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.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
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.
The DWP has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Is Reform a right-wing party?
If the problem with Labour is that it believes in nothing, the problem with Reform is that it believes in everything. The dispute over the burqa is only the latest example. In pushing Keir Starmer to ban the burqa 'in the interests of public safety', new MP Sarah Pochin undoubtedly spoke for a significant section of the party's supporters. For that matter, polling has previously indicated the British public's backing for a ban. For some, it is indeed a safety issue: presented with a stranger, covered head-to-foot, identifiable only by their eyes, how can we know who that person is, whether they ought to be there, and what their intentions are? For others, it's a symbol of the cultural separatism that sees entire communities of Muslims live parallel lives in Britain, indifferent or hostile to our inherited customs and conventions.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why Tories must stop agreeing with Farage and start attacking him to survive
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On April 15, 2010, the UK held its first-ever televised general election debate, pitting Labour's Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, against David Cameron of the Conservatives, with Nick Clegg expected to do little more than make up the numbers. However, if that was the anticipated script, no one told Clegg, who spoke so persuasively that the catchphrase of the night was 'I agree with Nick' as both Cameron and Brown sought to side with him. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In a snap YouGov poll after the contest, 51 per cent declared the Liberal Democrat leader to be the winner, with Cameron on 29 and Brown on 19. While 'Cleggmania' proved short-lived, the clear lesson was that agreeing with a political opponent tends to benefit them. Delegates at the Conservative party conference in 2023 pose for a photograph with Nigel Farage (Picture: Oli Scarff) | AFP via Getty Images A political cataclysm looms Fifteen years later, and the Conservatives' current strategy to defeat Reform UK, by echoing its rhetoric, is backfiring even more badly. While the 2010 debate was a one-off event, the Tories have effectively been campaigning for Reform for years. In Thursday's Hamilton by-election, the Conservative candidate received just 1,621 votes, down from 6,332 at the last Scottish Parliament election, while Reform got 7,088, not far behind the winner, Labour's Davy Russell, and the SNP in second. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As the Scottish Tories prepare for their party conference this week, a major topic of discussion must be about finding ways to disagree with Reform, if they wish to survive what threatens to become a political event as cataclysmic as the collapse of the old Liberal party after the First World War. Farage is out to destroy the Tories, and they must be as determined and ruthless. There is much to go at. Many of Reform's policies are patently ridiculous and some are downright dangerous. Keir Starmer's claim that Farage would 'crash the economy' like Liz Truss was a good line, and the Conservatives need to find similarly resonant ways of highlighting the very real dangers of voting for Reform.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Labour's by-election win only highlights SNP's detachment from reality
Boothman of The Times is also here of course. 'What the hell's going on then, John,' I ask him. 'Some people are telling me the Labour vote has collapsed,' he tells me. To be fair to Boothman though, he's among the first later to suggest that the smiles on the threshing floor where the count will take place are all on the faces of Labour folk. I attempt to mock his initial analysis. 'Didn't you say Labour's vote was collapsing,' I say. 'Aye it's collapsed into the ballot box,' he says. Boothman's an old fox and not easily caught out. Read More: There's Hutcheon of the Record, scurrying hither and yon, fresh from having chivvied Sir Alex Ferguson and Graeme Souness into backing Davy Russell to take the seat for Labour. If he had lost badly then to Hutcheon would have fallen the task of finding some lipstick for his front page the following day. The changes that social media have wrought in the newspaper industry are never starker than when applied to an election night. The task now is to transmit your thoughts as they're happening and based on little more than the body language of the participants and the snatched asides of party activists which you must first rinse of its in-built prejudice. Even as you're sending out your 20-word digital despatches you know you risk being confounded at any moment by incoming kites and the excursions and alarums of the counting floor. My paper is now asking for a selfie of me with Mr Learmonth and Ms McCurdy where the trick once more is to channel an air of authority and confidence that I'm not really feeling. Our