Coatbridge couple lose court case to restore Winter Fuel Payment
Pensioners Peter and Flo Fanning, from Coatbridge, took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, claiming that both sets of decision-makers failed to consult pensioners and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes.
The Court of Session ruled to refuse the petition on Friday morning.
Peter and Flo lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating costs.
READ MORE: Plans approved to turn Robert Burns-linked estate into whisky distillery
Peter, 73, receives a state and a work pension, while Flo, 72, receives just a state pension.
They do not meet the criteria to qualify for pension credits and decided to take action in a bid to have the benefit restored for all who previously received it.
Peter said he was going to court to "give a voice" to other pensioners.
The couple both suffer from medical conditions that are made worse by the cold. During the winter, they say they have to use their household heating daily to combat symptoms.
Peter and Flo Fanning (Image: PA) They also claimed the decision to end the £300 benefit for thousands of people across the country last year was "irrational" and breached their human rights.
Lady Hood found that neither of the governments had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and neither was under a duty to consult.
In her judgment, she stated: 'This case is not a verdict, nor even an expression of opinion, on the merits or demerits of government policy as debated in the public arena.
'The purpose of the case was to test a much "narrower question", namely whether the policy decisions made by the governments were unlawful, and if so liable to be struck down by the courts.
READ MORE: Reform UK claim to have 11,000 Scottish members in challenge to Labour
'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas-in-law and refuse the petition. The question of the appropriate remedies, had I found in the petitioners' favour therefore does not arise.'
Late Alba Party leader Alex Salmond was instrumental in putting the Fannings in touch with the Govan Law Centre ahead of the action being raised.
A spokesperson from Govan Law Centre, who represented the couple, said they still felt the action had been merited and worthwhile.
They added: "While our clients have lost their case at first instance, we have no doubt that this litigation has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week.
"We hope that Holyrood will now follow suit and restore the Winter Fuel Payment in full for people such as our clients."
Westminster abandoned plans to withdraw the payments from all but the poorest pensioners after the scheme drew widespread criticism.
The Scottish Government had already launched its own Winter Fuel Payment in response to the original cut, which included extra support for those less well-off, but also a universal payment which is unaffected by income.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist?
Before dismissing this prospect out of hand, consider the point that political parties are manufactured, not innate. They are coalitions of the more or less willing, designed to provide a vaguely coherent offer to the electorate in order to secure power and effect change. Consequently, they have no guaranteed right to exist. Anyone remember the squadrone volante? In the old, pre-Union Scots Parliament, they steered a cautious middle way between the Court and Country parties, before eventually sinking into oblivion. OK, so that is an obscure recollection. Consider this instead. In the 19th century, the Liberals were utterly dominant in Scottish politics. Their role was largely usurped by the Labour Party. The Tories battled on. They secured, in 1955, the only popular majority ever achieved by any party in Scotland since universal suffrage. But that was a Unionist vote. As times changed, and the SNP rose, the Tories struggled again, eventually losing every Scottish Westminster seat in 1997. They were only rescued as a party by the advent of devolution and by proportional representation. Two developments they had steadfastly opposed. And more recently? They flourished to a degree under Ruth Davidson's leadership. She contrived to corral pro-Union votes to her side by depicting her party as the most reliable bulwark for that Union. And now? Two points. Indyref2 seems relatively distant, meaning that the political focus is elsewhere. The Davidson bulwark has less clout. Read more from Brian Taylor: Secondly, there is an alternative on the Right, in the shape of Reform, explicitly promising to supplant the Tories before going for the other parties. The Tories have endured defections. To Reform. And MSP Jamie Greene who switched to the Liberal Democrats. His verdict on his erstwhile party? He reckons folk are 'completely scunnered' with the Scots Tories. Nodding towards the Tories' Westminster leader, he summons up a vision of 'Kemi-geddon.' Not, I would suggest, the most felicitous phrase. But you take his point. Ms Badenoch has scarcely inspired confidence since taking over. Her own view, delivered this week during exchanges with the Prime Minister, was that she gets better every week, while Keir Starmer gets worse. Again, less than uplifting. Trying hard. Getting better. It is all a bit like a school report delivered to a struggling pupil by a kind and supportive teacher. However, is it entirely her fault? I would suggest not. She might well get better. Except she is burdened by voter memories of her predecessors. Rishi Sunak might be exculpated somewhat. But not Boris Johnson and certainly not Liz Truss. Lest there is any danger of the voters forgetting, Labour constantly summons up the spectre of the unfunded Truss budget which so spooked the markets that she had to quit. Only this week, the Chancellor referred repeatedly to Ms Truss, as she set out her own spending plans. The Prime Minister taunted Kemi Badenoch, saying reflections of Liz Truss would continue to haunt the Tories. Yes, Kemi Badenoch has had a troubled start to her leadership. But, as one close observer noted to me, Winston Churchill would struggle to