The website says that Unite claimed the Government did not follow the correct procedure in making the decision, which will see around 10 million pensioners miss out on the benefit:
The union had threatened legal action earlier in November and announced on Thursday that it had applied to the High Court for leave to proceed with a full judicial review after receiving an “unsatisfactory” response to its demand that the Government reverse its decision.
Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said: “Labour’s decision to pick the pocket of pensioners was wrong on every level. The government has been given every opportunity to reverse its decision and it has failed to do so.
“This is a rushed, ill-thought-out policy and the government clearly failed to follow the proper legal measures before executing it. With winter approaching the courts must now hold the government to account and reverse this cruel cut as quickly as possible.”
The union said it hoped the court would grant an urgent hearing on its case in the context of “worsening weather conditions and dropping temperatures”.
In its pre-action letter, the union said it believed the Government had breached its legal duties by not referring the cut to the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and by failing to consider the impact on disabled people, among other grounds.
Ministers are not required to refer regulations on benefits to the SSAC if they are a matter of “urgency”, something the Government relied on when implementing the winter fuel cut.
The Government also conducted an “equalities analysis”, which was released under the Freedom of Information Act, but has been criticised for not carrying out a full impact assessment of the policy.
The bid for a judicial review will further strain relations between the Government and Unite, which has been one of Labour’s main donors but grown increasingly distant from the party since Sir Keir Starmer became leader.
This could run and run.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.