editor, Catherine Salmond, kindly calls us her 'top team' in her social media post. On my feed though, a chap is begging to differ. He calls us 'filthy partisan sock puppets for England.' Always mindful of everyone's mental health, I'm glad he's got it off his chest. McKenna, Learmonth and McCurdy: Salmond's top team (Image: Newsquest) The night then becomes all about juggling narratives. And in the 48 hours since Mr Russell's seemingly unlikely victory it's been about trying to discern the runes of what his win portends. The most profoundly important consequence of Labour's triumph and Reform's massive electoral breakthrough here is that Scottish independence is off the table for another generation, effectively killed off by the SNP's own folly. The SNP now exists for one purpose only: to try to cling to power in Holyrood by any means necessary. Sir John Curtice has already predicted that Reform, on the basis of their showing on Thursday, could win up to 28 seats in 2026. That alone kills independence until at least 2031 and then only as an unlikely prospect. What should worry the SNP most is that the Yes vote in 2014 was reinforced by up to 30% of traditional Labour voters who backed independence as a means of decoupling from a UK polity which was being controlled by the hard right Toryism of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Now that the SNP have effectively ditched independence there's no reason for any former Labour voter to stay with them. During this campaign, the SNP's obsession with gender politics also came home to roost: not so much on the doorsteps, but in the calibre of people they sent out to them. The course of the GRR debate didn't harm them as much as the resignations en masse of hard-working, intelligent and reasonable female activists who had been the backbone of their success between 2007 and 2024. They were missing at the UK election in 2024 and again last week in South Lanarkshire and the results are there for all to see. The disconnection between professional politics and the everyday people of Scotland has never been more starkly evident than with this party. A slew of poisonous social media attacks in the last 48 hours on the Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall voters by prominent SNP supporters (and at least one Councillor) has been depressing to behold. The clock is now ticking for John Swinney's leadership as the wage thieves on his backbenches begin to tumble to this and what it means for their mortgages and school fees. But time has already been called on Scottish independence. Counting begins for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election at the South Lanarkshire Council headquarters in Hamilton. (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Meanwhile, Scottish Labour should probably calm down now. To read some analysis of their admittedly adroit campaign in South Lanarkshire you'd have thought it had been run by alchemists who'd found the secret of turning base metal into gold. Behave yourselves. Labour has a longer term problem here and solving it will mean getting real about the challenge of Reform. In Scotland there has always been a large cohort of aspirational working class: well-informed; skilled and conservative in their community and family values. It was these people who handed the Conservatives the only electoral majority vote percentage in a Scottish election as they did in 1955. It has been thought that societal changes; the upward progression of the Irish/Catholic community in Scotland and the class malevolence of Thatcherism had killed mass Toryism for good. To admit to voting Tory in some of Scotland's working-class communities was to risk becoming a social and cultural pariah. But here's the nightmare scenario for Labour in Scotland. What if these voters hadn't merely held their noses and voted reluctantly for Reform as a howl against a supercilious Holyrood elite? What if instead they'd gladly voted for them because it didn't indicate class betrayal and was thus safe to do so? One senior Labour figure told me yesterday that the Scottish left in general, faced with the challenge of Reform, must re-imagine what it actually stands for. 'The Left in Scotland has been too focused on identity politics and flying flags for issues that aren't of concern to ordinary working people,' he told me. Scottish Labour's Davy Russell arrives at the count before being declared winner for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) 'There needs to be some very deep thinking on what we stand for on what it means to be on the Left. And then we must seek to communicate those priorities. You can say what you like about Tony Blair, but he built a broad coalition in a party where John Prescott, Gordon Brown and John Reid thrived.' It's doubtful if these men would get house-room inside Keir Starmer's Labour Party now. UK Labour is currently speaking to no-one but some of London's salon neighbourhoods around Canary Wharf, Islington and Shoreditch and the café society of the Southside of Glasgow. What Davy Russell represents is more in tune with what their former voters expect of Labour.
