The Unite union has issued a strong warning to the UK government over its controversial decision to cut winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, threatening a judicial review if the policy is not reversed.
The policy, initially announced in July and confirmed in the latest budget, aims to tackle a £22 billion deficit in public finances. However, it has sparked widespread criticism, with Unite general secretary Sharon Graham calling it a ‘cruel’ measure that ‘picks the pockets of pensioners’.
As a result of the cuts, up to 10 million pensioners will miss out on winter fuel payments worth between £100 and £300. Only those with a pension credit or other income-related assistance will continue to receive the benefit. Graham urged the government to reconsider this, saying it is “not too late” to “do the right thing” and reinstate the payment for all pensioners.
Unite’s legal team sent a pre-action letter to the government on October 29, naming Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall as a proposed defendant. The letter argues that the government has failed to conduct a thorough assessment of the policy’s impact on vulnerable groups, especially as the cost of living rises and cold weather risks emerge. Although the government published a limited “equity analysis”, it admitted that it was not a comprehensive assessment.
Unite insists the government had a duty to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee and gather further evidence on the impact of the cuts, especially on vulnerable people and people with disabilities. With cold weather ahead, the letter describes the situation as “urgent” for pensioners who are at risk of “loosening up” and are already cutting back on essentials.
The government responded by reaffirming its commitment to supporting pensioners through the triple lock, which will increase state pensions by up to £1,700 during this parliamentary term. It also highlighted other measures including the warm house discount and the increase in pension credit claims.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended the ‘harsh’ decision, putting it down to financial pressures inherited from previous governments. In Scotland, a couple have also been allowed to launch a separate legal battle against both the UK and Scottish governments over the abolition of the benefit, underscoring the widespread opposition to the policy.