Labour have today introduced a bill which will give the DWP powers of entry, search and seizure and will oblige banks to check their datasets for evidence of benefit fraud by customers.

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill mimics previous Conservative government legislation, which failed due to the calling of an early election by Rishi Sunak.

In a statement to the House of Commons today, Liz Kendall, secretary of state for work and pensions, explained that amongst the bill’s provisions are:

  • Powers of entry, search and seizure for DWP staff where there is a suspicion of serious organised crime. 
  • Giving the DWP the power to apply to courts for a Suspended Driving Disqualification Order, to disqualify a person who owes the DWP money from holding a driving licence.
  • Through the DWP’s Eligibility Verification Measure, require banks and other financial institutions to examine their own data sets to highlight where someone may not be eligible for the benefits that are being paid.
  • The DWP claim that there are safeguards built into the new measures.

Entry, search and seizure powers will be subject to independent inspection and complaints procedures.

DWP power over banks will not give them access to individual bank accounts or information on how claimants spend their money.

Other measure in the bill include:

  • The DWP will have the power to make direct deduction orders to take a regular payment or a lump sum from the account of a person who owes them money.  This will include taking money from joint accounts if the debtor does not have a sole account. It will also include taking “cryptoassets”. In addition, the bank will have the power to charge a fee to the account holder for the cost of removing the money from their account.
  • The DWP will have the power to make deduction from earnings orders which allow it to take money directly from the wages of an employed person who owes them money.  Employers will have the power to deduct further sums from the employee’s wages in order to cover the administrative costs of the deductions from earnings order.
  • The DWP may impose a civil penalty on anyone who, the DWP is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, helped another person commit – or attempt to commit - fraud.  This applies both to individuals and organisations.  The civil penalty can be up to 100% of the amount that was fraudulently obtained, or would have been obtained if the fraud had been successful.
  • The DWP will have the power to issue an “information notice” to a wider range of organisations requiring them to provide specified information where there is a reasonable suspicion that fraud has been, or may be, committed.  The information may relate to the person suspected of fraud or a member of their family.  The DWP can impose a civil penalty on an organisation which fails to comply with an information notice.

You can read Liz Kendall’s statement here.

You can download a copy of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill from this link

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    It looks like the government are trying to push through this new legislation as soon as possible!!!

    Usually it take at least a month between each stage, but the next stage of this bill in due on 3 February 2025, that's less than 2 weeks since being introduced in parliament on 22 January!!! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Having read terms and conditions, there seems to be a restriction on people's true opinions. Which supports the feeling of most that we are governed by a government that will do what they want no matter who they hurt. Which they proved by lying there way into power.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    This article gives an idea of the banks' concerns, and mentions 2029 as the timing for the implementation of surveillance, if it ever even happens.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    @tintac, do you think she knows what perverse means? If you manage to land a post in government it doesn't matter how illiterate you are you don't actually have to do your job and you get a lot more money however badly you perform. We're living in a back to front universe.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @rookie
      "do you think she knows what perverse means?"

      I'm sure she knows the dictionary definition, but applying that word on a consistent basis in real life? Not so much.  Just look at her responses to different lobbying groups: when wealthy non-doms lobby her to change her policy on the non-dom tax status she does it, assuring us that she has been "listening to the concerns of the non-dom community". But when she's lobbied on the subject of the two child benefit cap we hear nothing about "listening to concerns" and instead get the usual drivel about "taking tough decisions" to "fix the foundations". It's odd how those "tough decisions" seem to never apply to those with wealth and power. 

      She is essentially a Tory in all but name: strong against the weak, weak against the strong. It's no wonder her faction of the Labour party (the Labour right) hate the left of their own party so much while being so half-hearted in fighting the Tories: the Labour left want a war on poverty, while the Labour right and the Tories would much rather wage a war on the poor.

      Her comments also suggest that she is woefully ignorant about the sickness and disability benefits system. If she cared enough to check her facts (which she doesn't) she would know she's spouting vacuous twaddle. 

