After the Post Office scandal, do you feel safe with a DWP "police force"?

AGAA4

If people have claimed their benefits honestly there is no need to worry. Those who have committed benefit fraud need to be found out and stopped.

Do you understand what happened with the post office? AGAA4. Those people were honest but their lives have been destroyed - in some cases literally.

That was a computer error that was covered up by various dishonest people in the post office and government.
You can't equate this with the tragedy that occurred because of Fujitsu's faulty system.
I did say that there needs to be more training for investigators so that this doesn't happen again.
Fraud does need to be investigated.

Fraud needs to be investigated, I agree. If fraud is suspected, I would be the first to say that investigators should be able to access the accounts of the suspects. But that's different from this. If investigators had to explain why they wanted to look at my accounts (not to me in advance, but to a higher authority) and held to account if they did so erroneously, then fair enough. I do have nothing to hide. But they should not, IMO, be able to access anyone's personal information without good reason.

how the Government can create rules through secondary legislation to mandate Open Data schemes such as Open Banking (ss. 61-77). *It also empowers the Secretary of State to pass regulations...

Very worrying indeed. It gives the Secretary of State powers to add whatever they want to the statute completely without involving the legislature, the lawmaking body of the sovereign parliament.

What is proposed now can be extended to cover anything the government wishes it to, without any scrutiny from our elected representatives. All part of the power grab...

That isn’t the case. Secondary legislation is made law through the making of a statutory instrument. These have to be approved by parliament. The making of secondary legislation has to be enabled by primary legislation, such as this Bill.

Doodledog, let’s say that you apply for pension credit. This Bill would enable your bank account(s) to be investigated to ensure that your financial position is as you claim in your application. Is that not a good thing? Without the powers granted by the Bill, they would have to rely on whatever evidence you chose to provide in support of your application, enabling you not to disclose an account containing far more money - as I know from experience happens.

Germanshepherdsmum

That isn’t the case. Secondary legislation is made law through the making of a statutory instrument. These have to be approved by parliament. The making of secondary legislation has to be enabled by primary legislation, such as this Bill.

Approved by Parliament after the SI has been implemented. But with no debate, no stages, as with a bill. Fine for making minor adjustments, as it has been used historically, but not for major ones.

I do know what secondary legislation is and this bill gives ministers the power to implement it...

Assuming every benefit claimant is a cheating liar is not a good thing, GSM

www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments-commons/

Some are. If they have been truthful what’s the problem?

This legislation is not confined to claimants of means-tested benefits though. I can see a logic to checking that people don't have money they are denying. Nevertheless, working on the assumption that all claimants are guilty of fraud is not in the spirit of the British legal system, which works on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty.

It also gives powers to HMRC to assist in detecting tax evasion, and of course someone claiming disability benefits may be caught out by their golf club subscription, someone claiming to be an unsupported single parent who has a partner who is paying their bills may be caught by their spending patterns, or someone claiming to be unemployed may be shown to have income from undisclosed employment or self-employment - things which, in the absence of someone reporting them, are unlikely to be discovered without the new powers to find and monitor all accounts the person has.

RosiesMaw

Is this not being alarmist?
I have nothing to hide anyway.

Anyone who has had dealings with the DWP will tell you that the words ‘if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear’ don’t apply when dealing with benefits.

I guess that, like many of us, Rosies doesn’t claim benefits. If those who do have been, and continue to be, completely honest what do they have to fear?

Doodledog

This legislation is not confined to claimants of means-tested benefits though. I can see a logic to checking that people don't have money they are denying. Nevertheless, working on the assumption that all claimants are guilty of fraud is not in the spirit of the British legal system, which works on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty.

It is a repeat of the Sub Post Masters case which saw them as guilty until proven innocent Doodledog.

What we also need to remember is they can trawl everyone's information for no given reason.

Germanshepherdsmum

Some are. If they have been truthful what’s the problem?

The problem is that it will be artificial intelligence used by the banks to monitor and report any anomalies. So Joe Blogs who is on means tested benefits receives say a £20 bank transfer payment as a birthday present. The AI bot will possibly see this as undeclared income, report to DWP and Joe’s benefit will be stopped indefinitely while they investigate.

It’s mind boggling to me how this is seen as acceptable. Benefit claimants are just the start - if the government get away with this, it won’t be long before it’s used to keep everyone under surveillance. And DWP are already working on compelling other non financial organisations to report in the same way. Supermarket loyalty cards are also in their sights - it doesn’t take a genius to work out that these things are being used to build up a picture not only of income, but on how money is being spent. It also doesn’t take a genius to work out why they want this information.

