Countdown begins on DWP's new powers to monitor bank accounts
The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill is set to start its rollout from 2026, according to government-published fact sheets. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions indicates that the bill could result in savings of £1.5 billion over the subsequent five years.
The new legislation includes provisions such as driving restrictions of up to two years for repeat offenders who fail to repay falsely claimed benefits, enhanced powers for the DWP to reclaim money directly from fraudsters' bank accounts, and an Eligibility Verification mechanism.
This Eligibility Verification Measure allows third-party entities, like banks, to identify potentially fraudulent benefit claimants. However, it does not provide the DWP with direct access to individual bank accounts despite widespread concerns when the plans were first announced.
It will not permit investigators to monitor the spending habits of benefit recipients. Instead, it will simply enable banks to work with department investigators in identifying individuals who have exceeded the eligibility criteria, as reported by the Daily Record.
For instance, if a Universal Credit recipient has savings exceeding the permitted threshold of £16,000. This can occur unintentionally when legitimate claimants are unaware that a change in circumstances affects their benefits eligibility.
As a result, the new powers could stop people from unknowingly racking up debt with the DWP and deter fraudsters from exploiting the welfare system. The Factsheets also indicate that there will be mechanisms in place to ensure "appropriate, proportionate, and effective use of the powers" to protect legitimate claimants.
According to guidance on Gov.uk: "The Government will begin implementing the Bill measures from 2026. For the Eligibility Verification Measure, the Government will implement a 'test and learn' approach to ensure the new powers to tackle public sector fraud are being used proportionally and effectively.
"DWP and the Cabinet Office will continue to work with industry to implement the new measures, consult stakeholders on Codes of Practice and publish guidance."
The DWP will also be able to request data from additional third-party organisations. Such as airlines, to check if individuals are claiming benefits while abroad, which may contravene eligibility criteria.
The factsheet also outlines potential penalties for banks and other financial institutions that overshare information and other safeguards that will protect legitimate benefit claimants.
The new measures in the bill will also empower the Public Sector Fraud Authority to:
Utilise its expertise on behalf of other departments
Enhance detection and prevention of incorrect payments through new information gathering and sharing powers
Employ robust non-criminal sanctions and civil penalties as an alternative to criminal prosecution and to deter fraud
Boost the government's ability to reclaim public money, through new debt recovery and enforcement powers
Exercise new powers of entry, search and seizure to alleviate the pressures on the police in the most serious criminal investigations
Better manage fraud in future emergencies building on lessons learned during COVID-19
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
23 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Swinney accuses Reeves of ‘channelling Thatcher' with financial reforms
John Swinney hit out in the wake of Ms Reeves's Mansion House speech which contained a package of reforms aimed at attracting more investment to the UK. Ahead of Tuesday evening's keynote address, there had been speculation among observers that the Labour Chancellor would 'channel Margaret Thatcher' with a new era of deregulation. Ms Reeves said she would be 'rolling back regulation that has gone too far' with plans to cut red tape in the City and reform banking rules, including the ring-fencing the financial sector, the Chancellor insisted the changes are needed for the UK to stay competitive in a more uncertain global economy. She said she had 'placed financial services at the heart of the Government's growth mission, recognising that Britain cannot succeed and meet its growth ambitions without a financial services sector that is fighting fit and thriving'. However Mr Swinney said: 'The very idea that a Labour Chancellor thinks that channelling Margaret Thatcher is what our economy needs is extraordinary. 'It is the very last thing we need as we try to recover from Tory austerity.' He added that people 'right across Scotland' had 'suffered terribly' during Conservative Mrs Thatcher's time as prime minister from 1979 to 1990, and that 'communities were decimated and countless livelihoods were thrown on the scrapheap'. Going on to claim the country is 'still dealing' with the impact of Thatcherism, Mr Swinney said: 'The UK economy does not work for Scotland. 'Rather than come up with serious solutions to fix it, Labour are doubling down on the same agenda that has failed before. 'We do not need an effort to replicate Thatcher's agenda – we need bold action and investment to tackle the effects of Thatcher that are still with us. 'Labour could relax their fiscal rules or make the choice to ask higher earners to pay a little more to unlock investment, just as we have done in Scotland.' But the First Minister said the UK Government 'clearly lack the political courage' to do this. He added: 'Scotland was promised change by Labour – instead we have been given the same tired economic policies, and efforts to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable. 'We have learned that you cannot trust a word Labour say before an election – and that if Scotland is to create an economy that works for everyone, the only way we can do so is as an independent country.'
