Starmer faces Labour revolt over plan to raid bank accounts of benefit claimants
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
Scotsman
16 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: Calling Nicola Sturgeon 'divisive' is Orwellian revisionism
A reader takes issue with critics describing the ex-first minister as a 'divisive' figure 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... Nicola Sturgeon's autobiography has her critics claiming that she was a 'divisive' leader. But I seem to recall Anas Sarwar demanding a Gaza ceasefire when his boss at Westminster was vehemently opposed to it. That was followed by the disciplining of Labour MPs in Westminster for refusing to obey Keir Starmer's welfare diktats. Yet I have never heard Kier Starmer's management style being described as 'divisive'. It was the same with Boris Johnson. Rather than supporting Theresa May he worked behind her back to sabotage her Brexit deal in order to become leader. He then set about expelling those party members who expressed concern about his behaviour. Is that not a more realistic example of being divisive? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It's perhaps worth pointing out that Nicola Sturgeon became SNP leader after the failed 2014 referendum. Nationalism was subsequently declared 'dead in the water' by many of the journalists now claiming she was divisive. Yet within a year she had secured an unprecedented 56 out of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster. On top of that party membership rose to a reputed 125,000 under her stewardship. She succeeded in not only winning over the disaffected within her own party but also persuading voters from other parties to switch allegiance. How is that the hallmark of a 'divisive' personality? A display stand of copies of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon's memoir Frankly at Waterstones bookshop on Glasgow's Argyle Street (Picture: Craig Meighan/PA Wire) Invariably the Holyrood Gender Reform Bill is cited as the prime example of this divisive leadership style. But there was division within nearly all the parties. Some Tories defied their leadership to vote in favour whilst some Labour members followed suit to vote against. That polarisation was there because of the nature of the subject matter rather than a style of government. Despite that Ms Sturgeon persuaded supporters from all parties to unite behind the bill and get it passed. So is this an Orwellian revisionism where unity is now classed as division? Robert Menzies, Falkirk Tears of joy Sobbing on the floor when the police visited, crying in the Holyrood toilets after being bullied by an MSP, teary on delivery of her book, floods of tears during the Covid inquiry: I've only read snippets of Nicola Sturgeon's book but it does seem like one big tear-jerker. Perhaps its title should have been 'Merry Christmas' after that time-honoured Scottish saying: 'She's like a Christmas caird, aye greetin'.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As female statespersons go, compared to the likes of Angela Merkel, Golda Meir or Madeline Albright it appears Scotland had an incompetent big girl's blouse as first minister and it's we Scottish voters who should be shedding tears – of joy – at her very public, self-inflicted demise. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Freedom at last A former Scottish Nationalist first minster, in the process of releasing her memoirs, has stated that she wants to live in London and enjoy the freedom of life in the capital city of the UK. Good luck to her. An added bonus to the freedom she seeks is that her tax bill will be considerably smaller than if she chose to stay in the country she wanted to separate and break off from the UK. She will have a bumper pension, which in itself many find galling as she barely showed her face at Holyrood in the last couple of years, so the tax question is important. In Scotland they tend to hammer 'the rich'. Rank hypocrisy appears to be a prerequisite to being a nationalist first minister. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh Shabby capital Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I have just enjoyed a two-day stay in Edinburgh, blessed by good weather, great entertainment and charming Scottish staff wherever we went. However, as a wheelchair user I was shocked by the state of the pavements throughout the centre of town. My partner was exhausted trying to push the chair over broken paving stones, precipitous 'dropped kerbs', holes in the walkways and general dereliction. I was forced to 'dismount' regularly to enable us to progress. Fortunately I am able to do that. Others less fortunate must have a terrible time using their wheelchair. Visiting friends in the New Town we were shocked by the grass and weeds growing out of the pavements. These wonderful streets, which should be the pride and joy of Edinburgh Council, looked rundown and shabby. The magnificent Georgian architecture was diminished by the thickets of grass growing out of the pavements