Gov Access to Bank Accounts for those in receipt of SP

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.

zagfles

Pat38493 said:

But why would any new law be introduced without it being made clear the reason why the law is needed?  

The apparent reason for the legislation is prevention of fraud in state benefit payments. It gives the state powers to examine the bank accounts of benefits claimants. The state pension is classed as a "benefit" in law, so by default is included, despite being a non means tested benefit and therefore less prone to the usual sort of fraud that can often be detected from examining bank accounts (eg savings, other income etc).

The fact it hasn't been specifically excluded seems to have led to some conspiracy theorists and political opportunists summising that the only possible reason it hasn't been specifically excluded is that there are plans to means test the state pension. There are other non means tested benefits like DLA, PIP, AA etc which appear to be covered by default as well but which for some reason haven't caused the same level of suspicion as to why. I guess there's less political capital to be derived from them...

zagfles

hugheskevi said:

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.

I doubt he believes that it is. But look at the tweet. It does look like scaremongering. Scaremongering which is political advantageous to his party.

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.

All of which makes sense, some of which I just said in a cross post.

But the strong implication in the tweet is that the govt intend means testing the state pension, rather than they are taking on more powers that strictly necessary to prevent fraud.

stripling

zagfles said:

Pat38493 said:

But why would any new law be introduced without it being made clear the reason why the law is needed?  

The apparent reason for the legislation is prevention of fraud in state benefit payments. It gives the state powers to examine the bank accounts of benefits claimants. The state pension is classed as a "benefit" in law, so by default is included, despite being a non means tested benefit and therefore less prone to the usual sort of fraud that can often be detected from examining bank accounts (eg savings, other income etc).

The fact it hasn't been specifically excluded seems to have led to some conspiracy theorists and political opportunists summising that the only possible reason it hasn't been specifically excluded is that there are plans to means test the state pension. There are other non means tested benefits like DLA, PIP, AA etc which appear to be covered by default as well but which for some reason haven't caused the same level of suspicion as to why. I guess there's less political capital to be derived from them...

This was an interesting thread. "Conspiracy theorists..... "political opportunists" - just stop this sneery stuff. It's so unnecessary and puts people off from participating....

No one in this thread or elsewhere has suggested 'the only possible reason is that there are plans to means test etc. ". It was suggested by various people however, including pension policy experts, that it could lead to this in terms of facilitating the infrastructure. And yes, that has been discussed by various politicians, Think Tanks etc, and no, this discussion is not unique to any single party.  No one anywhere suggested it was about to happen or that some minister was going to jump up before an election and means test etc., etc. 

I believe I used the analogy of termites - when you can't introduce what is likely to be a massively unpopular piece of legislation in one foul swoop, you do it bit-by-bit from the inside out until it is a done deal. Policy Studies 101.  

The objections (apart from the fact that it was slipped in at the last minute as an amendment that wasn't scrutinised) were that it's: a) authoritarian; b) sloppy and ill-defined (which brings its own risks and potential problems); c) could, by default or intent, be the first infrastructural steps towards means testing; d) my own personal objection is also the risk of the excesses of '!!!!!!-covering' banking algorithms.  

Meanwhile, maybe go study Open Banking protocols and some of the analysis of those issues which is a large part of the problem. If you are really interested in the subject.  

Myself and others have done a little bit of legwork to share documents, links etc for anyone to see. I also offered early on to update the thread when further analysis is available - this is actually part of my job so I get opportunities to ask awkward questions to the people who frame or analyse these things. And there's some good pension/banking people who know stuff, in these forums at times too. 

It was also made clear by myself and by the cross-party opposition to the amendment that this wasn't a partizan line of questioning. I've worked in the House of Commons including in parliamentary groups on previous Bills you'd maybe be surprised that there are some good cross party collaborations when you escape the extremists, who actually care about how legislation is assembled.

Does that exclude political opportunists? Of course not but I'm not writing an essay with footnotes here. 

It would be nice to keep this thread open as things progress for those who are genuinely interested. I would assume that it will get better scrutiny when it passes to the Lords but this is a DATA bill not a pensions or benefits bill.... unfortunately there's still a lot of political naivety about the politics of data. 

zagfles

stripling said:

zagfles said:

Pat38493 said:

But why would any new law be introduced without it being made clear the reason why the law is needed?  

The apparent reason for the legislation is prevention of fraud in state benefit payments. It gives the state powers to examine the bank accounts of benefits claimants. The state pension is classed as a "benefit" in law, so by default is included, despite being a non means tested benefit and therefore less prone to the usual sort of fraud that can often be detected from examining bank accounts (eg savings, other income etc).

The fact it hasn't been specifically excluded seems to have led to some conspiracy theorists and political opportunists summising that the only possible reason it hasn't been specifically excluded is that there are plans to means test the state pension. There are other non means tested benefits like DLA, PIP, AA etc which appear to be covered by default as well but which for some reason haven't caused the same level of suspicion as to why. I guess there's less political capital to be derived from them...

This was an interesting thread. "Conspiracy theorists..... "political opportunists" - just stop this sneery stuff. It's so unnecessary and puts people off from participating....

Does it? We seem to have some relative newbies on this thread who've never or rarely posted on this board. Good we're encouraging new posters.

No one in this thread or elsewhere has suggested 'the only possible reason is that there are plans to means test etc. ".

The implication in the tweet is obvious.

It was suggested by various people however, including pension policy experts, that it could lead to this in terms of facilitating the infrastructure. And yes, that has been discussed by various politicians, Think Tanks etc, and no, this discussion is not unique to any single party.  No one anywhere suggested it was about to happen or that some minister was going to jump up before an election and means test etc., etc.