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
New idea to tax inherited pensions worth £90k-plus floated - instead of imposing inheritance tax
The Government is being urged to slap income tax on inherited pensions worth £90,000-plus instead of making them liable for inheritance tax. Another option is to impose a tax charge at death on unspent pensions worth £150,000, £200,000 or £250,000, according to a finance industry group calling for a radical rethink of inheritance tax changes due in two years' time. Just levying income tax or charges on inherited pensions direct would reduce the burden on grieving families yet still rake in around the same amount of money, The Investing and Saving Alliance has told the Government. Tisa says its plan would also avoid unnecessary delays in sorting out estates - which can trigger interest of 8.25 per cent on unpaid inheritance tax from six months after a death - and changes in behaviour of people saving into and accessing their pensions. Inheritance tax is levied at 40 per cent on estates above a certain size. The Government announced in last year's Budget that money remaining in pension pots is going to become liable for the tax like other assets, such as property, savings and investments, starting in spring 2027. The move is part of an inheritance tax raid which includes freezing the current main tax-free thresholds until 2030 and reforms to agricultural and business property reliefs. How would taxing inherited pensions direct work? Two alternative plans for taxing pensions at death have been offered by Tisa in a report produced in partnership with Oxford Economics. 1. Income tax Pensions and death benefits worth £90,000-plus would be inherited as a lump sum, and beneficiaries would pay income tax at their marginal rate - meaning on any income over and above their personal allowance, currently £12,570, or higher thresholds. Only beneficiaries who were dependants could make pension withdrawals as taxable income over time. 2. Tax charge A standalone, flat tax charge would be imposed on inherited pension funds and death benefits above a certain threshold - and there would be no exemption for spouses. Three potential combinations of thresholds and flat rates are suggested. - A 25 per cent rate and £150,000 threshold) - A 30 per cent rate and £200,000 threshold - A 35 per cent rate and £250,000 threshold If a saver was aged over 75 when they die, their beneficiaries would still have to pay their normal income tax rate of 20 per cent, 40 per cent or 45 per cent on pension withdrawals too Renny Biggins, head of retirement at Tisa says: 'The Government's proposal to include unused pension funds within IHT risks creating unnecessary stress and delays for grieving families and causing long-term behavioural change among consumers that we don't yet fully understand, particularly around pension contribution levels and withdrawals. 'Instead, our research offers alternative approaches to consider, which would protect vulnerable people, support grieving families, and preserve confidence in pension saving. 'We show that you can still meet the Government's fiscal and policy goals without creating additional issues and concerns for people at the worst possible time.' > How to avoid IHT raid on pensions: Find out your options below Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, says: 'While the decision to tax pensions on death is a matter for government, inheritance is arguably the most complex, time-consuming way of achieving that policy goal. 'If the Treasury refuses to budge, it will be the bereaved families of people who have saved diligently all their lives who will be left to handle this administrative nightmare. 'Anyone who has had the misfortune of dealing with IHT knows that probate can already be a tortuous process without throwing the complexity of potentially multiple pensions into the mix.' Selby says the alternatives set out by Tisa would be 'infinitely simpler and achieve exactly the same annual cost saving to the Exchequer'. Andrew Tully, technical director at Nucleus, says: 'Including pensions within the inheritance tax environment will deliver poor outcomes for customers, beneficiaries, personal representatives, the industry, and HMRC. 'This complex process will cause bereaved families confusion and stress at a difficult time and doesn't fit well with the support firms may want to provide people who are likely to be vulnerable following the death of a loved one. 'Most importantly it will significantly slow down the payment of death benefits and mean many beneficiaries will lose out financially after inheritance tax late payment interest penalties are levied.' Tully believes the Tisa research demonstrates the Government could increase its tax take on wealthier people passing on pension wealth, while avoiding the numerous problems of bringing pensions into inheritance tax. He says it should seriously consider alternatives rather than simply push ahead with the proposed 'complex and punitive' rules. Anne Fairweather, head of government affairs and public policy at Hargreaves Lansdown, says: 'The government's proposed changes have caused confusion for people's retirement strategies and will bring extra complexity to families at an already difficult time having lost a loved one. 'The challenges of such an approach include the issues of finding lost pensions, filing the right forms, and valuing assets all within a defined period. 