and gutters. I was informed that this was rewilding at work. As a landowner with a passion for regenerative agriculture I regarded this explanation as pathetic. The idea that any meaningful contribution to rewilding was provided by this pathetic growth is risible. Alun Brooks Moore, Morpeth, Northumberland Thumbs up The Festival, Oasis, the Red Arrows and the Tattoo – a great safe weekend for everyone, well managed. Thank you, Edinburgh. Linda Dooks, Boroughbridge, North Yorkshire Safe bet Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I would like to thank Dr Iona Colfescu who is employed by the University of St Andrews, for her letter about Sunday's wildfire on Arthur's seat (13 August). I won a wager with friends that someone would enter the debate inferring that wildfires were more frequent because of mankind, not a naturally changing climate. According to the fire service the huge gorse blaze was likely sparked by 'human activity'. Experts have said that most wildfires in Scotland are caused by the actions of people, whether malicious or otherwise. BBQs and cigarettes? Dr Rory Hadden, Rushbrook senior lecturer in fire investigation at the University of Edinburgh agreed with this but then had to spoil it all by saying: 'More generally we are seeing increases in wildfires in the UK due to climate and land use change.' No word on the obvious – that the areas susceptible to fire should be cut back and the owners of the land are paid to do this on a regular basis. Prevention is better than cure. Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian Fishing expedition This time of year used to be called the 'silly season' because there wasn't any news when Parliament was in recess. Nowadays, that is used for the usual propaganda about climate change. The BBC News at Ten on Monday trotted out Justin Rowlatt as usual to scare us with his latest update. This time, it was on changes to the fish off the coast of Cornwall. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Rowlatt commented of tuna fish: 'These huge fish started appearing in the waters of the south-west about a decade ago.' Wrong. Now, the tuna, or tunny is an old friend returning here after many decades, if they haven't been around already for quite some time. They were described as 'disgracefully overfished' in 2004 and the Brexit agreement was meant to protect our waters, until Labour gave them up recently for nothing. If they have been absent, we can thank fishing for that, not climate change. However, Mr Rowlatt was dramatically reporting on the supposed return of tuna implying that this was as a result of 'temperatures (which) have risen gradually over the last 40 years'. However, as in so much of the climate change fear-mongering, a little basic research shows otherwise. For example, in newspaper reports from the time, there was a 'record catch' of 'tunny' in the North Sea in 1933 and the 'tunny fishing season is with us again' in 1934! This is on a par with reports about the Arctic melting in the same way. Such articles are oblivious to such newspaper headlines as 'The Arctic Seas are getting hot' (1922) and 'The Arctic is melting' in 1949. Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh Pray for guidance Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rows over the sales of church buildings begs the fundamental question: are churches there to serve their communities or is it the role of communities to serve their churches? The Church of Scotland, rather like its sister religious institutions, seems to take the latter view. Perhaps this is one reason for the empty churches. The Church could do no better now than to pay back its faithful communities for centuries of service by giving them – yes, giving, as in offering – the buildings they need. An impoverished Church might find it easier to enter Heaven. Rodney Pinder, Kelso, Scottish Borders Plans combined John Swinney's stated route to independence is by securing a second referendum, this granted by Westminster in recognition of a majority of SNP MSPs in the 2026 Holyrood election. But a significant faction of SNP members, represented by 43 branches or more, consider that the path to independence is defined by treating the 2026 election itself as a de-facto referendum; a majority of list votes for pro-independence parties would signal freedom. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Are these plans mutually exclusive? Those wishing independence can vote SNP in the constituency vote; even those independence-seeking voters who have left the SNP, knowing this plan, can hold their nose and vote for them. But all voters wishing independence can vote for other pro-independence parties in the list. If everyone votes for the SNP in the constituency vote, their votes for the SNP in the list will be wasted, but if they go to other pro-independence parties, the pro-independence majority will be increased. Such a plan, if well-publicised by a widespread campaign by all aligned groups, as in 2014, could easily secure a majority of SNP MSPs, a super-majority of independence-supporting MSPs, and a majority of voters for Yes. Ken Gow, Banchory, Aberdeenshire Write to The Scotsman
