Martin and MSE among organisations calling for energy social tariff as millions expected to struggle

Spoonie_Turtle

My big concern with a social tariff is the cliff-edge if it's based solely on being in receipt of certain benefits.  The benefits system is a mess, DWP routinely makes massive mistakes and denies people what they're entitled to, and there are those earning literally pennies over what would entitle them to means-tested benefits who are struggling. 

Any social tariff would have to have an element of tapering, far too complex for an actual tariff - but the UC system does tapering already, so raise the rates of the standard allowance, child element and health element (and bring back a LCW element) by a certain % for energy bills and then more people will qualify and will get help towards their energy bills accordingly.

For a health-linked social tariff, it could not be accessed only by receipt of disability benefits because DWP cannot be relied upon to get claims for those right, all the time people have their claims stopped upon review and have to fight for them for up to a year or more.  It can't even be linked to diagnosis only because accessing healthcare and getting a diagnosis is exceptionally difficult too.  There would have to be a nuanced list of conditions and symptoms, developed by disabled activists and disabled-led charities, that people can self-declare, and include heat intolerance because air conditioning to stay functioning once the outside temp reaches above 20℃ (no exaggeration, I know people for whom that's the case) is not cheap.
But I know, not going to happen.

A social tariff as an interim measure, I can see the urgency, but it's not realistically going to be developed and applied for a year or two then withdrawn to be replaced by a truly equitable solution.  *sigh*

arnoldy

social tariff 

That's the last thing we need. Another erosion of the incentive for low paid grafters to get out of bed at 6am because they wont qualify for all the freebies and now social tariffs. We truly are in danger of making work NOT pay.

ArbitraryRandom

matelodave said:

I'm not sure where all the hand wringers think the money comes from when they make these demands.

The dwindling number of people who are working, paying their taxes and having to pay full price and subsidies for social tariffs and other stuff are slowly being overwhelmed by having to fork out for it all.

I support the idea of a basic subsidised tariff - but one of the things I find vaguely ridiculous is the number of people who DO work (and pay taxes) and ALSO receive benefits/subsidies due to disability/poverty etc (IIUC the majority of money spent on non-pension benefits go to people who work). It's reached the point where working doesn't mean you can afford to live and if we're going to object to a subsidy it should be the Government subsidising employers who are failing to pay living wages.  

But my concern would be that this scheme will be dependent on an exclusionary criteria (like claiming a qualifying benefit) and there's a lot of people out there (often single people without children and in very poor quality housing) who have a varying income or who are just over the thresholds and are forgotten about.

In an ideal, rose tinted, world - I'd much rather energy suppliers partner with organisations like citizen advice or step change (with government funding) and make energy support part of a wider support package to help people address any underlying issues accessing benefits/ tackling debt/ training for better work etc - so the subsidy is (for at least some) a temporary thing until their situation is better. 

I'm not a supporter of nationalisation in general, but I can see the logic when it comes energy (government owned infrastructure and nuclear/renewable generation) - bring down the prices for everyone. 

[Deleted User]

I'm not a supporter of nationalisation in general, but I can see the logic when it comes energy (government owned infrastructure and nuclear/renewable generation) - bring down the prices for everyone. 

The re-nationalisation of the energy sector would cost many £Bn that we do not have. There is absolutely no guarantee that it would bring down energy costs. 

Recently, the French Government bought 16% of EDF to complete the re-nationalisation of the company. Cost estimates range from €8.5 to €11Bn

QrizB

ArbitraryRandom said:

one of the things I find vaguely ridiculous is the number of people who DO work (and pay taxes) and ALSO receive benefits ... It's reached the point where working doesn't mean you can afford to live and if we're going to object to a subsidy it should be the Government subsidising employers who are failing to pay living wages. 

This is not new.

In-work benefits were a thing when I was a teenager, back in the 1980s.

The introduction of a national minimum wage has reduced the need for in-work benefits, but has not eliminated it.

