Gov Access to Bank Accounts for those in receipt of SP

flaneurs_lobster

DBdoobydoo said:

I live in France & receive a UK state pension. How will the UK government monitor my French bank account?

Avec le Entente Cordiale, l'accès aux comptes bancaires est simple.

Qyburn

zagfles said:

I'm not making any argument for or against this amendment, just the implication it's intended to be used to means test the state pension.

So why was the power included, in your opinion? Why will the Government need access to my bank account, solely because I start receiving the State Pension?

squirrelpie

I'm interested in the powers that are attempting to be grabbed and in whether there is any lobbying against I might do. I don't care about means testing - the thought hadn't occurred to me and it seems very unlikely, so I'm even less interested in discussing that subject.

Oh, and what's the timetable for this to go through parliament and become law?

Steve_666_

and if labour could add an amendment to include all the non PAYE earners...

marycanary

Silvertabby said:

zagfles said:

Silvertabby said:

zagfles said:

Silvertabby said:

Aimed at fraud prevention?  Sadly, it happens.  The LGPS, for one, can quote umpteen cases of: Granny's/Granddad's pension is paid into a joint account with another family member, because it's "easier" to pay their bills/do their shopping for them.  Then Granny/Granddad dies, and the family member "forgets" to tell the LGPS.

Maybe also where someone lives abroad and claims the state pension. Or someone with an additional income they're not paying tax on

Just for the conspiracy theorists, just think about the timing of all this. There's an election next year. The Tories are likely to lose. Why would they, at this stage in the parliament, introduce nefarious powers which they intend to use for their top secret aim of means testing the state pension, which they have no chance whatsoever of implementing before the election, and in all likelyhood will just hand those powers over to Labour before being able to use them for their evil intent?

If they were doing this having just won an election, it may make sense. But just before an election they look like losing? Really? 

OTOH, a tweet from a Labour MP, in the run up to an election, implying the Tories are planning to means test the state pension? What could possibly be the motivation behind that

Just before the 1997 election, which Tony Blair won with a landslide, a Labour back bencher/supporter put out a rumour that the Tories intended to abolish the State pension.

Many existing pensioners, with no other income but the State pension, panicked at the idea of their only source of income being whipped away and voted Labour.

Tried and tested. And in these days with social media echo chambers repeating the rumour everywhere it's far more effective now than then.

Mind you, there's another rumour/plan already doing the rounds that is causing several oldies to utter some very rude words.  That is the proposal by a Labour back bencher to utilise all those lovely spare bedrooms, currently being hogged by greedy pensioners living alone in family sized houses, by billetting refugees etc in them.  Note this proposal only seems to apply to privately owned properties, and not the 3/4 bedroom council houses still occupied by granny long after her family had flown the nest.

Haha, that one really is in the aluminium hat territory.

zagfles

hugheskevi said:

zagfles said:

stripling said:

zagfles said:

Silvertabby said:

Aimed at fraud prevention?  Sadly, it happens.  The LGPS, for one, can quote umpteen cases of: Granny's/Granddad's pension is paid into a joint account with another family member, because it's "easier" to pay their bills/do their shopping for them.  Then Granny/Granddad dies, and the family member "forgets" to tell the LGPS.

Maybe also where someone lives abroad and claims the state pension. Or someone with an additional income they're not paying tax on

Just for the conspiracy theorists, just think about the timing of all this. There's an election next year. The Tories are likely to lose. Why would they, at this stage in the parliament, introduce nefarious powers which they intend to use for their top secret aim of means testing the state pension, which they have no chance whatsoever of implementing before the election, and in all likelyhood will just hand those powers over to Labour before being able to use them for their evil intent?

If they were doing this having just won an election, it may make sense. But just before an election they look like losing? Really? 

OTOH, a tweet from a Labour MP, in the run up to an election, implying the Tories are planning to means test the state pension? What could possibly be the motivation behind that

This.... using the label/insult  "conspiracy theory" to avoid actual evidence or engagement. Please don't - this is an interesting thread, let's not degrade it, I want to be able to update it further on. 

You need to actually read the thread then you would have noticed it wasn't a 'tweet by a Labour MP' it was a video clip of a House of Commons question.

The OP was a tweet from a Labour MP! 

Worth noting that the tweet was from Stephen Timms, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee which is a Commons Select Committee. He was also a former Pension Minister under Labour, so has more credibility than other back-bench MPs. 

Quite possibly. But he is a Labour MP whose job depends on people voting Labour. So he has a vested interest, whatever committee he's on and whatever qualifications he has.

zagfles

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

I'm not making any argument for or against this amendment, just the implication it's intended to be used to means test the state pension.

So why was the power included, in your opinion? Why will the Government need access to my bank account, solely because I start receiving the State Pension?

I've already mentioned a couple. See above.

zagfles

marycanary said:

Silvertabby said:

zagfles said:

Silvertabby said:

zagfles said:

Silvertabby said:

Aimed at fraud prevention?  Sadly, it happens.  The LGPS, for one, can quote umpteen cases of: Granny's/Granddad's pension is paid into a joint account with another family member, because it's "easier" to pay their bills/do their shopping for them.  Then Granny/Granddad dies, and the family member "forgets" to tell the LGPS.