lead the Conservatives right now, given the degree of entrenched voter anger at governance past. While noting that, I would add that Tory problems are exacerbated by the presence of an alternative offer on the Right. The Tories previously dismissed UKIP. Reform appears more challenging. Is Russell Findlay happy in his role as Scottish Conservative leader? (Image: PA) And what of Holyrood? I noted recently that Russell Findlay does not seem entirely content in his role. Perhaps, one suggested to me, he was happier in his previous job as an inquisitive, investigative journalist. However, a senior insider dismisses that prospect. I was told that Mr Findlay is determined to set out a clear direction for the Scottish Tories – by differentiating them sharply from their main rivals. He will not, I was told, be 'knocked off course' by Reform. He believes that the SNP, in particular, talked up the challenge of Reform in the recent Hamilton by-election, only to witness a set-back for their own party as Labour won. The big Scottish Tory offer? Lower taxes in Scotland, including the removal of lower bands. Amounting, they say, to a substantial saving for every worker. In the past, the Scots Tories have been somewhat reluctant to pursue this route. They feared it would not be seen as credible, that they would be challenged on spending cuts. Ideologically, they fretted over departing from a UK fiscal pattern. No longer. They say they will fund tax cuts by civil service efficiency savings, an approach also backed by the Chancellor. And by cuts to Scotland's benefits bill. Read more: In response to which, John Swinney sharpens the knife he has already honed for UK Labour – and turns it upon the Scottish Conservatives, accusing both of seeking to gain electorally from enhancing poverty. Both his rivals demur. But there is more from Mr Findlay. In conference this weekend, he is projecting what he calls 'common sense' policies. Reflecting, as one insider noted to me, the 'real priorities of the Scottish people, stopping the nonsense of the political bubble.' So potholes, rather than gender reform. An end to the North Sea windfall tax. An understandable move, in keeping with Tory instincts. Except that John Swinney has already shifted ground to focus on fundamentals. And Labour's Anas Sarwar talks without ceasing about popular concerns such as the NHS. And Reform? Both UK and Scottish Tory leaders will hope to sideline them. That might prove difficult, especially given the options offered by list voting. Other factors. Reform themselves may be subject to closer scrutiny. As the Holyrood election approaches, people may turn their attention to big choices. Who forms the new devolved government which will set their taxes and control their public services? The Tories hope they can bring a distinctive perspective to that choice. They know they are down. They can only hope – and believe – they are not yet out. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
Glasgow Times
34 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
'Our homelessness services are under significant pressure'
We are aware that the number of people living in temporary homeless accommodation is at a record high, from reports provided by Glasgow's Health and Social Care Partnership. Currently, staff at the Health and Social Care Partnership are focusing on supporting people who are living in an emergency situation. At the moment, the demand for housing in Glasgow is much greater than the housing supply. There can be a delay of several years before people who are homeless can access a permanent house or flat. Homeless charities highlight that the cuts by the UK Department for Work and Pensions towards Personal Independence Payment and Universal Credit will lead to a further increase in homelessness. Decisions by the UK Government in the year ahead are likely to exacerbate our already stretched council services. The Scottish Government is mitigating the UK Government's Bedroom Tax. We know that this funding would be better spent tackling the housing crisis and the UK Government should scrap this tax. There is a Housing Transfer Incentive Scheme in Glasgow which can help release large housing association homes by encouraging people in 'under-occupied' properties with three rooms or more, to downsize. Tenants can access appropriately sized homes to meet their needs through specific housing support services. We can welcome the Scottish Parliament's Housing Inquiry by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee which has published a series of recommendations to support further collaboration by the Scottish Government with housing providers to deliver a national overarching Housing Emergency Action Plan by the end of this session. We need the Scottish Government to provide clarity on whether its additional funding for the Affordable Housing Supply Programme budget will ensure that it meets its target of providing 110,000 affordable homes by 2030. It is vital that housing is a priority and that the Scottish Government considers the importance of increasing the Affordable Housing Supply Programme budget. There has been significant partnership working undertaken to respond to the housing crisis. We can welcome the number of housing associations providing lets to tenants who are homeless across Glasgow. The Scottish Government can explore the opportunities available by increasing social investment in housing. The capacity of housing associations could be developed to increase the number of homes, especially for families, in our local communities. There is a need to ensure clarity for housing providers on the intended statutory requirement for homes to meet net-zero standards. Uncertainty is deterring housing development and this needs to be addressed to help tackle the housing crisis. We can support the appointment of Màiri McAllan as Cabinet Secretary for Housing to ensure that there is increased focus on tackling the housing crisis and providing energy-efficient homes for the future. It is vital that the new Cabinet Secretary can use all the powers at her disposal to address the housing crisis we face.
