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

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

30 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed

I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.

The National

an hour ago

• The National

Scotland 'should not be treated as afterthought' of HS2 project

Last week, the UK Government admitted the flagship infrastructure project had been 'no less than a litany of failure'. The Labour administration blamed the previous Tory government for the overruns. The link to Scotland for the project was cancelled in June 2022, with the route from Birmingham to Manchester scrapped by former Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak in 2024. READ MORE: UK providing 'political cover' for US and Israel after Iran attack Now, the scheme is running £37 billion over budget, and has been delayed beyond 2033. The UK's Secretary of State for Transport, MP Heidi Alexander, told the House of Commons last week: 'I'm drawing a line in the sand – calling time on years of mismanagement, flawed reporting and ineffective oversight. 'It means this government will get the job done between Birmingham and London. 'We won't reinstate cancelled sections we can't afford.' Alexander (above) also admitted there was 'no reasonable way to deliver' on the 2033 target for the first trains to run between London and Birmingham. The SNP are now urging the UK Government to look again at extending the line to Scotland, after taxpayers north of the border will have contributed to the project but see no benefit. Willie Coffey, SNP MSP, said: 'The fact the UK cannot construct a high-speed rail network - the norm in many countries around the world - speaks for itself. 'While we know HS2 won't have any stations in Scotland, with the way things are going it'll be lucky to have any stations in England either.' Coffey pointed to claims made during the 2014 independence referendum that a Yes vote would jeopardise Scotland's opportunity to benefit from HS2 'only to find that promptly after the referendum the connections to Scotland were ditched'. READ MORE: Douglas Alexander refuses to set out route to Scottish independence 'This is nothing new sadly, 30 years ago we were promised that Scotland would be connected to the Eurostar - but that was dumped despite Scotland's sizeable contribution to paying for the creation of the Channel Tunnel,' he added. "Promises broken and public money squandered is par for the course for Westminster. It's clear we need to get Scotland's finances and transport investment out of the hands of Westminster and into Scotland's hands with independence." It comes after new HS2 Ltd chief executive Mark Wild said the 'overall situation with respect to cost, schedule and scope is unsustainable' in a letter to Alexander. He said costs would continue to rise if ministers did not renegotiate engineering contracts awarded in 2020. Wild also said that the testing phase alone would be likely to take three years, rather than the 14 months that had been previously assumed. The Department for Transport has been contacted for comment. The £3bn Scottish link to HS2 was quietly dropped by the then-Tory government just 30 minutes before the result of a no-confidence vote on Boris Johnson was announced. When Sunak cancelled the Manchester leg at the 2023 Tory party conference, he said the money would be diverted to other public transport projects and roads in the North of England and the Midlands.

Daily Record

2 hours ago

• Daily Record

Celtic see Matt O'Riley windfall put in major jeopardy as 'preferred' suitor performs £30m Brighton transfer trick

A host of Italian clubs are on alert despite the Premier League side remaining keen to keep the playmaker at the AMEX In-demand Matt O'Riley has reportedly told Brighton he would prefer to join Roma this summer if he leaves the club. But that could leave Celtic's sell-on windfall at risk with the Serie A giants looking to avoid a major Financial Fair Play pitfall. ‌ The Hoops have already seen the Parkhead coffers boosted this summer by a sell-on windfall after Jeremie Frimpong 's move to Liverpool from Bayer Leverkusen. ‌ And the Scottish champions powerbrokers are on alert again amid reports that Napoli made a £25.6million (€30million) offer for the Danish international just 12 months on from his £25million Parkhead exit. Celtic hold a 10 per cent sell-on clause in the deal that took the 24-year-old to the AMEX Stadium last season - but the Seagulls are said to be in no rush to sell with talks "ongoing" over a deal. La Gazzetta dello Sport now claim Roma have already made contact with the midfielder's entourage with O'Riley "eager" to join the club. However, I Giallorossi are said to be 'formulating" a loan offer with obligation to buy next summer - with Brighton demanding £30million for the playmaker. It is noted that Roma are currently focussed on selling players to balance the books before the June 30 FFP deadline. O'Riley is said to be willing to wait for a move to link up with Gian Piero Gasperini - who is a big fan of the player having previously attempted to bring him to Atalanta from Celtic. ‌ O'Riley endured an injury-hampered debut campaign at the AMEX Stadium but showed flashes of his best form in the final weeks of the season. But the man himself has bemoaned the fact he's been unable to play in his favoured position under head coach Fabian Hurzeler - with Georginio Rutter deployed in the playmaker role. ‌ Speaking in his homeland, the Denmark international said: "I am not completely happy, and I am just giving my opinion. 'It makes it difficult to show off when you play a position you are not completely happy with. I can play better for the team if I play the number eight position, but I can play well in other positions. "You can say it in a way that is not aggressive. If you are honest with another person, you don't lose anything. The coach can always say he doesn't agree." You can get all the news you need on our dedicated Rangers and Celtic pages, and sign up to our newsletters to make sure you never miss a beat throughout the season. We're also on WhatsApp, where we bring all the latest breaking news and transfer gossip directly to your phone. Join our Rangers community here and our Celtic community here.