      Of course, if I'm wrong about that then the only other explanation is even worse, i.e. she knows full well that she's spouting drivel but she's doing it anyway to deflect public anger onto vulnerable people. Just like the Tories.  Either way she shouldn't be anywhere near high office.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Rachel Reeves strikes again, claiming that the sickness benefits system is "perverse" because "if you manage to qualify for a sickness benefit then your requirements to look for work are less and you get a lot more money".

    Er, yes Rachel - your requirements to look for work are less because the assessment system, as unfair, rigged and bogus as it is, has admitted that you're not well enough to work. That's why you don't have to look for work. And that's why you get more money - because if you're too ill to work then by definition you can't increase your income by working. 

    As for "a lot more money" though.......steady on Rachel, we're not talking about the sort of money enjoyed by those poor downtrodden non-doms whose concerns you said you've been listening to. If she thinks the extra payment for qualifying for a sickness benefit constitutes "a lot of money" then I wonder how she would quantify the wealth of non-doms.

    I refuse to believe that Reeves is as dim as this quote of hers makes her appear. This looks like the sort of cynical claimant bashing that would sit comfortably in the mouth of any Tory. Reeves hasn't changed a bit from a decade ago, when she said Labour would be "tougher than the Tories on benefits". I think I'm right in saying that her husband was finance director at the DWP from around 2018-22, which somehow doesn't come as much of a surprise. They're well suited to each other.

    I'm so glad I didn't vote for these people.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 28 days ago
      @Bert That's been the case for a long while & the *reason* for disabled/ long-term sick people getting more money is that they need to live on it for years or even decades, whereas most healthy non-disabled people will be able to get paid employment, so are on their (lower) benefit for a relatively short time. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Bert That's a reflection on how shamefully inadequate the basic rate of UC is. Even with the extra payment on sickness and disability benefits the fact remains that food banks consistently say that sick and disabled people are one of their biggest groups of clients. Another is families with young children due to the two child benefit cap, another thing that Reeves doesn't seem fussed about. Yet still they complain when they're called Red Tories......
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Bert @Bert, but does that justify the proposed measures? Seems to me it's standard uc should be raised. Can't say I'm feeling so lucky here.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @tintack We do receive roughly 2 and a half too 3 times what claimants on standard Universal credit receive we are lucky to receive that
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    The banks are objecting to the new policy the DWP are forcing on them as it incompatible with their FCA rules 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Well if DWP come to my house with the police they would probably tell DWP I'm a suicidal maniac
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    I've been through the bill and this is my response.


    The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill proposes granting the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expanded powers to combat benefit fraud. A key concern is the potential for indirect monitoring of claimants’ bank accounts, raising critical questions about privacy and government surveillance.

    Indirect Monitoring and General Information Notices

    The bill allows the DWP to issue "general information notices" to banks, compelling them to disclose details about claimants' accounts, including balances, without requiring evidence of fraud. This raises concerns about whether claimants’ bank accounts could be monitored indiscriminately, treating all claimants as potential suspects.

    Earlier communications suggested that routine reporting from banks might allow the DWP to track claimants' financial statuses continuously. If implemented, such measures would represent a significant intrusion into personal privacy, akin to mass surveillance.

    Lack of Clear Triggers for Investigation

    The bill provides no explicit definition of what triggers an investigation, leaving ambiguity about how suspicions arise. Without safeguards, such as a requirement for prior evidence or independent oversight, the DWP’s powers risk being exercised excessively or arbitrarily.

    Privacy Risks and Human Rights

    The Human Rights Act 1998 protects individuals’ rights to privacy under Article 8, requiring that any interference must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. However, the bill does not specify how proportionality will be ensured, creating risks of overreach. Claimants could face unjustified scrutiny and surveillance, potentially deterring legitimate benefit claims.

    Insufficient Safeguards

    Key protections missing from the bill include:

    Independent Oversight: No requirement for judicial or third-party approval of general information notices.

    Transparency: Claimants are not guaranteed full disclosure of why their data is accessed or how it will be used.

    Data Retention Limits: The bill does not address how long financial data will be stored or the risk of misuse.

    Appeals Process: There is no clear mechanism for claimants to challenge decisions to access their data.

