Starmer faces Labour revolt over plan to raid bank accounts of benefit claimants
Keir Starmer is facing a rebellion over his plan to use direct deductions from people's bank accounts and the cancellation of driving licences as part of a government crackdown on welfare fraud and over-claiming.
In an attempt to claw back the annual £9.7bn in benefit overpayments made by the Department for Work and Pensions due to fraud or error, the government has adopted Conservative plans for debt recovery.
A fraud, error and recovery bill would give the DWP the power to require banks to provide data to help identify when an applicant is not meeting the eligibility criteria for a benefit for which they have applied.
The bill would allow the government to demand bank statements to identify debtors who have sufficient funds to repay what they owe through fraud or error in a claim. The DWP would then have the power to recover money directly from bank accounts of those not on benefits or in PAYE employment who are identified as having the means to pay.
Those who repeatedly fail to repay funds could fall prey to a suspended DWP disqualification order that would disqualify them from holding a driving licence.
Liz Kendall, the secretary of state for work and pensions, has said the powers are necessary to deal with a 'broken welfare system' but she is facing opposition from her own backbenches.
Amendments tabled by the Labour MP for Poole, Neil Duncan-Jordan, that would force the government to drop key strands of the bill are supported by a growing number of MPs in Starmer's party.
The amendments, backed by 17 named Labour MPs, would ensure that only those suspected of fraud rather than being the victim of an error were subjected to surveillance, 'allowing the government to target criminality without monitoring the public', Duncan-Jordan said.
The Labour MP is also proposing to remove the power to apply to a court to strip people of their driving licences due to debt, describing the policy as a 'poverty penalty'.
Writing in the Guardian, Duncan-Jordan, who was elected for the first time in 2024, accused Starmer's government of 'resurrecting Tory proposals for mass spying on people who receive state support'.
He writes that the legislation 'would compel banks to carry out financial surveillance of welfare recipients', adding that 'given the volume of accounts involved, this will be completed by an algorithm'.
'If the software flags a possible overpayment, whether due to fraud or error, the bank will report the individual to the Department for Work and Pensions for further investigation,' Duncan-Jordan writes. 'By default, welfare recipients would be treated as suspects, simply because they need support from the state.'
He adds that the government should learn from the Post Office scandal in which a faulty computer system led to hundreds of people being falsely accused of fraud and error.
He writes: 'The risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale is glaringly obvious when millions are being monitored. It will be disabled people, carers, pensioners and the very poorest people who are impacted by wrongful investigations and forced to endure burdensome appeals to prove their innocence.'
skip past newsletter promotion
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
Kendall has said the use of 'direct deduction orders' allowing the recovery of funds from claimants could save the taxpayer £500m a year once fully rolled out.
In the 2023-24 financial year, the DWP estimates that benefit overpayments due to fraud or error by claimants totalled £9.7bn.
But the banking industry has raised concerns that it will be forced to hand over account information of claimants in cases where there are indications they may have been paid benefits incorrectly.
The legislation is seen to potentially clash with the obligations of banks under a Financial Conduct Authority consumer duty to protect customers who are vulnerable due to their financial situation.
Last week, the Guardian revealed that the regulatory policy committee, a government watchdog, had raised concerns that ministers had understated the impact on the poorest of its plans to directly deduct benefit overpayments from people's bank accounts.
A DWP spokesperson said: 'We have an obligation to protect public funds, and it is right that we modernise our approach to catching fraudsters and overpayments. All the powers in the bill are underpinned by a principle of fairness and proportionality and do not involve mass surveillance of people's bank accounts.
'This includes utilising limited data from banks to help verify entitlement to benefits, helping us detect errors earlier and minimise debts accruing for claimants.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to slash foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the billions of pounds of foreign aid partly used to house asylum seekers in hotels, according to new figures. The £2.2bn Home Office estimate to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) in this financial year is only slightly less than the £2.3bn spent in 2024/25. The vast majority is used for the accommodation for asylum seekers who have arrived in the UK, with recent figures showing more than 32,000 were being housed in hotels at the end of March. Labour has pledged "to end the use of asylum hotels" and the government says it has reduced the overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds, including £200m in ODA savings, which had been passed back to the Treasury. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he will cut the overall ODA from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3% in 2027. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent on providing humanitarian and development assistance in other countries, but the UK is allowed to count refugee-hosting costs as ODA under internationally agreed rules. Labour MP Sarah Champion previously said a "scandalously large amount" of ODA has been diverted to the Home Office and has called for a cap on how much can be spent supporting asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and are urgently taking action to restore order, and reduce costs. "This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026."
