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

petra

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.

Would they dare say otherwise, petra.

It doesnt take much imagination to see how innocent people could find themselves under investigation once AI is involved.
For instance, imagine someone on benefits, perhaps Pension Credit, doing what I do:
I live close to my children and grandchildren, while my very elderly mother doesn't. When there are family birthdays, my mum, sensibly, doesn't want to risk sending them cash in the post, so she transfers the money to me so I can draw out the cash and pass it on to them in person. Three of the birthdays are only days apart, so that will be a bigger transfer into my account.

I'm sure I'm far from the only person helping an elderly relative out in this way, but it is all too easy to imagine how this kind of innocent scenario could make the alarm bells ring once AI is involved, and I very much doubt that the real people who then take on an investigation would readily accept that perfectly innocent explanation for that money going through their account. Whatever the eventual outcome, the 'accused' person would almost certainly be subjected to a very long, very stressful and possibly very expensive investigation.

On top of that, I can see how it would only be a matter of time before other government departments adopt the same technology. I'm sure HMRC would love the same access to everyone's bank accounts, using AI to search for and flag up any possible discrepancy between their declared income and their bank transactions.

I cannot condone fraud of any kind benefit or tax.

I am in two minds about this bill, on one hand I can see the benefits if the AI model has been programmed accurately.

On the other hand I am not a fan of Government Offices and/or AI having unfettered access to mine or anyone else’s bank accounts without obtaining permission.

In another part of the reporting from Benefits an work they say:

The DWP snuck in the new powers as amendments to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. There was no consultation, no opportunity for discussion and no chance to explore alternatives.

If they are successful in getting the current measures through with little opposition, it seems likely that the government will use the same tactics to allow the DWP to acquire the power to arrest claimants, search homes, seize property and impose huge fines without ever going to court.

Pammie1

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.

Pammiel excellent post.

Oldnproud
If this bill comes into being your post has made me think.
I volunteer with some people who are on benefits.
I discovered that one of them had become involved with a money lender.
I told them, if you’re in trouble with money, you come to me.
I’ve always transferred the money into their accounts. Sometimes this could be several hundreds pounds.
If this goes through I will lend money in cash.
Btw, I have worked with these people for 9 years. I know them and their families very well.

Germanshepherdsmum

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

There were 1,442 UK SIs made in in 2023. I'm sure every one carefully scrutinised by the Legislature.

You really think I'm stupid, don't you GSM...

It does make you think, doesn't it petra. It is nowhere near as black and white as most people seem to imagine. The frequent "Well, if they have nothing to hide ..." attitude is very naive

The way you have helped people sounds very kind.
You would imagine that lending money to a benefit recipient would be perfectly ok, either in cash or as a bank transfer, but you have realized, I fear that AI might still flag it up, leading to all sorts of problems while it is investigated. On the other hand, if you lend it in cash instead in order to avoid that risk, will they be able to use it as needed now that it is no longer possible to pay for many goods and services in cash?

I'm all for stopping deliberate fraud, but not in a way that could risk many innocent people being put through a long, stressful investigation.

I have been pondering, I send an extended family member money during the year (by bank transfer) for their children’s birthdays, Christmas and Easter.

If this Bill goes through could these gifts lead to them being investigated?

(They are on universal credit due to health)

Potentially, yes.
Even now, you are supposed to let the benefits people know if you receive a monetary gift, or sell anything on ebay, or have monkey lying around the house, or owed to you.
So, insert AI and it could be very problematic.

😂😂
Well, I haven't got a monkey lying around the house.

MissAdventure

😂😂
Well, I haven't got a monkey lying around the house.

I have two cheeky teenage monkeys upstairs (minding GC at DS’s)

I will remember this, and probably send them a generic High St. gift card that can be purchased from the Post Office.

Not saying it would necessarily happen, but the potential is there grannygravy, so it may be time to make a change.

MissAdventure

Not saying it would necessarily happen, but the potential is there grannygravy, so it may be time to make a change.

I really appreciate you letting me know 👍

I would be mortified if my gift was the cause of an investigation.

Do you realise how very short the majority of SIs are, Maizie?

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you realise how very short the majority of SIs are, Maizie?

I do.

Not going to take up much parliamentary time then. The vast majority deeply boring and not in the least controversial.

MissAdventure mentioned selling on EBay. We had a volunteer who dealt with eBay sales because she wasn’t on benefits. I’m not doing it because the charity won’t arrange for us to have our own eBay account. The other girls won’t do it because of what we’re taking about here.
So now we sell donations that we could really get more money for at normal charity shop prices.

If we all reverted back to cash at least "they" wouldn't be able to garner information on where we buy our knickers as doodledog suggests. By embracing online everything we are making the possibility of a surveillance state so easy

I'm still shocked to find so many bodies acting as there own police force.

