MSE News: Winter Fuel Payments could be reinstated for all pensioners if legal challenge succeeds

Spoonie_Turtle

Ildhund said:

Forgive me for perhaps being a bit dim, but how does this measure discriminate against a group of people by virtue of a protected characteristic? … . The WFP decision discriminates between groups of otherwise-eligible citizens solely on the basis of their income, which can't be a protected characteristic. Can someone explain the grounds for this suit, if it's for some contravention of equality legislation?  

The equality impact assessment should consider all protected characteristics.  Obviously age is irrelevant (unless they were to check that no particular age bands above pension age are disproportionally affected) but potentially the biggest likely issue would be if it disproportionately affects disabled people.  Other factors to consider include race, gender, etc. 

One would broadly assume that the factors that correlate more strongly with deprivation and lower socio-economic status would probably make those people more likely to be in receipt of Pension Credit and thus not disproportionately impacted by this change, but the purpose of an EIA is to find that out rather than making barely-informed assumptions.

I'm not well versed in this area though so I have no idea how likely a government EIA is to truly, properly consider all the relevant factors.  (Other than knowing they're often useless when it comes to assessing the impact of policies on disabled people.)

HillStreetBlues

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Ildhund said:

Forgive me for perhaps being a bit dim, but how does this measure discriminate against a group of people by virtue of a protected characteristic? … . The WFP decision discriminates between groups of otherwise-eligible citizens solely on the basis of their income, which can't be a protected characteristic. Can someone explain the grounds for this suit, if it's for some contravention of equality legislation?  

The equality impact assessment should consider all protected characteristics.  Obviously age is irrelevant (unless they were to check that no particular age bands above pension age are disproportionally affected) but potentially the biggest likely issue would be if it disproportionately affects disabled people.  Other factors to consider include race, gender, etc. 

One would broadly assume that the factors that correlate more strongly with deprivation and lower socio-economic status would probably make those people more likely to be in receipt of Pension Credit and thus not disproportionately impacted by this change, but the purpose of an EIA is to find that out rather than making barely-informed assumptions.

I'm not well versed in this area though so I have no idea how likely a government EIA is to truly, properly consider all the relevant factors.  (Other than knowing they're often useless when it comes to assessing the impact of policies on disabled people.)

I think you hit the nail on the head. It won't judge if the policy is right or wrong but it tells legislators that an impact assessment  should be done if it affects one or more in the groups mentioned rather than the general population

Scot_39

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Ildhund said:

Forgive me for perhaps being a bit dim, but how does this measure discriminate against a group of people by virtue of a protected characteristic? … . The WFP decision discriminates between groups of otherwise-eligible citizens solely on the basis of their income, which can't be a protected characteristic. Can someone explain the grounds for this suit, if it's for some contravention of equality legislation?  

The equality impact assessment should consider all protected characteristics.  Obviously age is irrelevant (unless they were to check that no particular age bands above pension age are disproportionally affected) but potentially the biggest likely issue would be if it disproportionately affects disabled people.  Other factors to consider include race, gender, etc. 

One would broadly assume that the factors that correlate more strongly with deprivation and lower socio-economic status would probably make those people more likely to be in receipt of Pension Credit and thus not disproportionately impacted by this change, but the purpose of an EIA is to find that out rather than making barely-informed assumptions.

I'm not well versed in this area though so I have no idea how likely a government EIA is to truly, properly consider all the relevant factors.  (Other than knowing they're often useless when it comes to assessing the impact of policies on disabled people.)

WFP is itself banded by age - in England anyway - £200 and then £300 over 80 (born before Sep 44).

So oldest pensioners are arguably being impacted more by cut.

And the DWP have gone on record saying they anticipate c750,000 of their estimated 880,000 total entitled and not clai ing will not apply for pension credit.  Reeves et al seem to be in complete denial ofthat simple fact.  Given past campaigns have had similar or lower take up over decades - any decent impact assessment you would have hoped would identify that there is a clear risk to those 750,000.

The couple raising the action via Govan LC are of course in Scotland - where at least administration of some benefits are devolved - WFP was meant to be one of them, the standard state pension itself not  (but the SNP iirc claim to be losing £160m funding as part of cut - so still at least partly funded by WM).

https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers#:

stripling

@Spoonie_Turtle
One would broadly assume that the factors that correlate more strongly with deprivation and lower socio-economic status would probably make those people more likely to be in receipt of Pension Credit and thus not disproportionately impacted by this change, but the purpose of an EIA is to find that out rather than making barely-informed assumptions.

Unfortunately, that assumption in the "explanations' is part of the problem - a cut off point that is far too harsh. Never mind a large amount of pensioners who do not wish to be subject to the invasiveness of means-testing, there's far too many over the limit for Pension Credit who are still very poor - including pensioners still paying off mortgages. 

The much heralded 'Triple Lock'  doesn't even cover energy price rises for many plus of course there's so many other increases as we all know. The idea that the Triple Lock is a 'replacement' for the WFA is a strategic comms talking point nothing more.  I really hope the court case succeeds in forcing an in depth review and impact assessment. 

The British state pension is the lowest (or second lowest if I remember correctly) in Europe - the idea that further cuts are not a problem for poorer pensioners is absurd. The WFA was designed to be universal partly because that makes it cheap to administer and tax-paying pensioners lose it in tax payments to the state. At this rate, if the court case succeeds, the costs of cutting the WFA will be exceeded by the costs of reviewing, defending, assessing etc., what amounts to upholding a political blunder. 

Scot_39

No.

WFA / WFP - does not increase taxable income - it has been tax free since introduced under G Brown decades ago.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/winter-fuel-payment/

"Winter Fuel Payment is an annual tax-free payment"

The core state pensions - old basic, state secondary pensions (or S2P / serps / stamp etc) and new - are taxable.

It would likely be easy to make WFP so - or a system like HICBC - could introduce a tax charge to claw back WFA - just as that does for child benefit from far wealthier perents

Eldi_Dos

stripling said:

wrf12345 said:

I don't think WFA is taxed at the moment, if incorporated in state pensions (with higher payment in the winter) then it would be taxed but the problem with that is, I think, that two pensioners in one household might get two times £200. Much better to get rid of the WFA completely and get rid of energy standing charges, absorbed by the energy companies with some redistribution in the from of extra tax from energy producers to energy retailers to make up some of the loss of revenue. Alas, the energy minister is still asleep.

It is only paid to each household not each person. A couple receives one payment. WFA increases taxable income thus any pensioner paying tax pays more tax if they receive WFA. For some at the lower end of the scale it tips them into paying tax - albeit a small amount. 

If there is a couple in the household that are eligible they both receive a percentage, if there is only one elegible member of household they receive full amount.

The WFA is tax free as is the Christmas Bonus.