottish governments since both are guilty, through action and inaction, of damaging the welfare of pensioners."

But the case can only go forward if legal aid is granted. Govan Law Centre’s Rachel Moon commented: "We believe there are good grounds to challenge these decisions taken by the UK and Scottish Government.

"The Equality Act 2010 has made clear there are steps to be undertaken in the formulation of any policy. There must be due regard for the equality duty, the risk and impact of any policy or decision must be assessed and consideration must be given as how to eliminate that risk. 

"We believe they have failed to exercise these duties under the Equality Act and they have failed to carry out any impact equality assessment. Furthermore, they have failed to carry out any consultation on the law.

Members of Parliament don’t like, by and large, to be voting to kill people

"This policy and the decisions taken affects those with protected characteristics including age and disability." 

Arguing that the challenge should have been led by the Scottish Government, Salmond said the policy would have a disproportionate impact on Scottish pensioners than those in London due to our colder, wetter climate. He said other measures could have been taken to rebalance public finances and the findings of a full equalities assessment would increase “disquiet” in the Labour Party, turning MPs against the policy: “Members of Parliament don’t like, by and large, to be voting to kill people.”

The Fannings’ victory would be “the most enormous humiliation” for both governments, he added, saying: “I wonder, is that as bad as the humiliation if the health service in Scotland and England can’t cope with the health impacts of what they’re doing?”

On the couple’s chances of success, Mr Fanning said: “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.”

Downing Street has said the UK Government is “absolutely committed” to supporting pensioners and more than one million eligible people will continue to recieve the winter fuel payment.