'Delays in the process risk families, some of whom could be dependent on the deceased's income, being left waiting for much needed money and potentially paying interest to HMRC. 'There's also the added challenge that confusion around how the inheritance tax system works may lead to people making sub-optimal decisions that they may come to regret.' 'People may think inheritance tax applies to all pensions for instance when it doesn't and make decisions based on that mistaken assumption. It could also include gifting away too much money too early and leaving people struggling later on.' 'This [Tisa] report shows that if the government is committed to tax reform of pensions on death, then there are easier ways to do it, and this should be used as a springboard for a wider discussion on the best way forward.' How do you avoid the looming inheritance tax raid on pensions? Many savers with larger pensions are keen to avoid the new inheritance tax levy, and there are ways to do this legitimately - though some are more sensible than others, depending on your wealth and personal circumstances. First off, consider consider if you really are likely to have a big enough estate to pay inheritance tax, especially after you have spent down your pensions and other assets during retirement. Check the rules in the box further below, before you start worrying about your beneficiaries paying inheritance tax after you are gone. If you have cause for concern, consider the following options. 1. If you can afford it, you can spend or gift as much of your pensions as possible, while avoiding a big income tax bill. Recent research showed many savers with larger pensions intend to spend them by splashing out on more holidays. Bear in mind it is better to avoid crystallising losses by making bigger pension withdrawals in market downturns. 2. Consider gifting out of surplus income, which remains inheritance tax-free providing you can afford it. We explain how to do this and prove to the taxman you are doing it from actual surplus income. A This is Money reader explains how he is doing this to pass his wealth to his two daughters. 3. Look into buying life insurance and putting it in trust. This can mean your loved ones get a payout straight after your death and free of inheritance tax - but you have to set it up correctly. Here's how to put life insurance into trust, but be aware that premiums can be high especially as you get older, and if you cancel a policy you immediately lose all the benefits of taking it out in the first place. 4. Leave more or all of your estate to your spouse, who can still benefit from estates free of inheritance tax, instead of your children to delay and minimise the eventual bill. Wealth manager Evelyn Partners has suggested there could be a marriage boom or rise in civil partnerships among older couples as a result of the inheritance tax changes - read its six options to cut inheritance tax on pensions. 5. Buying an annuity is another option which Evelyn Partners explores. Meanwhile, beware - although some people have raised the idea of siphoning pension funds into stocks and shares Isas, these are also liable for inheritance tax, and there are other pitfalls. A financial planner from Quilter Cheviot explains how switching pensions into Isas can backfire. How much is inheritance tax and who pays? Inheritance tax is levied at 40 per cent on estates above a certain size. You need to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 jointly if you are married or in a civil partnership, for your loved ones to have to stump up inheritance tax. A further allowance, the residence nil rate band, increases the threshold by £175,000 each - so £350,000 for a married couple - for those who leave their home to direct descendants. This creates a potential maximum joint inheritance tax-free total of £1million. This own home allowance starts being removed once an estate reaches £2million, at a rate of £1 for every £2 above the threshold. It vanishes completely by £2.3million. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in the Budget these thresholds will be frozen until 2030.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Angela Rayner's reforms will crush jobs, business chiefs warn
Angela Rayner's workers' rights reforms will 'pull the ladder of employment away', the head of the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) has warned. Shevaun Haviland, a former No10 official, warned that more rigid employment rules meant companies could 'see their entire employment model disappear'. Rather than adjust, Ms Haviland warned many businesses would 'stop recruiting altogether'. Writing in The Telegraph, the BCC chief said: 'With nearly 1m young people unemployed, this also risks making it even harder for the next generation of workers to get their foot in the door. 