Maybe also where someone lives abroad and claims the state pension. Or someone with an additional income they're not paying tax on

Just for the conspiracy theorists, just think about the timing of all this. There's an election next year. The Tories are likely to lose. Why would they, at this stage in the parliament, introduce nefarious powers which they intend to use for their top secret aim of means testing the state pension, which they have no chance whatsoever of implementing before the election, and in all likelyhood will just hand those powers over to Labour before being able to use them for their evil intent?

If they were doing this having just won an election, it may make sense. But just before an election they look like losing? Really? 

OTOH, a tweet from a Labour MP, in the run up to an election, implying the Tories are planning to means test the state pension? What could possibly be the motivation behind that

Just before the 1997 election, which Tony Blair won with a landslide, a Labour back bencher/supporter put out a rumour that the Tories intended to abolish the State pension.

Many existing pensioners, with no other income but the State pension, panicked at the idea of their only source of income being whipped away and voted Labour.

Tried and tested. And in these days with social media echo chambers repeating the rumour everywhere it's far more effective now than then.

Mind you, there's another rumour/plan already doing the rounds that is causing several oldies to utter some very rude words.  That is the proposal by a Labour back bencher to utilise all those lovely spare bedrooms, currently being hogged by greedy pensioners living alone in family sized houses, by billetting refugees etc in them.  Note this proposal only seems to apply to privately owned properties, and not the 3/4 bedroom council houses still occupied by granny long after her family had flown the nest.

Haha, that one really is in the aluminium hat territory.

It's contagious

stripling

SVaz said:

It would cost more than it would save to means test the SP.   

Look how much MTD is costing, they’ve had to push it back yet again. 

Lol... it costs more to investigate benefit fraud than it saves, but they are still doing it. 

hugheskevi

zagfles said:

hugheskevi said:

zagfles said:

stripling said:

zagfles said:

Silvertabby said:

Aimed at fraud prevention?  Sadly, it happens.  The LGPS, for one, can quote umpteen cases of: Granny's/Granddad's pension is paid into a joint account with another family member, because it's "easier" to pay their bills/do their shopping for them.  Then Granny/Granddad dies, and the family member "forgets" to tell the LGPS.

Maybe also where someone lives abroad and claims the state pension. Or someone with an additional income they're not paying tax on

Just for the conspiracy theorists, just think about the timing of all this. There's an election next year. The Tories are likely to lose. Why would they, at this stage in the parliament, introduce nefarious powers which they intend to use for their top secret aim of means testing the state pension, which they have no chance whatsoever of implementing before the election, and in all likelyhood will just hand those powers over to Labour before being able to use them for their evil intent?

If they were doing this having just won an election, it may make sense. But just before an election they look like losing? Really? 

OTOH, a tweet from a Labour MP, in the run up to an election, implying the Tories are planning to means test the state pension? What could possibly be the motivation behind that

This.... using the label/insult  "conspiracy theory" to avoid actual evidence or engagement. Please don't - this is an interesting thread, let's not degrade it, I want to be able to update it further on. 

You need to actually read the thread then you would have noticed it wasn't a 'tweet by a Labour MP' it was a video clip of a House of Commons question.

The OP was a tweet from a Labour MP! 

Worth noting that the tweet was from Stephen Timms, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee which is a Commons Select Committee. He was also a former Pension Minister under Labour, so has more credibility than other back-bench MPs. 

Quite possibly. But he is a Labour MP whose job depends on people voting Labour. So he has a vested interest, whatever committee he's on and whatever qualifications he has.

I also don't think he was, or is, suggesting that the purpose of the legislation is to prepare the ground for means-testing.

Rather, he was questioning why the legislation needed to be so broad as to apply to State Pension recipients who get no other benefits, given that in any case of fraud the powers already permit access. The emphasis was that there is no conceivable use for the power except in a scenario where a future govt were to be minded to means-test the State Pension, hence there is no need for that part of the legislation. Parties then opposed the legislation, not because it is thought to be the precursor to means-testing State Pension, but because the requested powers were unnecessarily broad.

It is fairly standard for a Department to want to take the broadest possible powers, as it makes things so much easier than having to make or amend Primary legislation in the future if it turns out that you do not have the vires to do something you want to do. Even secondary legislation is difficult to amend if it is under the affirmative process. Hence, you take the broadest possible powers so that you are free to do whatever you may want to do in the future without being burdened by a lengthy parliamentary process.

I think that is all that is going on here - taking broad powers, rather than limiting their powers with lots of exceptions. Exceptions can also lead to problematic and controversial discussions and decisions - if you exempt State Pension, then is there an argument to exempt other non-means-tested benefits such as Attendance Allowance (a disability benefit for the elderly, receipt of which is determined by the extent of disability with no reference to income)? And what about Child Benefit, given it is somewhat similar to State Pension in being largely universal and only slightly means-tested? And so on, and so on.