Can a legal bid stop the UK government’s ‘cruel’ plan to scrap the winter fuel benefit? | Political news

A couple from Scotland are suing the British government over its decision to cut benefits for at least 10 million elderly people so they can spend extra heating fuel in winter.

Following the Labor Party’s landslide victory in the UK general election on July 4, one of the first decisions made by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves was to scrap the universal winter fuel payment, which is not means-tested and is worth £200 to £300. $260 to $390) per year, depending on the recipient’s age.

The government expects to save 1.3 billion pounds ($1.7 billion) in the current fiscal year (2024-25) and 1.5 billion pounds ($1.95 billion) in subsequent years. This is part of a wider effort to close the 22 billion pound ($28.58 billion) deficit in public finances that Labor says it inherited from the previous Conservative government.

The winter fuel surcharge now only goes to pensioners who also receive other income-related benefits, such as pension credits. But critics say the process of applying for these benefits can be difficult and overwhelming for seniors.

The decision, which applies to England and Wales, was quickly followed by the Scottish National Party-led Scottish Government in Edinburgh, which announced in August that it would also stop payments. This will save the Scottish Government around 160 million pounds ($208 million) a year. It relies largely on block grants from Westminster to fund Scotland’s devolved departments and institutions.

So what is the Winter Fuel Payment and can a legal challenge prevent it from being scrapped?

What is the winter fuel payment?

It is a benefit paid during the winter months to people over state pension age to help with the costs of extra heating. People born between September 1944 and September 1958 will receive a one-off payment of £200 each winter, while those born before that will receive £300.

The benefit was introduced by Tony Blair’s Labor government shortly after it came to power in 1997. Some elderly people died from the cold in winter because they could not afford to heat their homes.

Changes to the UK state pension age saw the age of those eligible for the benefit rise from 65 in the winter of 2020-2021 to 66 in the winter of 2021-2022 and beyond.

The current Labor government’s decision to abolish the grant on a universal basis means that around 10 million pensioners in England and Wales will lose access to the annual grant.

The government has defended the decision, saying the payment would go to wealthy pensioners who don’t need it. Those receiving other means-tested benefits, in particular the Pension Credit, which is paid to the poorest, will continue to receive the winter fuel payment.

What are critics saying about the British government’s decision?

While the poorest pensioners can still claim the benefit, Age UK, a charity for the over-50s, warned that Labour’s decision will “leave millions of struggling pensioners without the money they rely on”.

The charity has outlined three areas of concern: “Those on low incomes who are simply missing out on pension credits; those who have unavoidably high energy needs due to disability or illness; the one million people who do not receive pension credit, even though they are eligible.”

Many elderly people who qualify for a pension credit do not claim it because the process is too onerous and there can be a wait of several months for claims to be processed, experts say.

An Age UK petition urging the British government to reverse its decision has already attracted more than 561,000 signatures.

On October 9, Conservative MP Victoria Atkins, shadow health and social care secretary, also warned of X: “Labour’s decision to cut winter fuel payments will leave many pensioners choosing between heating and eating.”

Campaigners also warn that deaths among the elderly will rise in winter if winter fuel payments are limited.

In 2015, research by Age UK found that the Winter Fuel Payment had helped prevent 12,000 deaths among British pensioners each year. In 2022, a report from the Institute of Health Equity suggested that around 10 per cent of the 63,000 ‘excess’ winter deaths in England in 2020-2021 were still ‘directly attributable to fuel poverty’.

Trade union UNITE protested at the Labor Party Conference in Liverpool in September against the plan to abolish benefits for many pensioners.

Sharon Graham, general secretary of UNITE, told reporters: “I think the priority I would like to hear from him (Keir Starmer) is that he is going to reverse the decision on the winter fuel surcharge.

“It’s a cruel policy. He has to turn it around. And I would like him to say he made a mistake and reverse that policy. I would also like him to say that we are not going to take this country into the second degree of austerity.”

Who is suing the government about this?

Peter and Florence Fanning, a husband and wife in their 70s from Coatbridge, central Scotland, say they are suing both the UK and devolved Scottish governments over the loss of the winter fuel payment.

“We intend to sue both the London and Scottish governments as both are guilty, through action and inaction, of harming the welfare of pensioners,” Fanning said last month.

“We hope to be successful, given the apparent injustice involved. However, my work as a union worker and store manager has taught me that some fights are worth fighting, regardless of the outcome. I believe this is such a battle.”

This week it was announced that former SNP MP Joanna Cherry has been appointed as senior adviser on the legal challenge.

How serious is the Fannings’ legal bid?

Pretty serious. The couple, who are supported by the Govan Law Centre, an independent, community-run legal center in Glasgow, were granted the right to go to a hearing on the merits of the case by a judge in Edinburgh on October 24.

The legal challenge alleges that the government has failed to discharge a duty of care to ensure that its decision does not adversely affect people with other characteristics, such as age or disability. To meet its obligations, the government should have carried out a detailed equality impact assessment, the legal challenge states. This didn’t happen.

A procedural hearing will take place at the Court of Session in Edinburgh in early December, with a substantive hearing scheduled for January 15.

Until his untimely death from a heart attack on October 12 in North Macedonia, Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland from 2007 to 2014, had also publicly supported Fannings’ cause in his capacity as leader of the pro-Scottish independence party Alba.

Kenny MacAskill, Alba’s acting leader, noted that “Alex Salmond was a champion of this campaign and had fully supported the Fannings in their case against the Scottish and British governments”.

He added: “The Scottish Government should have stood up for Scotland’s pensioners against the cuts at Westminster, but instead they will now stand shoulder to shoulder with the British Labor Government in court against Scotland’s pensioners. ”

Can the lawsuit succeed?

Yes, but a victory can only delay the abolition of the allowance.

According to Britain’s popular consumer website MoneySavingExpert.com, “although the case arises in Scotland, its outcome could also apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as the Court the changes entailed could be deleted. in force.

“If the Court finds that the Government has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, or failed to observe procedural fairness by failing to consult pensioners, it would find its decision to limit payments unlawful.”

If the case is successful, the government can then carry out an impact assessment to continue with the plan to abolish the surcharge.

However, Martin Lewis, consumer expert and founder of Money Saving Expert, a consumer finance information and discussion website, told the BBC: “If this were to succeed – and there is a decent track record in Scotland on this kind of thing, that taking up the challenge Government decisions – it could mean forcing the government (…) to carry out an equality impact assessment, which is not happening anytime soon.

“That would mean that they cannot impose the universal reduction this year and therefore postpone it. This is my interpretation: It wouldn’t stop it, but it would delay it for a year.”