Scottish Couple Battles UK Government Over Winter Fuel Payment Cut
A couple from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire is taking a stand against the UK Government’s decision to eliminate the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners. Florence and Peter Fanning are at the forefront of a legal challenge set to be heard at the Court of Session, with former SNP MP Joanna Cherry and the Govan Law Centre representing them.
The crux of the matter revolves around Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ announcement on July 29 to do away with the universality of the Winter Fuel Payment. The Fannings argue that both the UK and Scottish governments failed to engage in proper consultation with the elderly population and neglected to provide an equality impact assessment on the proposed changes.
Initially, the Scottish Government felt compelled to follow suit after Reeves’ decision, citing a significant £147 million reduction to the block grant. However, a change of heart in November paved the way for the introduction of a universal Winter Fuel Payment for all Scottish pensioners in the upcoming winter season.
During the legal proceedings, Attorney General Andrew Webster KC, representing the UK Government, highlighted that the Chancellor’s decision would not have directly impacted the Fannings due to devolution. On the other side, James Mure KC stood in defense of the Scottish Government, known as the second respondent in the case.
In a bid to strengthen their argument, Cherry attempted to frame the case as a matter of human rights under Article 8 and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as an issue of irrationality. However, both governments swiftly dismissed these claims, leaving the Fannings in a precarious position.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that the Fannings subsist on a modest combined household income of £2065 per month. Cherry pointed out the lack of a “statutory” consultation regarding the Equality Act 2010, arguing that both respondents failed to comply with their statutory duty before making the decision to cut the Winter Fuel Payment.
During the legal proceedings, Webster underscored that the case primarily revolves around a decision made in England and Wales concerning benefits, which the Fannings were not entitled to. He further pushed for the pensioners to bear the burden of legal costs. On the flip side, Mure emphasized the state’s limited resources and the absence of a legal obligation to maintain a Winter Fuel Payment at a specific level for a particular demographic.
Despite the legal intricacies at play, Cherry reiterated that the Fannings should not face retribution for seeking legal aid, considering their limited financial means as pensioners. With Peter receiving a state and work pension, and Florence solely relying on the state pension, their total monthly income stands at £2365. For the Fannings, this legal battle against the government represents a fight for justice in the face of adversity.
As the proceedings unfolded, Judge Lady Hood contemplated the cost implications for the petitioners, ultimately deeming them liable for the expenses incurred. While the legal battle rages on, the Fannings remain steadfast in their quest for a fair resolution that upholds the rights and dignity of pensioners across the nation.
