A Scottish couple is suing the UK government over its decision to abolish a subsidy for at least 10 million older people to spend on extra fuel for heating during the winter.
Following the Trabajo Party's landslide electoral victory in the UK normal election on 4 July, one of the first decisions taken by Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, was to eliminate the common winter fuel payment, which does not depend on the financial resources and is worth between 200 and 300 pounds ($260 to $390) a year, depending on the age of the recipient.
The government expects to save £1.3 billion ($1.7 billion) in the current financial year (2024-25) and £1.5 billion ($1.95 billion) in subsequent years. This is part of a broader attempt to plug a £22 billion ($28.58 billion) deficit in the public finances, which Trabajo says it inherited from the previous Conservative government.
The winter fuel allowance will now only go to pensioners who also receive other means-tested benefits, such as pension credits. But critics say the process of applying for those benefits can be onerous 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, in August, announced it would also cut the payment. As a result, the Scottish government will save around £160 million ($208 million) a year. It relies heavily on Westminster block grants to fund Scotland's devolved departments and institutions.
So what is the Winter Fuel Payment? Could a justo challenge prevent its removal?
What is winter fuel payment?
This is a subsidy paid to people over state pension age during the winter months to help with the cost of additional heating. People born between September 1944 and September 1958 receive a one-off payment each winter of £200, while those born earlier receive £300.
The subsidy was introduced by Tony Blair's Trabajo government shortly after it came to power in 1997. Some elderly people froze to death during the winter because they could not afford to heat their homes.
Changes to the UK state pension age meant the age of those eligible for the benefit rose from 65 in winter 2020-21 to 66 in winter 2021-22 and onwards.
The current Trabajo government's decision to eliminate the benefit as a whole means that around 10 million pensioners in England and Wales will lose access to the annual benefit.
The government has defended the decision, saying the payment was going to rich pensioners who do not need it. Those who receive other means-tested benefits, specifically the Pension Credit, which is paid to the poorest, will continue to receive the Winter Fuel Payment.
What do critics say about the UK government's decision?
Although the poorest pensioners can still claim the benefit, Age UK, a charity for over-50s, warned that Labour's decision “will leave millions of struggling pensioners without the money they depend on”.
The charity has flagged three areas of concern: “Those on low incomes who are simply missing out on Pension Credit; those who have unavoidably high energy needs due to disability or illness; the million people who do not receive the Pension Credit even though they are eligible to receive it.”
Many older people who are eligible for Pension Credit do not claim it because the process of doing so is too onerous and there can be a wait of several months for applications to be processed, experts say.
An Age UK petition urging the UK government to reverse its decision has already gained more than 561,000 signatures.
On October 9, Conservative MP Vencimiento Atkins, shadow health and social care secretary, also warned about X: “Labour's decision to cut winter fuel payments will leave many pensioners choosing between heat and food.” .
Activists also warn that elderly deaths in winter will increase if winter fuel payments are restricted.
In 2015, an Age UK investigation found that the Winter Fuel Payment had helped prevent 12,000 deaths of UK pensioners each year. In 2022, a report from the Institute for 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”.
The UNITE union organized a protest at the Trabajo Party Conference in Liverpool in September against the plan to remove the benefit for many pensioners.
Sharon Graham, normal secretary of UNITE, told reporters: “I think the priority I would like to hear from him [Keir Starmer] is that he is going to revoke the decision on the fuel subsidy for the winter.
“It is a merciless policy. You need to reverse it. And I would like him to say that he has made a misstep and reverse that policy. “I would also like you to say that we are not going to take this country to level 2 of austerity.”
Who is suing the government for this?
Peter and Florence Fanning, a husband and wife in their 70s from Coatbridge, central Scotland, say they are suing both the UK government and the devolved Scottish government over the loss of winter fuel payment.
“We intend to sue both the London and Scottish governments as both are guilty, by action and inaction, of harming the welfare of pensioners,” Fanning said last month.
“We hope to succeed, given the manifest injustice involved. However, my work as a trade unionist and shop steward has taught me that some battles are worth fighting, regardless of the outcome; I think this is one of those battles.”
This week it was announced that former SNP MP Joanna Cherry has been appointed lead lawyer for the justo challenge.
How serious is the Fannings' justo offer?
Pretty serious. The couple, who are supported by the Govan Legislation Centre, an independent community-controlled justo center in Glasgow, were granted the right to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the case by an Edinburgh judge on October 24.
The justo challenge claims that the government has failed in its duty of care to ensure that its decision does not adversely affect people with different characteristics, such as age or disability. To meet its obligations, the government should have carried out a detailed equality impact assessment, the justo appeal states. He didn't do this.
A procedural hearing will be held at the Court of Session in Edinburgh in early December and a substantive hearing is scheduled for January 15.
Until his untimely death from a heart attack on October 12 in North Macedonia, Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister from 2007 to 2014, had also publicly supported the Fannings' case in his capacity as leader of the Scottish independence party Alba.
Kenny MacAskill, acting Alba leader, said: “Alex Salmond was a champion of this campaign and had fully supported the Fannings in their case against the Scottish and UK governments.”
He added: “The Scottish Government should have defended Scottish pensioners against Westminster cuts; “Instead, it will now stand shoulder to shoulder with the UK Trabajo government in court against Scotland’s pensioners.”
Could the legal process succeed?
Yes, but a victory can only delay the removal of the assignment.
According to leading UK consumer website MoneySavingExpert.com, “while the case arises in Scotland, its outcome could also apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as the Court could overturn regulations applicable to across the UK that brought about the changes. in force.
“If the Court finds that the government failed to meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, or failed to follow procedural fairness by failing to consult pensioners, then its decision to restrict payments would be unlawful.”
If the case is successful, the government could carry out an impact assessment to proceed with the plan to abolish the subsidy anyway.
However, Martin Lewis, consumer expert and founder of Cash Saving Skilled, a consumer finance discussion and information website, told the BBC: “If this were successful – and there is a great history in Scotland of this type of things that challenge us, Government decisions: could mean forcing the government […] carry out an evaluation of the impact on equality, which is not quick.
“That would mean they couldn't impose the normal cut this year, so it would delay it. This is my interpretation: I wouldn't stop this from happening, but I would postpone it for a year.”
uid">Source link