If MPs are so keen to monitor the accounts of benefit claimants because they are in receipt of public funds, then they should be open to having their own finances laid bare in the same way, as their salaries come out of public funds. And given the expenses scandal of a few years ago, they’re not exactly above suspicion are they ? The minute we go down the road of treating people as though they’re guilty until proven innocent, we’re sunk.

Germanshepherdsmum

I guess that, like many of us, Rosies doesn’t claim benefits. If those who do have been, and continue to be, completely honest what do they have to fear?

I keep saying this but the Sub Postmasters were honest.

You are simply ignoring anything that doesn't suit you. Rather as the Post Office investigators did.

What an excellent summary of the situation Pammie1

Doodledog

Fraud needs to be investigated, I agree. If fraud is suspected, I would be the first to say that investigators should be able to access the accounts of the suspects. But that's different from this. If investigators had to explain why they wanted to look at my accounts (not to me in advance, but to a higher authority) and held to account if they did so erroneously, then fair enough. I do have nothing to hide. But they should not, IMO, be able to access anyone's personal information without good reason.

DWP already have the power to investigate claimants’ bank accounts where they suspect fraud. At present I think it requires a court order. And the minister for DWP claims that it will continue to be the case that DWP will not routinely request claimants’ bank account details unless fraud is suspected, and that the new legislation will just make it easier to access the accounts of those suspected of fraud at an earlier stage. I, for one, am not convinced.

I keep saying, DAR, that the sub postmasters’ situation was entirely different but you have chosen to conflate it with the powers contained in this Bill in order to scaremonger.

With regard to Pammiel’s example, frankly AI would have rather more intelligence than her suggestion displays. Does anyone with one iota of common sense think that a single, one-off payment of £20 would trigger an investigation? Even people on benefits get the occasional gift of a small sum of money.

AGAA4

That was a computer error that was covered up by various dishonest people in the post office and government.
You can't equate this with the tragedy that occurred because of Fujitsu's faulty system.
I did say that there needs to be more training for investigators so that this doesn't happen again.
Fraud does need to be investigated.

Of course you can equate it with what happened in the post office because DWP is proposing to use artificial intelligence bots to monitor claimants’ bank accounts and report ‘anomalies’. I agree fraud needs to be investigated but DWP already have the authority to investigate claimants bank accounts if they suspect wrongdoing. The claim is that this will continue to be the case and that bank accounts will not routinely be examined unless fraud is suspected. Depends on whether you trust an AI bot to report accurately doesn’t it ? And the proposal is that DWP will have their own powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution, completely independently of the police. Remind you of anything ?

Germanshepherdsmum

I keep saying, DAR, that the sub postmasters’ situation was entirely different but you have chosen to conflate it with the powers contained in this Bill in order to scaremonger.

With regard to Pammiel’s example, frankly AI would have rather more intelligence than her suggestion displays. Does anyone with one iota of common sense think that a single, one-off payment of £20 would trigger an investigation? Even people on benefits get the occasional gift of a small sum of money.

A single, one off payment to a claimant who is on means tested benefit absolutely would, and has, triggered a claimant being interviewed under caution. DWP have already admitted that AI will be programmed to look for basics, the claim will then be flagged and investigators will do the rest.

Quite easily explained. I say yet again, surveillance of one’s own bank account cannot be conflated with what happened with the use of the Horizon system by the PO.

In the OPs link there was a link relating to a survey done by the DWP which stated that * the majority of claimants surveyed agreed with the bill*
I’m thinking that these claimants were surveyed before the proverbial hit the fan with the Post Office. I’d have a bet that they changed their minds when the realised what could happen to them.

John Edwards, the UK Information Commissioner at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has written to the Times suggesting that the current wording of the bill too loose.

Proposed powers to allow the government to inspect people’s bank accounts to reduce benefit fraud raise questions as to society’s appetite for potentially intrusive measures to reduce a problem that costs the country billions of pounds.

As is so often the case, the answer lies in proportionality. The law must be sufficiently clear to give people an adequate indication of the conditions and circumstances in which the authorities can use such measures. And there must be safeguards to protect people.

Key to assessing proportionality are questions such as ‘Will the proposed intervention work?’, ‘Will it produce high numbers of false positives?’ and ‘Are there more or equally effective mechanisms available that do not involve the same level of intrusion?’

As the data regulator, my office continues to work with the Department for Work and Pensions on this, in particular on whether the proposal is sufficiently tightly drafted.