'Now is the time for the Government to take a step back and act on the very genuine concerns that employers are raising about some key proposals in the Bill.' Ms Haviland also called on the Chancellor to rule out further tax rises for businesses in the autumn, saying that the combination of excessive regulation and high taxation had left companies 'wading through treacle'. The intervention comes as Labour's Employment Rights Bill is further debated in the House of Lords. The legislation, which is being overseen by Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, has been called the biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation. The reforms include plans to make it easier for workers to strike and do their jobs from home, 'day-one' rights against unfair dismissal and a ban on zero-hours contracts. However, the scale, speed and cost of the reforms have alarmed business leaders, who fear the new rules will trigger a blizzard of tribunal claims that will tie up companies in the courts. Lord Wolfson, the boss of Next, told peers earlier this week that it also risks leaving businesses 'chronically overstaffed' by making it harder to employ part-time workers. Ms Rayner has so far resisted pressure to water down the changes. However, Labour recently extended the timeline for the implementation of the new rules in a slight concession to businesses. Stronger paternity leave rights and whistleblowing protections will be rolled out by April 2026. However, the right to take companies to court for unfair dismissal from the first day of employment, and a right for staff to work from home will now not come into force until 2027, which was later than expected. Ms Haviland said businesses still needed more time. She called on ministers to 'slow the pace of change, to give business proper time to adapt'. Opponents are desperately trying to soften the reforms before they become law, with some peers this week backing a move to keep workers on zero-hours contracts. Paul Nowak, head of the TUC unions, said ministers siding with bad bosses were 'out of touch and defying the will of the public'. The Government is going too far and too fast By Shevaun Haviland, British Chamber of Commerce director general Later this year, the Government will pass the most far-reaching employment law changes in nearly three decades. In that moment, it will set in motion reforms that will affect every business and every worker. No company will be left untouched. The ambition is immense, and the Government is absolutely right to push for the best deal for British workers. But at the British Chambers of Commerce we represent tens of thousands of businesses up and down the country. I talk to them every day, and there is one message they keep giving back to me: they're worried. They're worried about reforms they feel they were never properly consulted on – changes that could fundamentally alter their business models or make it harder to talk to their own workers. Above all, they're worried about the speed with which the changes are coming. In our recent survey, 77pc of businesses said they thought the pace of implementation was wrong. Because business plans for the long-term. When the Government talks about giving a year to adapt, it thinks it's being generous. In reality, that's a significant challenge for businesses, especially SMEs, who might see their entire employment model disappear. Don't just take my word for it. Instead, listen to the manufacturer in the East Midlands who told us they can't afford 'extensive background checks or HR support' as a small business. For them, these reforms add to the cost, complexity and risk of employing people. So, their answer to the Government's plan to give employees access to slow and expensive employment tribunals on their first day is simple: they'll stop recruiting altogether. Just think about that. The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will pull the ladder of employment away from those trying to get into the job market. And with nearly 1m young people unemployed, this also risks making it even harder for the next generation of workers to get their foot in the door. Meanwhile, it is also pledging the most radical overhaul of trade union laws in a generation. Good industrial relations are vital, and every employee deserves fair rights at work. But the Employment Rights Bill makes it easier to call strikes, and faster to carry them out. As the legislation stands, just 2pc of the workforce would need to be in a union for it to gain recognition. And it is doing all of this when just 2pc of firms think that more trade union involvement would have a beneficial impact on their business and its workforce. So, it can't be any surprise that nearly four fifths of businesses have told us they don't think the Government has properly assessed the impact of its policies. We agree. The additional cost of all of this is a major concern. When the Government did its initial assessment of the plans, it estimated the cost to business stood at £5bn. This cost is being piled on top of the billions already being taken from firms by the increase in National Insurance. Nearly a year on, with the Government's focus now turning to implementation, we remain no less concerned about the costs to business and firms' ability to cope with the enormous scale of changes to come. Now is the time for the Government to take a step back and act on the very genuine concerns employers are raising about some key proposals in the Bill. It should remove counterproductive provisions on trade union thresholds and ensure employers have legal rights to dismiss new employees who are underperforming, without an employment tribunal. It needs to properly assess the costs it is going to impose. And it should slow the pace of change, to give business proper time to adapt. And, as we look to the Budget in autumn, we have one message for the Chancellor: no new taxes on business. The increase in employer National Insurance contributions has stopped businesses investing in growth, and the Employment Rights Bill is yet another burden.