    Potential Disproportionate Impact

    These broad powers could disproportionately harm vulnerable individuals reliant on benefits, adding stress and deterring claims. Errors in data interpretation could lead to unwarranted investigations, penalties, or benefit suspensions, with limited avenues for redress.

    The bill’s provisions risk undermining privacy and fairness by enabling intrusive monitoring without sufficient safeguards. Parliament must address these gaps, ensuring robust oversight, transparency, and protections against misuse. Without amendments, the bill risks normalising invasive surveillance, disproportionately impacting vulnerable claimants and eroding public trust.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    What on earth does a driving license have to do with benefit fraud!?  It's like an extra punishment, making it harder to get a job once you lose money. 

    I'm not in favour of benefit fraud, however I am worried that a bank may identify us wrongly, then we get investigated for doing absolutely nothing wrong, then some idiot finds us guilty due to receiving a payment for a car or something and we have to pay back money to the dwp and lose our driving license.  What a joke!

    And we could have our door kicked in after refusing entry to a dwp agent.  I will never voluntarily let someone invade my home, and I don't think anyone should.  In the UK even the police don't have powers of entry for summary offences. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 27 days ago
      @AnonymousM My thoughts exactly
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon It's making people worse off  without a job and what if they are being paid less? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @AnonymousM Probably implying a lot of Uber/ just eat drivers and parcel delivery drivers aren't exactly being honest about their earnings. What better way to punish them, than remove their license.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @AnonymousM This is going to give criminals an opportunity to kick in your doors and rob you blind by pretending to be DWP officers or whatever they're going to be calling themselves.

      Thank you labour.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    THERE ARE 12 STAGES TO THE BILL... AND STAGE 1 WAS ON WEDS JUST GONE... IT COULD TAKE WELL INTO 2026/2027 FOR IT TO PASS.. AND THE FINAL STAGE IS A ROYAL DECREE... A HELL OF ALOT CAN HAPPEND WAY BEFORE THE FINAL STAGE.. ALL IS NOT LOST, AND ITS A LNG WAY OFF YET.. HOPE THAT HELPS 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Moggie Withdraw from Bank weekly it's your money, instead of worrying put the gas on full blast and keep cosy, buy that good quality food to build up your health all legitimate ways of spending benefits 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Clive m stone Thank you
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @MrFibro Yes, no difference between them now, they are both callous and vile.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon Agreed, Labour will fast track it through.

      What we see is a tory & a left wing government both agreeing on abhorrent policies.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Clive m stone The Tories bill was in its final stages in the Lords when Sunak called an election. It didn't take years for the Tories to get it that far and most labour MPs voted for it.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    All these low blows  by the unaccountable.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Sick of being treated and assumed of being a criminal , all because I am ill and disabled. 
    Because that is what this is ! 

    This country is disgusting, and all these Lords and politicians are greedy, uncaring, scum. 

    Not forgetting that many of them are and have been proven to be dodgy with finances and many a loy worse than that.

    Yet we are the ones who are vilified on a daily basis by these people , through the mainstream media and press !
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Ala Shame on them 😡
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Rose Rose, we are all just insects to them, just to be stamped on and crushed.

      Human society, and it's hierarchy will never change. Unfortunately the rich, elite, privileged, and their corruption is always going to be against the working class, the sick, disabled , poorer people.

      That's how they stay on top.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Ala I've been there too Ala. 
      A victim of atos lies......the judge and Dr were wonderful at my tribunal though. 

      They were appalled that I was having to go there, after losing my benefits. 

      Just worried about the future and the cuts etc.
      It's getting me down.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Rose The only time in my life, I was forced to go in front of Judge, was to have my benefits reinstated.   It made me feel like being disabled is treated as a crime. It was absolutely inhuman. I was not able to sit, but they would not provide me a bed, so had to sit with my head supported on the wall. I went into temporary paralysis, and was not even able to have my eyes open thought.   I had to defend myself against ATHOS lies.   They also lied so much, ending up contradicting themself.
      How much all the reassessments and Tribunals cost?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago

    The changes to the non-dom tax rule are to be softened as a result of intense lobbying from the wealthy. 