New Statesman
17 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The lost art of political oratory
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 17: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks at a civil society summit on July 17, 2025 in London, England. (Photo by Frank Augstein -) I am writing this from a crammed Edinburgh Festival where the appetite for live shows is close to insatiable. Everywhere there are insane queues for the latest performances. Evidently people ache to be away from their phones and social media for a bit and gather to watch a performance or a performer. There are limits to being on X alone. I am one of those who ache. I perform my own show in Edinburgh and elsewhere on the dramas and characters that shape the current wild world of politics. But above all I am a spectator. I watch fascinated as a single person alone on a stage can hold an audience for an hour or more. For the best solo performers there are no props or music. They have words and their voices to mouth them. The audience is bound together by the simple magic. I watch the best stand-ups throughout the year and only recently have I realised why I do so. They fill a big gap. I used to travel fair distances to watch the great political speakers at live events, often for work but not always. Now the orators have disappeared. The political stage is silent as their stand-up equivalents flourish. I would not rush to the end of my road to see many contemporary political speakers. Keir Starmer will never cast a spell over an audience, a problem for him and one reason why he is accused of lacking purpose. His cabinet has qualities but a capacity to hold an audience with a speech is not one of them. There are no Michael Heseltines on the Tory benches to excite activists and those that might be vaguely interested in politics. Currently only Nigel Farage holds big meetings that captivate his audiences but he is not an especially impressive speaker. He stands out because he is better than anyone else at the moment. Jeremy Corbyn might start to pack out halls again with his new party but he is not remotely in the same league as his hero, Tony Benn. The so-called mainstream parties that once erupted with powerful speakers are bereft of such public advocates. Most are cautiously robotic. A few, like Wes Streeting, are brilliant interviewees but do not make memorable speeches. Others try too hard to excite but in their transparent effort become less interesting as speechmakers. Robert Jenrick springs to mind. His speech at last year's Tory conference was dismal on many levels. The decline in oratory is relatively recent. As a student in the early 1980s I was a regular attender, like Corbyn, of Benn's live events, each of them packed. I never heard Benn make a bad speech. I used to take girlfriends to them for a night out, though the relationships did not last long. But Benn was funny, seeking to make the connections between disparate current events and historical ones. Before long he had moved from Jesus Christ to the Chartists, then the suffragettes, before his prediction that if Labour followed his ideas it would win the next election. The rapturous response was part of the theatre of it all. I was not necessarily converted to Bennism but his rallies made me hugely excited about politics. I saw it could be as thrilling as any rock gig or conventional theatre. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe My view was reinforced when, as a student journalist, in 1983 I saw Neil Kinnock speak at a make-or-break by-election in Darlington, a contest Labour had to win for various highly charged reasons. The hall was so crammed, there was a huge overspill gathering. Kinnock's style was very different from Benn's and by then he had defined himself against 'Bennism'. He was speaking as a loyalist whereas Benn had the advantage of being the romantic rebel taking on the leadership. This did not stop Kinnock from holding the voters in thrall, his style that of a funny, passionate revivalist preacher. The crowds left resolved to vote for Kinnock's party in that crucial by-election. This was before he became leader. Kinnock did not win a general election but some of his speeches as leader will be cited forever, while tedious addresses by those moving carefully up the ministerial ladder are forgotten as they are being delivered. There was a similar charge of electricity when Michael Heseltine spoke at Conservative conferences. He still possesses the magic. A couple of months ago I interviewed him at the Cambridge Book Festival. They cheered when he walked in and when he left, captivated throughout. There were others to the right of Heseltine who could light up the stage, most famously Enoch Powell, though I never saw him live. The recordings show how he did it: the mannered intensity, a sense of heightened anticipation as he developed his provocative arguments. The speedy decline in oratory