The UK and Scottish governments are facing legal action over their decision to cut the Winter Fuel Payment.
Peter and Florence Fanning – a couple in their 70s from Coatbridge who are in receipt of the state pension and a modest occupational pension – have raised proceedings for judicial review of the decision in the Court of Session.
Former first minister Alex Salmond has given his backing to the couple.
The Fannings, who are being represented by Govan Law Centre, believe the governments have not given due regard to equalties legislation in their decision and the move was unlawful.
A statement from solicitors argues both governments "failed to exercise their duties" under section 149 of the 2010 Equality Act before making the decison to take the payment from pensioners who are not on Pension Credit or other means-tested benefits.
READ MORE: Labour's new 'climate envoy' Rachel Kyte linked with £4m party mega-donor
At a press conference on Thursday morning, Peter Fanning, 73, told journalists in Edinburgh: "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% 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."
Govan Law Centre is now waiting on permission for the case to proceed "to a substantive hearing on the merits of the case", with it seeking to expedite both the case and its application for legal aid to ensure a decision can be handed down before the winter.
The case asks the court to rule on whether the decision 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.
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.
Salmond suggested the couple get in touch with solicitors, as he stressed his belief the Scottish Government should have legally challenged the UK Government already.
READ MORE: Immediate ceasefire needed in Middle East, says John Swinney
Salmond said: "This is a case which in my opinion should have been taken forward by the Scottish Government immediately when the Westminster Government introduced this measure to cancel the Winter Fuel Allowance without any consultation, we're told, with the Scottish Government whatsoever.
"The case turns on whether there has been the proper impact and equality assessment. I think the evidence is overwhelmingly that there hasn't been."
The UK Government made a decision to remove the Winter Fuel Payment from all but the poorest pensioners last month before the Scottish Government subsequently announced this would be passed on to pensioners in Scotland, opting to postpone exercising its devolved powers over the benefit until winter 2025.
Rachel Moon, instructing solicitor, told the media: "We believe there is 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.
"This policy and the decisions taken affects those with protected characteristics including age and disability."
A UK Government spokesperson said: “We are committed to supporting pensioners – with millions set to see their full new State Pension rise by £1700 this parliament through our commitment to the triple lock.
“Given the dire state of the public finances we have inherited, it’s right we target support to those who need it most. Over a million pensioners will still receive the Winter Fuel Payment, while many others will also benefit from the £150 Warm Home Discount to help with their energy bills over winter.”
The Scottish Government has been contacted for comment.
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