(Arguably, since "needs" vary from person to person, in-work benefits are a cheaper option than setting the NMW high enough to eliminate them.)

mmmmikey

QrizB said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

one of the things I find vaguely ridiculous is the number of people who DO work (and pay taxes) and ALSO receive benefits ... It's reached the point where working doesn't mean you can afford to live and if we're going to object to a subsidy it should be the Government subsidising employers who are failing to pay living wages. 

This is not new.

In-work benefits were a thing when I was a teenager, back in the 1980s.

The introduction of a national minimum wage has reduced the need for in-work benefits, but has not eliminated it.

(Arguably, since "needs" vary from person to person, in-work benefits are a cheaper option than setting the NMW high enough to eliminate them.)

The fact we are having this discussion on an energy forum highlights my main concern with this proposal. Is it really appropriate for commercial businesses to be effectively collecting taxes and distributing benefits? I wouldn't question the need to review the level of state support needed for some groups in light of high energy prices. But I would much prefer it if that support was managed by an elected government than a private organisation. My own view is that the government is avoiding one of it's basic functions in giving this problem to energy suppliers to sort out.

Supermarkets aren't expected to discount food for those in need, so why should energy suppliers be expected to discount electricity and gas? Doing so just creates a shadow tax and benefits system.

Energy suppliers should focus on supplying energy and tax collection and benefit distribution should remain firmly in the hands of government in my view.

QrizB

mmmmikey said:

Supermarkets aren't expected to discount food for those in need, so why should energy suppliers be expected to discount electricity and gas? Doing so just creates a shadow tax and benefits system.
Energy suppliers should focus on supplying energy and tax collection and benefit distribution should remain firmly in the hands of government in my view.

If I was to be cynical, I'd suggest that making energy suppliers (and energy customers) responsible for an element of the benefits system means that the Government doesn't have to "raise taxes" or "cut services" to fund it drectly ...

born_again

mmmmikey said:

QrizB said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

one of the things I find vaguely ridiculous is the number of people who DO work (and pay taxes) and ALSO receive benefits ... It's reached the point where working doesn't mean you can afford to live and if we're going to object to a subsidy it should be the Government subsidising employers who are failing to pay living wages. 

This is not new.

In-work benefits were a thing when I was a teenager, back in the 1980s.

The introduction of a national minimum wage has reduced the need for in-work benefits, but has not eliminated it.

(Arguably, since "needs" vary from person to person, in-work benefits are a cheaper option than setting the NMW high enough to eliminate them.)

The fact we are having this discussion on an energy forum highlights my main concern with this proposal. Is it really appropriate for commercial businesses to be effectively collecting taxes and distributing benefits? I wouldn't question the need to review the level of state support needed for some groups in light of high energy prices. But I would much prefer it if that support was managed by an elected government than a private organisation. My own view is that the government is avoiding one of it's basic functions in giving this problem to energy suppliers to sort out.

Supermarkets aren't expected to discount food for those in need, so why should energy suppliers be expected to discount electricity and gas? Doing so just creates a shadow tax and benefits system.

Energy suppliers should focus on supplying energy and tax collection and benefit distribution should remain firmly in the hands of government in my view.

The vast majority of benefit work is outsourced to 3rd parties anyway. Who are doing it to make money.

https://www.understandinguniversalcredit.gov.uk/new-to-universal-credit/health-conditions-or-disabilities/#:~:text=WCAs are carried out by,for a more detailed interview.
Same with PIP. Which is why so many get refused it.

While these schemes sound good in sound bites, the actual working of them is as ever fraught with companies doing the work for £££. Over running IT timescales & costs.
So letting the energy companies do the work, may end up being cheaper. 

So expect a couple of years consultation while they try to work out the who can have it & how they are going to make it work. Again outsourced to a 3rd party charging £££ & then the next Government axing it, as they have a better idea.