Another concern is that the "investigations team" in the Post Office seem to have been a law unto themselves. They bullied the SPMs and simply did not present all the evidence, for and against, to the legal team acting for them. I can see no reason for not expecting the poorly recruited and understaffed DWP to act in the same way. To some extent they already do so.

This behaviour seems to have been to protect the reputation of the software. Just how much more will the DWP be inclined to do that?

Lawyers say enough evidence has emerged for police to consider prosecuting former Post Office executives Guardian

Post Office investigations team that refused to play by the rules The Times

Post Office Inquiry must examine rules on IT evidence if miscarriages of justice are to be avoided Computer Weekly

Nannee49

If we all reverted back to cash at least "they" wouldn't be able to garner information on where we buy our knickers as doodledog suggests. By embracing online everything we are making the possibility of a surveillance state so easy

You really cannot blame us or the internet companies for the government's Stazi/KGB style creations.

I'm sure a lot if people will revert to cash but why should they have to?

The reality of SIs GSM

The just published report of the UK Governance Project Commission

www.ukgovernanceproject.co.uk/test-page-1/

R.8.1. There are deep and long-standing concerns about the excessive use of secondary legislation and the inability of Parliament to scrutinise it effectively.
R.8.2. Secondary (or delegated, or subordinate) legislation is law made under powers conferred by Act of Parliament – i.e. by primary legislation or statute, which, of course, has to be considered and formally enacted by Parliament. Secondary legislation typically consists of regulations made by Ministers in the form of a statutory instrument (SI), and, as explained below, such legislation, although it normally has to be “laid before” Parliament, hardly ever has any Parliamentary scrutiny or any Parliamentary input.
R.8.3. Secondary legislation generally comes in two forms. ^The great majority are Negative SIs, which are only (and therefore very, very rarely) considered by Parliament if an MP or Peer objects to them.
Affirmative SIs require a Parliamentary vote to become law, but such a vote is almost always a formality.
R.8.4. Secondary legislation is an appropriate, indeed indispensable, form of law-making – for example to make detailed or technical provision where the use of primary legislation would not be a proportionate use of Parliamentary time; or to enable the law to be updated periodically (and uncontroversially) without needing a new Act each time
R.8.5. However, secondary legislation has progressively come to be used much more extensively and inappropriately. For instance, it is now frequently used to make substantive policy provision, to create and extend criminal offences, to create or extend the powers of public bodies, and to affect the rights of individual citizens.
R.8.6. The most egregious forms of inappropriate use of secondary legislation are the increasing use of:
a. “skeleton” Bills, which do little more than set out a number of policy topics, leaving almost all of the substance to be implemented by Ministers in secondary legislation; and
b. “Henry VIII powers”, which are powers for Ministers to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation.
R.8.7. Secondary legislation (typically between 1,500 and 3,000 SIs a year) receives little or no scrutiny by parliament. The great majority of SIs (including almost all those subject to the “negative” procedure) are not debated in parliament at all. SIs are almost never rejected by Parliament. (Only 17 out of 160,000 have been rejected in the last 65 years and 5 in the last 25 years, and the last time an affirmative SI was rejected was in 1978) Parliamentary committees (the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee) examine some of the technical aspects of SIs (e.g. drafting and use of powers), but there is almost no consideration of their policy content.
R.8.8. This is by no means simply a technical legal problem. It means that large numbers of important laws are made without any meaningful consideration whatever by MPs or Peers, which has major implications both for the quality of the law and the democratic legitimacy of the law. And the problem is getting worse as the SI process is being increasingly used as a means of inappropriately enacting substantive legislation, rather than for administrative purposes, which is what it should be used for.

www.ukgovernanceproject.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Governance-Project-Final-Report-31.1.24.pdf

There is nothing here that I didn't already know about.

It's an interesting report which addresses many points about UK governance which have raised concerns over the past few years. Well worth spending some time to read.

Nannee49

If we all reverted back to cash at least "they" wouldn't be able to garner information on where we buy our knickers as doodledog suggests. By embracing online everything we are making the possibility of a surveillance state so easy

People do try ringing alarm bells from time to time. usually scorned by the 'if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' brigade' or the 'what possible harm can there be in it?' brigade.

There are three petitions running. They are on this page:

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/dwp-bank-surveillance-prompts-three-petitions-and-a-letter-to-the-times

Looking at the 'money given as gifts' it seems you only need to have declared it if it takes you over the savings threshold for the income related benefit. That is the "change of circumstance".

Can anyone confirm this? It does seem cruel and unusual just to deny people a Christmas/Birthday present.