The Unite union has issued a stark warning to the UK government over its controversial decision to cut the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners, threatening to pursue a judicial review if the policy isn’t reversed.
Initially announced in July and confirmed in the latest budget, this policy aims to address a £22 billion gap 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 lose winter fuel payments worth between £100 and £300. Only those on pension credit or other means-tested assistance will continue receiving the benefit. Graham urged the government to reconsider, stating 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 29 October, naming Works and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall as a proposed defendant. The letter argues that the government failed to conduct a thorough assessment of the policy’s impact on vulnerable groups, especially amid escalating living costs and cold weather risks. Although the government released a limited “equalities analysis,” it admitted there was no comprehensive assessment.
Unite insists the government had a duty to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee and gather further evidence on the cuts’ impact, particularly on vulnerable and disabled people. With cold weather on the horizon, the letter describes the situation as “urgent” for pensioners who risk “disconnection” and are already cutting back on essentials.
The government responded by reaffirming its commitment to supporting pensioners through the triple lock, which will raise state pensions by up to £1,700 during this parliamentary term. It also highlighted other measures, including the warm home discount and the increase in pension credit claims.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended the “tough” decision, attributing it to financial pressures inherited from previous governments. In Scotland, a couple has also secured permission to pursue a separate legal challenge against both the UK and Scottish governments over the benefit’s removal, underscoring the broad opposition to the policy.
