FINANCE expert Martin Lewis has shared a key explainer after two Scottish pensioners launched a legal challenge against the UK and Scottish governments over the Winter Fuel Payment cut.
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, have raised proceedings with the help of the Govan Law Centre against the Scottish Government and the UK Work and Pensions Secretary over the policy.
Following Labour’s election win, 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 suit.
READ MORE: Labour's new 'climate envoy' Rachel Kyte linked with £4m party mega-donor
The Fannings are in receipt of the state pension and a modest occupational pension, but will now be ineligible for the Winter Fuel Payment they have been used to receiving.
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.
Former first minister Alex Salmond has offered his support to the Fannings and directed them to Govan Law Centre.
Decision could affect whole of UK
MoneySavingExpert’s explainer highlights that while the case is being raised in Scotland, its outcome could also apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as the court could strike down the UK-wide regulations which brought the changes into force.
The piece explains that under the Equality Act 2010, public bodies – including lawmakers – have a duty to consider how their decisions and actions will affect people with different “protected characteristics”, which include age and disability.
Govan Law Centre's central argument is that the governments failed to comply with this duty when enacting the changes to Winter Fuel Payment eligibility. Specifically, Govan Law Centre says that the governments did not carry out a detailed equality impact assessment as required.
In response to a recent freedom of information request, the Department for Work and Pensions published a “High Level Equality Analysis” on the change, and stated: "The Government has followed its legal and statutory duties ahead of introducing these changes and will continue to do so."
However, Govan Law Centre claims that the published analysis is inadequate and does not meet the requirements of the Equality Act, as there was no "proper assessment" of the risks of restricting the payments, or of the extent of the adverse impact on those who will lose them, including what it means for their health and wellbeing this winter.
READ MORE: FMQs: Swinney hits back as Labour demand Housing Minister be sacked
Solicitors are also arguing that the Government had a legal duty to consult people of state pension age about the changes but failed to do so.
The judicial review now requires a judge’s approval to move to a hearing on the merits.
What happens if the case is successful
MoneySavingExpert has explained that if the court finds that the governments didn't fulfil their duties under the Equality Act 2010, or didn’t follow procedural fairness by failing to consult pensioners, then this would render the decision to restrict the payments as unlawful.
The Court could then void the regulations which brought the changes into effect and order the governments to do a full impact assessment. This would take us back to the position we would have been in before the policy was announced.
The governments could take the judgment away and make the same decision again having done the correct impact assessment, but it's thought it would not have enough time to do this before the payments are due to be made in November and December, which would mean reinstating the payments for all pensioners this winter.
Check if you are eligible for Pension Credit
With the new changes, it is more important than ever to check if you are eligible for Pension Credit. More than 800,000 people who are eligible don't currently get it.
You can use the MoneySavingExpert tool to check what you could be claiming here.
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