and huge public events began in the 1990s. There was a growing recognition that most voters only saw politicians delivering a soundbite on TV bulletins. That was therefore what mattered, politics compressed to 15 seconds. Tony Blair was a good speaker and an even better interviewee but he was part of the era where live events began to disappear. Only a few voters would attend. The rest would not be swayed by a mesmerising speech, so why bother making one? The current government's favoured form of communication seems to be allowing Sky's Beth Rigby to warn Keir Starmer how useless he is in near weekly exchanges between political editor and prime minister. Another favoured vehicle is the daily broadcasting round where an exhausted minister wakes at 5am and prepares for eight interviews in two hours where they are told by self-obsessed interviewers that 'all our viewers/listeners' want to know why the government has let them down. This is unlikely to inspire voters to engage in politics, let alone be excited by it. The deep disillusionment and boredom with democratic politics point to why the loss of great political performers matters. Not many can attend live events, but the sense of political vitality they generate goes well beyond the confines of the physical gathering. Naive broadcast editors agonise about how to attract younger audiences. Stand-ups do so with ease in Edinburgh and elsewhere. Meanwhile others are drawn into politics by the excitement. Years ago I recall Sadiq Khan hosting a gathering where Kinnock was the guest speaker. The future London Mayor said it was hearing a Kinnock speech that made him want to enter politics. He was by no means alone. Tories have said the same of Heseltine. Who would say that about a current politician? For big political figures the live event has a big advantage. It forces them to frame arguments for a speech. Governments or opposition parties cannot be shapeless if key figures are required to impress audiences by conveying their sense of purpose. This speechless Labour administration would have no choice but to think more attentively about what they are for. The live event should be only a small part of the political repertoire. Many other outlets matter too. But its disappearance altogether outside the party conference season is a terrible loss. It leads to a drab politics without colour. No wonder voters turn away. All the energy in Edinburgh is available for politics. But that requires big politicians to come to life fearlessly and address voters with the art of the great political teachers of the recent past. Technocratic proclamations are dull. Boredom is dangerous. Meanwhile in the absence of any great political speeches I plan to see Stewart Lee several times this autumn. He can cast a spell. Steve Richards presents 'Rock N Roll Politics' at the Edinburgh Festival… a different show each day [See also: Visions of an English civil war] Related
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The ‘fake graduate jobs' locking school leavers out of work
Leaving school and going straight into work used to be the norm, but last year just one in five 18-year-olds did so – and a new analysis of modern job specifications helps explain why. According to an upcoming report by Paul Wiltshire, 'Discrimination & Pretence of Graduate-only Jobs', entry-level positions and traineeships once snapped up by motivated school leavers are now being advertised as 'graduate-only.' The issue, argues Wiltshire – a parent campaigner against mass higher education and author of a research paper titled Why is the average Graduate Premium falling? – is that Labour's push for more than half of children to enter higher education has created a surplus of graduates desperate for work. Companies now know that even basic, low-paid roles can be filled by 21-year-olds with a degree. And with more and more positions categorised as graduate-only, increasing numbers of school leavers receiving their A-level results today are being forced down the university pathway, fuelling an arms race of dubious qualifications. Many emerge after three or four years, says Wiltshire, burdened with life-changing levels of debt and little or no improvement in their earning potential. 'If we raise the number of graduates being produced – in 2024, 495,000 UK applicants were accepted onto undergraduate courses – then it follows that we are likely to create a surplus of graduates,' he says. 'The jobs market has reacted by mopping up the surplus of graduates by dubiously defining more roles as being graduate only and created a whole new market in pretend graduate roles. Graduates end up settling for pretend graduate roles where there is no genuine reason why you need to have studied a further three years to do the job.' The flip side is that teenagers who feel more study is not for them, or whose parents cannot afford to top up inadequate university maintenance loans, are locked out of roles because they have become 'graduate only.' But do you really need a degree to work in these places? Bowling alley