    Genuine quote from Reeves in the article - this is NOT a parody: "We have been listening to the concerns that have been raised by the non-dom community.”

    Good to see the government going in two-footed on benefits while listening to the concerns of those poor hard-pressed non-doms. Thank goodness we threw the Tories out last year and now have a government which is definitely so much better in every way and absolutely doesn't represent more of the same right-wing cobblers. .
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Im guessing that it will be passed but as soon as the first court case is brought up it will be declared unlawful
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    My recent post was cut. Here it is in full: @Am, I agree with your comment below - it is concerning that AI is unlikely to differentiate between illegitimate and various categories of disregarded capital, nor will banks understand, so claimants will be wrongly identified as in breach of thresholds and subject to the resulting chaos. We can only keep making these points and hope safeguards will be built in to the detection process. I can't see dwp having the resources to follow up every AI flag. If it all gets going they will be overwhelmed, which might mean claimants are left for long periods before their rightful entitlement is reinstated. People have already drawn comparisons with the Horizon horror.

    All this in the name of making savings, when, along with other petty measures, it will cost the treasury more in the long run. They need to raise the threshold for allowable capital anyway, it's been stuck at £6000 before benefits are affected for years. You'd be lucky to get a half decent second hand car for that and it would clear you out, leaving nothing for any cost of living or health or domestic emergency. When you don't spend your award month on month and try to save and budget it looks as if you don't need it, but then you have to find a decent sum all at once for something essential and you're back to zero. Hands up, who's having a ball on benefits?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    @Am, I agree with your comment below - it is concerning that AI is unlikely to differentiate between illegitimate and various categories of disregarded capital, nor will banks understand, so claimants will be wrongly identified as in breach of thresholds and subject to the resulting chaos. We can only keep making these points and hope safeguards will be built in to the detection process. I can't see dwp having the resources to follow up every AI flag. If it all gets going they will be overwhelmed, which might mean claimants are left for long periods before their rightful entitlement is reinstated. People have already drawn comparisons with the Horizon horror. 

    All this in the name of making savings, when, along with other petty measures, it will cost the treasury more in the long run. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Well, with 3000 job losses announced at Sainsbury's (and others will no doubt follow) any savings in benefit reform will be eaten up with an increase in unemployment.....this is an incredibly stupid Government, and I thought the last lot were bad (by the way, I did not vote Labour, I had my suspicions about them when the 'manifesto' came out)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Wont happen.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Hi all, So this has to go through several stages before put into power right? I’m confused by the wording of ‘they don’t have the right to look into accounts’ and yet are pushing to do just that? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Martin That's deliberate wording.  The reality is the DWP will have indirect access to how much claimants have in their accounts at any time.  So basically, before any suspicion all claimants' banks will be monitored by the banks and then the DWP will be alerted.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon N It almost got all the way through the lords when the Tories did this. It only stopped when Sunak ordered a GE. 
      The Lords always make a few noises but they always pass the bills in the end.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Martin Hi Martin, from what I understand by looking at the bill passage it has many phases to go through at the House of Commons, then the same stages through the House of Lords! How long that takes I really don’t know? I hope welfare rights charities come out to fight this as doesn’t make for nice reading at all. One could argue it breaches rights of the human rights act! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    I am extremely worried about AI having this job combined with the DWP policy to withhold benefits during the process of investigation. How will the AI systems differentiate between wages and cash gifts from family, some of whom might live abroad. What about grants, care funds, funds for disabled children etc. All of these monies currently pass legally through claimants' accounts, but how will the AI know? What about family gifts in particular, I don't have the same surname as my parents for example, do I have to tell them to stop gifting me money now? I can't cope with having all my income suspended and investigated, accused, interviewed under caution for how long? How many innocent people is this massive drag net going to bring under suspicion, and how long will everyone have to wait before their names are cleared? We know how badly the DWP handle sudden upsurges in demand, we know how long people have been waiting for reviews and PC applications lately. This could be a bloodbath.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 29 days ago
      @Am I see this being used to withhold peoples benefits. Oops, wasn't us. It was the AI bot. Sorry for any inconvenience caused this past year.