Gov Access to Bank Accounts for those in receipt of SP

zagfles

Steve_666_ said:

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

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.

" The other one was if someone has a side job they're not paying tax on, it's not totally related to the SP other than the SP may use up their PA. "

If its a general sweep to look for tax cheats, then it ought to include all UK adults, not target one group

I guess that's next, if you believe the "slippery slope" or "termites" arguments.

woolly_wombat

Thumbs_Up said:

I know for sure some members on here would rather stab themselves in the eye with a dinner fork rather then reading an article in the Daily Mail, it seems they have caught on, see here I dare you, just don't read the article in the kitchen.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12831923/OAPs-surveillance-Minister-admits-Government-snoop-bank-accounts-state-pensioners-battle-against-8bn-year-cost-welfare-fraud-despite-Mel-Stride-saying-theres-low-level-swindling-old-age-benefits.html

The most useful insight from the article:

Katie Farrington, a fellow DWP official, also emphasised there was not 'large evidence of fraud and error in relation to state pension'.

'Where we do see some fraud and error in relation to state pension is about people living abroad and where the state pension would be frozen and, if you were resident in this country, your state pension would be uprated,' she told MPs.

twopenny

Perhaps when they see how little many of us manage to live on they'll increase our basic pension  . 

squirrelpie

Since they say they need further legislation to be passed by parliament in future in order to be able to use this power, and that they only want to use it for UB fraud, why not pass legislation to directly enable the power for UB recipients if that's what they want? And deal with any possible issues for other people in the future as an when required.

hugheskevi

squirrelpie said:

Since they say they need further legislation to be passed by parliament in future in order to be able to use this power, and that they only want to use it for UB fraud, why not pass legislation to directly enable the power for UB recipients if that's what they want? And deal with any possible issues for other people in the future as an when required.

The further legislation required is affirmative secondary legislation. This requires a debate and vote in the Commons.

Dealing with possible issues for other people in the future would require either a new Act (Primary legislation) or amending Primary legislation - either of which is a much greater Parliamentary burden than affirmative secondary legislation.

stripling

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"?   

Andrea Leadsom suggested means testing the state pension a little while back. 

stripling

LHW99 said:

The data issue for me is that the wider the number of organisations able to access my data, the more space there is for hackers to penetrate the system and highjack that information. I think of Capita (payroll information), British Library (passport copies), Greater Manchester police / Metropolitan police (officer / staff data), Barts NHS and the Guardian, to name a few I have heard of.

Government data systems are not necessarily top quality, and if they start scraping yet more data from everyone without good reason, the potential level of stolen information could rise exponentially.

It's a huge data issue and part of the problem is, as I said elsewhere, we have politicians legislating on data who are green about.... data.   And yes, you are correct, our government systems are technically shoddy. It costs eye watering amounts of money to build the infrastructure so there's serious set-ups running on ancient operating systems. 

stripling

Thumbs_Up said:

I know for sure some members on here would rather stab themselves in the eye with a dinner fork rather then reading an article in the Daily Mail, it seems they have caught on, see here I dare you, just don't read the article in the kitchen.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12831923/OAPs-surveillance-Minister-admits-Government-snoop-bank-accounts-state-pensioners-battle-against-8bn-year-cost-welfare-fraud-despite-Mel-Stride-saying-theres-low-level-swindling-old-age-benefits.html

Forks were in the washing-up, fortunately...
The Mail knows who their punters are - it is a useful article. But as @hugheskevi says, the 'no intent' line is definitely not reassuring. 

Qyburn

zagfles said:

So take two people, a poor pensioner claiming pension credit, and rich pensioner claiming the state pension, other pensions, maybe foreign income, rental income etc.

So if the first person can have their bank account snooped at to check if they're committing benefit fraud, should the second person have their bank account snooped at to check if they're comitting tax fraud?

You're advocating snooping on both those people. But you don't advocate snooping on people with overseas income, rental, other pensions - unless they also receive the SP.

None of your vigorous support for these powers actually explains why you think receipt of the State Pension should be the specific differentiator.

LHW99

stripling said:

LHW99 said:

The data issue for me is that the wider the number of organisations able to access my data, the more space there is for hackers to penetrate the system and highjack that information. I think of Capita (payroll information), British Library (passport copies), Greater Manchester police / Metropolitan police (officer / staff data), Barts NHS and the Guardian, to name a few I have heard of.

Government data systems are not necessarily top quality, and if they start scraping yet more data from everyone without good reason, the potential level of stolen information could rise exponentially.

It's a huge data issue and part of the problem is, as I said elsewhere, we have politicians legislating on data who are green about.... data.   And yes, you are correct, our government systems are technically shoddy. It costs eye watering amounts of money to build the infrastructure so there's serious set-ups running on ancient operating systems. 

I had some experience of Government datasystems when tax credits first came in. The system ran two separate databases, the one the department used, and the customer facing one. The customer facing one had been hacked / changed, and rejected my correct details. The department side remained correct.

It was only because I had some computer experience that I was able to short-circuit ( ) being sent constantly from one department to another to try and resolve it. I believe the online system was taken down some time after that.