‘Staggering' number of DWP overpayments slammed by minister
Over £9 billion in benefits are estimated to have been overpaid over the past year due to fraud and error, a figure one government minister has called "staggering."
Official statistics reveal the total overpaid benefit expenditure reached £9.5 billion in the year ending March, with fraud accounting for the majority. Meanwhile, an estimated £1.2 billion was underpaid during the same period, according to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) figures.
Fraudulent claims contributed £6.5 billion to the total overpayments, a decrease from £7.3 billion the previous year. However, overpayments due to claimant error rose to £1.9 billion, up from £1.6 billion, while official errors also increased, reaching £1 billion from £0.8 billion.
Overpayments specifically related to Universal Credit saw a slight decrease, falling to £6.35 billion from £6.41 billion.
DWP said people under-declaring their earnings remained the main cause of fraud overpayments, followed by benefits claimants failing to declare living with a partner, and thirdly people under-declaring their financial assets or capital.
The department said it was able to recover some £1.1 billion of overpayments in the past year – £0.4 billion in housing benefit and the same amount in universal credit.
While the overall figure fell from £9.7 billion in the previous year, it was still described as 'staggering' by minister Andrew Western.
In a written statement published alongside the figures on Thursday, he said: 'This Government made a manifesto commitment that it will safeguard taxpayers' money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services.
'With welfare benefits paid to around 24 million people, the welfare system is a deliberate target for both organised crime groups and opportunistic individuals and it is vital that the Government continues to robustly tackle fraud to ensure support goes to those who need it most.
'We are taking further steps to minimise error, ensuring the right people are paid the right amount at the right time.'
The figures came as the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill moved to the House of Lords for its second reading on Thursday.
Its proposed reforms have been billed as delivering the 'biggest ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse'.
The Bill seeks to curb multibillion-pound benefit fraud and includes allowing the DWP to recover money directly from fraudsters' bank accounts.
It would also allow the DWP to have the power to obtain bank statements from people they believe have enough cash to pay back welfare debts but are refusing to do so.
Courts could also suspend fraudsters' driving licences after an application by the DWP, if they owe welfare debts of more than £1,000 and have ignored repeated requests to pay them back.
In the Commons, a group of Labour MPs rebelled to support an amendment designed to curb Government powers to verify a person's benefit eligibility and the Liberal Democrats warned the Bill could result in 'Orwellian levels of mass surveillance of those who have means-tested benefits'.
The DWP figures also show that fraudulent claims for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) 'remained at 1 in 100 claims' in 2025, which was the same as in 2024. The health-related benefit is at the heart of Labour's recently announced welfare reforms, making up £4.1 billion of the £6.4 billion savings.
Disability advocate and founder of Purpl, Georgina Colman, said the statistics 'show how misdirected the cuts are.'
'It's clear that the majority of people claiming benefits like PIP are in need, so it's frustrating to see the harshness of the welfare cuts. PIP and other benefits are for the most vulnerable in society and taking away these lifelines could be counterproductive and leave people worse off.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer's Tilt Left to Appease Labour Rebels Exposes Tensions
Keir Starmer has spent most of his time as prime minister warning about Britain's dire finances and pushing divisive spending cuts. Nearing the first anniversary of Labour's big victory, the prime minister appears to be pivoting to loosen his grip on the public purse. With his Labour Party plummeting in the polls and its lawmakers increasingly restive in the face of a surge by the populist right, Starmer's government is poised to unwind some of its early decisions. It will instead shift the emphasis to potentially growth-boosting increases in expenditure.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Free school meal expansion plans commented on by Bradford South MP
The government's announcement of an expansion of free school meals to all families on Universal Credit has been commented on by Bradford South MP, Judith Cummins. "Up to 9760 children" across Ms Cummins' constituency are "set to benefit," according to a spokesperson for the MP. The expanded free school meal eligibility will take effect from September 2026. According to a spokesperson for Ms Cummins, the expansion "will mean children whose parent(s) earn over £7,400 but qualify for and claim Universal Credit will become eligible." Following the announcement, Ms Cummins said: "Children in Bradford have enormous potential to succeed in life, but it is essential that they are provided with the right support to do so. "Ensuring that children are provided with regular and nutritious meals is essential to their development. "I wholeheartedly welcome the decision to extend free school meals to more children in Bradford South and beyond." Education secretary, Bridget Phillipson MP, said: "It is the moral mission of this government to tackle the stain of child poverty, and today this government takes a giant step towards ending it with targeted support that puts money back in parents' pockets." The government announcement on the expansion can be read at
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
