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…