The Herald Scotland
44 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong?
One other event at the book festival I recall, for different reasons, was a session with the writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I can't remember why I went to see her now because she's the sort of harrumphing lefty who sets off my allergies, but perhaps I figured it's good to listen to a range of views, which it is. I certainly remember being irritated when she laid into Ukip as an English not a Scottish problem even though the party had just done well in Scotland at the European elections. The same sort of flawed reasoning persists now with Reform. But the audience seemed to like it. They applauded at the end, and shuffled out for tea and biscuits. I mention the Alibhai-Brown event in particular because even then, ten years ago, the problems with the Edinburgh Book Festival were starting to become obvious. The lack of diversity on the stage and in the audience, by which I particularly mean diversity of class. The weak, and sometimes execrable, chairing of events that fails to challenge or properly explore the writer's opinions and assumptions. And most important of all, the tendency to platform writers like Alibhai-Brown and unplatform or ignore writers of a different or more conservative persuasion. In the end, it meant the festival became a place I enjoyed less and less, and eventually I just stopped going. But, you know, it really is good to listen to a range of views and I'm a hopeful sort of person on the whole, so this year, like every year, I looked at the line-up on the festival website to see if there was something good and if things had changed, and I scrolled and scrolled and saw that the answer was no. Things appear to be just as bad as ever, worse in fact, and the worry is that the problems at the book festival may have started to rot it from the inside. You start to wonder: how long will it last? The most obvious symptom of the problems is the lack of diversity on stage, which is worse than ever. One of the biggest stories of the last year – and the focus of one of the biggest-selling books of the year – was the trans debate and the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of 'woman', and yet you will not find a trace of it on the festival line-up. The book in question, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheest, was edited by Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, so why haven't they been invited? Is it because – unlike one of the big guests of the festival Nicola Sturgeon – they are seen to be on the wrong side of the debate? Yes, of course it is. Read more The chairman of the festival, Alan Little, rather gave the game away when he said the festival should be 'a place where progressive and nuanced discussion can happen in a safe and respectful space'. He's spot on with nuanced – we need it badly – but why only progressive? Why not traditionalist or conservative as well? And what's with 'safe'? It's become one of those words certain activists use to ratchet up the pressure, to hystericalise, but would the festival be unsafe because the line-up included Susan Dalgety or Lucy Hunter Blackburn? The only thing that would be unsafe would be the consensus that's dominated the festival and still does. The organisers would probably say in their defence that there would be a threat of disruption from activists – indeed, that was reason they gave for dropping Baillie Gifford as one of their sponsors. A number of activists, you will remember, a very small number, demanded the investment company be dropped on the grounds it invests in fossil fuels and sad to say, the organisers caved. They said they could not be expected to deliver a festival that was safe – there's that word again – because there was a threat of disruption from activists and so they ended their relationship with Baillie Gifford but more importantly they ended their relationship with Baillie Gifford's money. But it didn't have to be that way. First of all, if everyone buckled as quickly as the festival did over the threat of disruption to the free expression of views, we'd be in a very unpleasant place indeed; their weakness is pathetic. They could also have borrowed some of the stoicism of the Fringe which faced similar pressure over Baillie Gifford from the same sort of activists, but stood firm and it all came to nothing. To put it another way, everyone was perfectly safe. The Edinburgh Book Festival (Image: Newsquest) The organisers of the book festival also appear to be guilty of a kind of economic and practical idiocy that now threatens their future. There are some people who object to corporate sponsorship of arts events – so what: the only alternative is an increase in public money and that ain't happenin'. Baillie Gifford also invests in fossil fuels – so what: it invests far more in clean energy, and the objections of the activists led to the cancellation of a million pounds in money for the arts. The danger here is that the arts world ends up, in the words of the director of the Science Museum Ian Blatchford, eaten alive by its own piety. And the risks are particularly high for book festivals aren't they? We saw what happened to Aye Write in Glasgow when it failed to get funding from Creative Scotland; it only went ahead after a donation from the charity set up by the Lottery winner Colin Weir. The Edinburgh book festival is also going ahead this year thanks largely to a donation from Ian Rankin. But how long before the activists start digging into the personal views of the philanthropists writing cheques? And is this what they want: the arts funded by a few wealthy individuals? It doesn't sound all that progressive to me. Better, I think, to try to build more robust festivals that have a chance of lasting and that must mean some changes. First, encourage a broad diversity of views and opinions at the festival that will attract a broader and more diverse audience. Secondly, drop the piety and encourage corporate sponsorship because public money is not coming to save you. And thirdly, be robust when the activists rock up and shout 'unsafe!' They only have power because you give it to them. Reject them. Ignore them. And carry on. Mark Smith is a Herald features writer and opinion writer
