A decision to cut winter fuel payments for pensioners complied with the Equality Act 2010, the Attorney General has told a court.
Pensioners Peter and Florence Fanning are taking legal action against the decision to remove the universal element of the benefit.
The change was announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves last July, which later led to the Scottish government following suit.
Mr and Mrs Fanning, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, are arguing both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh is being asked to rule on whether the decision was unlawful.
Documents used in the run-up to the decision were read to the court by Attorney General Andrew Webster KC, acting for the UK government, known as the first respondent.
The Scottish government, known as the second respondent, is represented by James Mure KC while Mr and Mrs Fanning, known as the petitioners, are represented by Joanna Cherry KC.
On Thursday, former SNP MP Ms Cherry said the decision to cut the payment had been “unlawful” on the grounds the UK and Scottish governments had failed in their duties to properly assess the impact, and that there had been an “abject failure” to carry out an equality impact assessment, as well as a failure to consult people of pension age who would be affected by the change.
However, Mr Webster said on Friday “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.
He added there is “no general common law duty to consult residents who may be affected by such a law”.
Mr Webster said: “At all stages, pensioner poverty and the effect of pensioner poverty was being considered, and effects to mitigate were being put forward – what can be done to encourage take-up, to encourage those who aren’t claiming but who are entitled to get the benefit of winter fuel payment.”
He said that as of April 2024, the Fannings would not have been entitled to a benefit from the UK government, due to devolution, and said the Court of Session did not have “jurisdiction” to decide if laws made in England and Wales were unlawful.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Read more from Sky News:
Ministers ‘determined to fix broken benefits system’
MPs briefing against work and pensions secretary should ‘shut up’
Mr Webster said a deliverability assessment on 20 July “identified that the policy will have a higher proportion on couples; older pensioners will be less affected”.
He claimed it had been “done with rigour”, adding: “Clearly considerations and possibility have been put forward and adopted, it is structured, it has looked at the details.
“It has been recorded, so it can be seen.”
Mr Webster cited “engagement with Age UK and the Citizens Advice Bureau”, and said documents looked at “the impact of pensioners in poverty” and those just above the threshold who would experience “cash loss”.
In his submission, Mr Webster argued the Equality Act had been “complied with”.
The Scottish government learnt of the chancellor’s announcement 90 minutes before a statement in the House of Commons, the court heard later.
Mr Mure said it was “out of the blue”, and PAWHP was the “largest of devolved social security benefits” due to be delivered by government agency Social Security Scotland following a consultation which began in October 2023, and it was intended as a universal benefit.
The court heard “the aims hadn’t changed, albeit the Scottish government had changed eligibility on grounds of affordability” as “universality was simply not affordable” due to budget cuts of £147m.
The case, in front of Judge Lady Hood, was adjourned to a future date.
