Latest news with #PeterFanning
The Independent
a day ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
A pensioner couple have lost their legal challenge over government decisions to cut the winter fuel payment (WFP) and its Scottish equivalent. Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this 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 the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.'
STV News
a day ago
- Business
- STV News
Couple lose legal challenge over cuts to winter fuel payment
A North Lanarkshire couple who challenged a decision to scrap the winter fuel payment for pensioners have lost their bid to sue the UK and Scottish governments. The challenge was brought by Florence and Peter Fanning, from Coatbridge, who were being represented by former SNP MP Joanna Cherry and the Govan Law Centre. They took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in March, alleging that both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the winter fuel payment would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160m. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. On Friday, it was confirmed the pair had lost their legal battle following the decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session. A spokesperson for Govan Law Centre said: '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 the Scottish Government will now follow suit and restore the Scottish pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'It is important to appreciate that this challenge was always one of process; the speed of the decision and the fact that it was made allegedly without any equality impact assessment (see repeated public utterances by various UK Government ministers). 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the Court could have done would have been to order each Government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts made to the winter fuel payment, following the correct processes in law. 'The fact that they have already reconsidered, vindicates our clients' decision to bring this litigation. 'We are particularly pleased that the court found for the petitioners on the issue of standing against the UK Government and dismissed the argument that to enable the challenge to proceed against them was to ignore the existence of the devolution settlement.' The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, claimed neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood added: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
BBC News
a day ago
- Business
- BBC News
Scottish couple lose legal challenge of winter fuel payment cuts
A couple have lost a bid to sue the UK and Scottish governments over the decision to cut winter fuel Peter and Flo Fanning, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in March, alleging that both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the Court of Session ruled to refuse the petition on couple's lawyers have said they have no doubt the Fanning's litigation had been influential in securing U-turns by both governments. A spokesperson from the Govan Law Centre told BBC Scotland News: "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 the Scottish government will now follow suit and restore the winter fuel payment in full for people such as our clients."Earlier this week, the UK government abandoned plans to withdraw the payments from all but the poorest pensioners after the scheme drew widespread Scottish government had already launched its own winter fuel benefit in response to the original cuts which included extra support for those less well-off, but also a universal payment which is unaffected by Govan Law Centre added the legal challenge "was always one of process" and the fact the UK government has already reconsidered the cuts "vindicates" their said that an appeal would have "reasonable prospects of success" but added it is unlikely that legal aid would be provided for this. What's happening with winter fuel payments? About 10 million pensioners in England and Wales lost their allowance under new measures announced by chancellor Rachel Reeves in July last on pension credit or certain other means-tested benefits retained the annual payments, worth between £100 and £ Scotland, the payment was devolved to Holyrood in April 2024, but the Scottish government followed the actions of their counterparts in Westminster in terminating it in August 2024, arguing £160m had been taken from its budget.A new alternative, called the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP), was due to be introduced the following month, but that has since been pushed back to winter will also be means-tested, despite ministers claiming it would not Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville recently said the universal approach of the devolved Scottish scheme was important - but that wealthier pensioners would be made aware that they could opt current plan is for all pensioner households to receive at least £100 regardless of income, while those on pension credit will receive up to £305 depending on the devolved government in Northern Ireland also followed suit, but affected pensioners were given a one-off £100 payment from Stormont in November.
The Independent
13-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
UK Government ‘blinded' by money worries when it cut fuel payment, court told
The UK Government was 'blinded' by financial imperatives when it cut the winter fuel payment without due consideration of the impact on vulnerable people, a court has heard. The Court of Session in Edinburgh is hearing a legal challenge brought by Florence and Peter Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, against last year's decision to remove the universal element of the payment. The change was announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves on July 29. Representing Mr and Mrs Fanning, Joanne Cherry KC told the court on Thursday her clients are 'elderly pensioners' who both have disabilities. 'Like most pensioners they live on a fixed income and they struggle to afford to heat their home in the winter,' she said. 'They are exactly the sort of people who the winter fuel payment was designed to help.' She put it to the court the decision to cut the payment had been 'unlawful' on the grounds the UK and Scottish governments had failed in their duties to properly assess the impact on vulnerable people. She said there had been an 'abject failure' to carry out an equality impact assessment (EIA), as well as a failure to consult people of pension age who would be affected by the change. She also said the decision may be 'unlawful for reasons of irrationality and unreasonableness', because, she said, ministers knew it would cause 'significant excess winter deaths' and jeopardise the health of 'vulnerable pensioners'. She added the decision was also taken in the knowledge it would result in 100,000 pensioners falling into relative poverty, and 50,000 into absolute poverty. 'The respondents did not approach the matter with due diligence, and did not give consideration to all competing interests,' she said. 'They were blinded, perhaps one might say understandably, by financial imperatives. 'But that does not absolve them from their legal obligations, including their obligations under the Human Rights Act.' She said the UK Government – referred to as the 'first respondent' – was bound by its obligations under the 2010 Equalities Act, and the Scottish Government (the 'second respondent') had similar requirements under regulations dating from 2012. 'There's overwhelming evidence in this case that the first respondent failed to properly carry out an EIA in relation to the policy decision, and failed to discharge its duty under section 149 of the 2010 Act,' she said. 'If that's correct then the policy decision and the regulations are tainted by that failure.' She said the Scottish Government also had an 'additional duty' under Scottish regulations to 'advance equality of opportunity' between those with protected characteristics and those without, which she said 'had not happened here'. Ms Cherry further said there was a 'legitimate expectation' that both governments would carry out a consultation before making the change, due to both the importance of the issue and the fact it was usual 'practice' to do so when taking decisions of this nature. When asked by judge Lady Hood who should have been consulted, Ms Cherry replied a consultation would have involved people of pensionable age throughout the UK. 'There were a very significant number of people impacted by this decision, and that's why it saves so much money,' she added. Both the UK and Scottish governments are being represented in court, and Ms Cherry also stressed the different roles each government played in removing the universal element of the benefit in Scotland. She told the court the Scottish Government had been placed in a 'dilemma' by the UK Government's decision to cut the payment, as it resulted in an 80% cut to the funding it received for a universal winter fuel payment. She said the UK Government's decision had therefore had a 'direct effect' on the Scottish Government, and that 'but for' that decision, the Scottish Government would have continued to pay a universal benefit this year. However, she went on, this did not 'absolve' the Scottish Government of its obligations, explaining: 'Financial constraints are no excuse for failing to properly comply with the public sector equality duty.' Responding, the UK Government's representative Andrew Webster KC said he did not 'shy away' from the fact there had been a 'fiscal driver' for the change, noting the Chancellor had been seeking to fill a £22 billion black hole. However he pointed out that as residents in Scotland, Mr and Mrs Fanning had 'no entitlement' to the winter fuel payment, as this is only available to people in England and Wales. Scotland, he explained, has its own winter fuel benefit, called the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP). He therefore questioned whether the pensioners can be said to have been 'directly affected' by the UK Government's decision at all. 'Their entitlement, if any, to PAWHP is determined by the second respondent, choosing how they wish to spend the resources that they have available to them,' he said. He said the only direct effect of the change was on the Scottish Government, and that the Fannings therefore had no 'direct interest' in relation to a decision taken in Westminster. The hearing, which is expected to last two days, continues.