The infrastructure to means test benefits is already there. Loads of benefits are means tested, including pension credit which is aimed at the same cohort as the state pension. This legislation isn't needed to means test the state pension. If it is, how does pension credit works? Universal credit? Tax credits, etc etc.

I believe I used the analogy of termites - when you can't introduce what is likely to be a massively unpopular piece of legislation in one foul swoop, you do it bit-by-bit from the inside out until it is a done deal. Policy Studies 101.  

Past examples of which are? Presumably there are several if it's a tried and tested method.

The objections (apart from the fact that it was slipped in at the last minute as an amendment that wasn't scrutinised) were that it's: a) authoritarian; b) sloppy and ill-defined (which brings its own risks and potential problems); c) could, by default or intent, be the first infrastructural steps towards means testing; d) my own personal objection is also the risk of the excesses of '!!!!!!-covering' banking algorithms. 

Some objections I'm sure are valid. But the implication it has anything to do with means testing the state pension seems to be pure scaremongering.

Meanwhile, maybe go study Open Banking protocols and some of the analysis of those issues which is a large part of the problem. If you are really interested in the subject.  

Myself and others have done a little bit of legwork to share documents, links etc for anyone to see. I also offered early on to update the thread when further analysis is available - this is actually part of my job so I get opportunities to ask awkward questions to the people who frame or analyse these things. And there's some good pension/banking people who know stuff, in these forums at times too. 

It was also made clear by myself and by the cross-party opposition to the amendment that this wasn't a partizan line of questioning. I've worked in the House of Commons including in parliamentary groups on previous Bills you'd maybe be surprised that there are some good cross party collaborations when you escape the extremists, who actually care about how legislation is assembled.

Does that exclude political opportunists? Of course not but I'm not writing an essay with footnotes here. 

It would be nice to keep this thread open as things progress for those who are genuinely interested. I would assume that it will get better scrutiny when it passes to the Lords but this is a DATA bill not a pensions or benefits bill.... unfortunately there's still a lot of political naivety about the politics of data. 

Personally I have zero interest in open banking protocols or the technicalities of what is as you say a DATA bill. Perhaps those interested in discussing it should discuss it on a more appropriate forum, not a pensions one. We discuss pensions here.

I will carry on planning my retirement with zero fear about the state pension being means tested. There are far more important and much more likely things to be worrying about.

Sea_Shell

Means testing aside...

Are you HAPPY that the government will have additional powers to look into your personal banking without needing any suspicion or "cause"?

Should your banking (income and expenditure) be PRIVATE, if you are just an ordinary pensioner, living within the rules?

We can all come up with "tin foil hat" or "thin end of the wedge" reasons as to WHY the Gov feel the need to put this in place...but the question is more about putting in place the means to do so, if they choose.


If it is a party political move (to scaremonger), its and odd one, as one has to ask themselves, which party would be more likely to means test the SP for the "rich"?   

Qyburn

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

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.

You said it was needed to cover those living abroad, although you don't explain why access would be needed in those cases. I can't see where you gave any other reason. But then you contradict yourself by saying it's just been included by default as they couldn't be arsed to exclude the SP - ie no reason.

Pat38493

Sea_Shell said:

Means testing aside...

Are you HAPPY that the government will have additional powers to look into your personal banking without needing any suspicion or "cause"?

Should your banking (income and expenditure) be PRIVATE, if you are just an ordinary pensioner, living within the rules?

We can all come up with "tin foil hat" or "thin end of the wedge" reasons as to WHY the Gov feel the need to put this in place...but the question is more about putting in place the means to do so, if they choose.


If it is a party political move (to scaremonger), its and odd one, as one has to ask themselves, which party would be more likely to means test the SP for the "rich"?   

err..... speaking for me, no I'm not, if it's as portrayed in this thread i.e. this is a kind of new precedent where the government gives themselves vaguely defined powers to poke about in my bank account - I don't want to be having to answer questions from HMRC or other government agencies about how I am organizing my personal finances unless they have launched a proper investigation into my affairs with due cause to look into it.

The principle this would seem to breach is that the government should not be able to access my bank account without some kind of prior suspicion or due cause.

Thumbs_Up

I'm not a libertarian, but you do have to ask what path this will take us down.

How is this for starters -

All newborn babies having their DNA taken.

Everyone over 18 having mandatory bio-metric ID data cards.

Government agency's having access to read your emails or see what you watch on-line.

Listening in on telephones calls.

Watching your day-to-day movements.

All the above is possible and in some ways is happening now. I'm on a VPN server so Big Brother can't get me, but maybe the moderators will...  

Pollycat

Pat38493 said:

Sea_Shell said:

Means testing aside...

Are you HAPPY that the government will have additional powers to look into your personal banking without needing any suspicion or "cause"?

Should your banking (income and expenditure) be PRIVATE, if you are just an ordinary pensioner, living within the rules?

We can all come up with "tin foil hat" or "thin end of the wedge" reasons as to WHY the Gov feel the need to put this in place...but the question is more about putting in place the means to do so, if they choose.


If it is a party political move (to scaremonger), its and odd one, as one has to ask themselves, which party would be more likely to means test the SP for the "rich"?   

err..... speaking for me, no I'm not, if it's as portrayed in this thread i.e. this is a kind of new precedent where the government gives themselves vaguely defined powers to poke about in my bank account - I don't want to be having to answer questions from HMRC or other government agencies about how I am organizing my personal finances unless they have launched a proper investigation into my affairs with due cause to look into it.

The principle this would seem to breach is that the government should not be able to access my bank account without some kind of prior suspicion or due cause.

Me neither.
I'm in receipt of the state pension.
I'm almost certainly never going to qualify for any means tested benefits.
So why should anyone be able - or feel it necessary - to check my personal bank account?