The Labour Government's decision to effectively axe Winter Fuel Payment for millions of elderly Britons complied with the Equality Act, a court has heard.
Pensioners Peter and Florence Fanning are challenging the UK and Scottish governments in court over the move to means-test the up to £300 in energy bill support.
The couple from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire argue both Governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes.
Currently, the Court of Session in Edinburgh is hearing arguments on whether the decision to remove the universal element of the benefit was unlawful.
A court has heard that the decision to cut the Winter Fuel Payment for millions of pensioners is lawful
GETTY / PA
The change was initially announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves last July, which later led to the Scottish Government following suit.
Representing the couple, former MP Joanne Cherry KC told the court on Thursday there had been an "abject failure" to carry out an equality impact assessment.
She also claimed there was a failure to consult people of pension age who would be affected by the change. Cherry argued the move was "unlawful" on the grounds both Governments failed in their duties to properly assess the impact.
The petitioners are asking the court to, in effect, set aside the policy and restore the Winter Fuel Payment to all if the decision is ruled unlawful.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has came under fire for her fiscal policies
POOLCherry told the court the UK Government was "blinded" by financial imperatives when it cut the Winter Fuel Payment without due consideration of the impact on vulnerable people.
The former SNP MP claimed ministers knew the decision would cause "significant excess winter deaths" and jeopardise the health of "vulnerable pensioners".
This decision was taken in the knowledge it would result in 100,000 pensioners falling into relative poverty, and 50,000 into absolute poverty, she said.
"The respondents did not approach the matter with due diligence, and did not give consideration to all competing interests," Cherry argued.
Andrew Webster KC, representing the UK Government, argued the decision to cut Winter Fuel Paymentsinter Fuel Payments complied with the Equality Act 2010.
He 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 £22billion black hole.
Webster claimed assessments had been "done with rigour" and that "at all stages, pensioner poverty and the effect of pensioner poverty was being considered".
He cited "engagement with Age UK and the Citizens Advice Bureau" and said documents examined "the impact of pensioners in poverty".
Furthermore, Webster questioned whether the Fannings can be said to have been "directly affected" by the UK government's decision at all.
He pointed out that as residents in Scotland, the couple had "no entitlement" to the Winter Fuel Payment, as this is only available to people in England and Wales.
"The reasons why the petitioners do not get pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) is because they are just below the threshold" for the devolved Scottish benefit, Webster said.
He added the Court of Session did not have "jurisdiction" to decide if laws made in England and Wales were unlawful or not.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry is representing the couple in the Scottish courts
PAJames Mure KC, representing the Scottish government, told the court they learned of the Chancellor's announcement just 90 minutes before a statement in the House of Commons. Mure said it came "out of the blue".
The court heard the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment was the "largest of devolved social security benefits" due to be delivered by Social Security Scotland.
It was originally intended as a universal benefit following a consultation which began in October 2023.However, "universality was simply not affordable" due to budget cuts of £147million, the court was told.
"The aims hadn't changed, albeit the Scottish Government had changed eligibility on grounds of affordability." The case, presided over by Judge Lady Hood, has been adjourned to a future date.
If the court rules in favour of the Fannings, it could potentially set aside the policy and restore universal winter fuel payments.
Cherry argued that financial constraints do not "absolve" either government of their obligations under equality legislation.
She noted the Scottish government had been placed in a "dilemma" by the UK Government's decision, which resulted in an 80 per cent cut to the funding it received for a universal winter fuel payment.
