A COUPLE who have launched a legal challenge against both the UK and Scottish governments over the Winter Fuel Payment cut have spoken out about the “damaging” decision and how they are “putting up a fight” for everyone affected.
Peter and Florence Fanning, a couple in their 70s from Coatbridge who are in receipt of the state pension and a modest occupational pension, hit the headlines Thursday morning after raising proceedings for judicial review of the decision in the Court of Session.
The Fannings, who are being represented by Govan Law Centre, believe the governments have given no regard to equality legislation with their decision and say the move was unlawful.
Speaking to STV News in Edinburgh, 73-year-old Mr Fanning, explained that he is severely affected by the cold as he is anaemic and that he already needs to wear bed socks and carry a water bottle to keep himself warm. A quality of life, he said, that is not good for anyone
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie urges Labour to ditch Trident to fund Winter Fuel Payment
“I think this winter is looking bleak because [the cut] has come out of the blue,” he said.
“Normally we’d have an opportunity to save for things like Christmas or whatever and we wouldn’t worry as much about the winter fuel bill but because it’s been taken off so quickly and so disastrously for us we are really going to suffer this winter and I think it’s going to affect my health.
“I’m anaemic, I have heart problems and I’m also asthmatic so coldness affects me badly and affects my bones.
“My blood doesn’t circulate right and I don’t make red blood cells so I do get cold very easily and in the winter it’s more so.
“So, if I don’t heat my house I have to put on my bed socks, put the hot water bottle in and go to my bed.
“I don’t think that’s a good quality of life for anybody.”
Mrs Fanning added: “I don’t have any savings. Peter is the only one that had savings. And the way the energy bills are going up, what we’re paying monthly, it’s just not on.”
The couple's decision to begin legal proceedings against both governments has even been backed by former first minister Alex Salmond (below) as he put the Fanning’s in touch with the law firm.
A statement from the Fanning’s solicitors argued that both governments "failed to exercise their duties" under section 149 of the 2010 Equality Act before making the decision.
The cut to the Winter Fuel Payment means pensioners who are not on Pension Credit or other means-tested benefits will no longer receive the benefit.
The case will be heard before the Court of Session – the highest court in Scotland.
Mr Fanning said it wasn’t just energy costs that were going up.
“I think it’s the knock-on effect,” he said.
“You’ve got the energy bills, you’ve got everything going up, you’ve got petrol going up. We’ve got to use a car to get about because of where we reside.
READ MORE: Historic laws 'created to reduce non-white population' in the UK, says report
“And Florence is diabetic so we’ve got to buy particular stuff for Florence as well.
“It’s that whole knock-on effect and then for nobody to assess what our needs were for the future but just say no you’re not getting that.
“And I know there are people worse off than me and it’s for those people we are putting this fight up.
“Not only for ourselves, we are not just being selfish, it’s not we just want money but we want justice for the people of Scotland, for people all over Britain, who haven’t had the opportunity to discuss what their needs are.”
The Fanning’s case argument rests on the accusation that 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.
Speaking at the press conference on Thursday morning Salmond said every person in Scotland “should be grateful” to the Fannings for raising the action.
He 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.”
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