DWP bank account 'monitoring' start date to combat benefit fraud
The UK Government is vowing to introduce 'the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation' in a bid to save large sums slipping fraudulently out of the welfare system. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill could save taxpayers around £1.5 billion over the span of five years.
They are planning to slap persistent benefit cheats with driving bans of up to two years if they fail repeatedly to pay back money they owe, and could even take money directly from the bank accounts of fraudsters. On top of that, a new scheme called Eligibility Verification is being introduced, letting third parties like banks alert the DWP to dodgy benefit claims.
The DWP has issued an 11 in-depth factsheets on how the measures will be brought into play. The government intends to implement the new plans by 2026, reports the Daily Record.
The papers look at the safeguards and other measures designed to guarantee the "appropriate, proportionate, and effective use of the powers". The GOV.UK website says: "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 is ramping up its verification process for benefit claims. Officials will be able to get more information from third-party organisations like airlines in a bid to ensure no one is bending the rules by claiming benefits from overseas.
Eligibility verification measure
The DWP says it won't have direct access to the bank accounts of millions on means-tested benefits such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit, and Employment and Support Allowance. Instead, the DWP says it will team up with banks to identify claimants who might be flouting the eligibility rules for means-tested benefits - like earning over the £16,000 cap for Universal Credit - and use this information to probe potential overpayments or fraud.
The law aims to strictly define what data banks and other financial institutions can share with the DWP, with officials saying it explicitly rules out transaction details so that the DWP can't track how benefit recipients spend their money. Furthermore, the factsheet says banks and financial institutions could face penalties if they overshare information, such as transaction data.
Additionally, the document notes: "Any information shared through the Eligibility Verification Measure will not be shared on the presumption or suspicion that anyone is guilty of any offence."
New DWP measures to tackle fraud
The forthcoming Bill is designed to guarantee that taxpayer money is put to the best possible use:
New requirements for banks and building societies to flag where there is an indication there may be a breach of eligibility rules for benefits in a bid to prevent debts building up.
All the powers will, the DWP says, include strong safeguards to ensure they are only used appropriately and proportionately - including new inspection and reporting mechanisms.
Allowing DWP to recover debts from people no longer on benefits and not in PAYE employment who can pay money back but have avoided doing so.
New powers of search and seizure - so DWP can control investigations into criminal gangs defrauding the taxpayer.
DWP will, they say, have a clearly defined scope and clear limitations for the use of all the powers it is introducing, and staff will be trained to the highest possible standards.
DWP officials say the provisions in this Bill will also empower the Public Sector Fraud Authority to:
Use new powers of entry, search and seizure to reduce the burdens on the police in the most serious criminal investigations.
Better detect and prevent incorrect payments across the public sector through new information gathering and sharing powers.
Reduce fraud against the public sector by using its expertise to take action on behalf of other departments against those who attack the public sector.
Use strong non-criminal sanctions and civil penalties to provide an alternative to criminal prosecution and to deter fraud.
Improve the government's ability to recover public money, through new debt recovery and enforcement powers.
Improve fraud management in future emergencies by creating specialist time limited powers to be used in crisis management situations - 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
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Wrexham MP compares UK parental leave to European countries
MP for Wrexham Last week the UK Government announced a long-awaited review into the pay and leave that new parents can get after the birth of a child. The system has not been reviewed for years and in that time, peoples' working habits and families have changed. The Women and Equalities Committee recently reported that the UK's parental leave system was "one of the worst in the developed world" with "fundamental flaws". According to the campaign group The Dad Shift, one in three fathers take no paternity leave at all (paternity leave is currently 2 weeks in the UK) and despite shared parental leave being available, UK Government data shows that it is rarely taken. The UK system is also confusing to navigate with eight different types of parental leave available. Statutory maternity pay is less than half of the weekly National Living Wage for example. There are some interesting comparisons and approaches across Europe. In Spain for example, fathers can have 16 weeks at full pay, including for those who are self-employed. There is no cap on the salary paid. It means parental leave is now equal between parents in Spain. In Denmark, fathers including those who are self-employed, can take up to 24 weeks off work at full pay supported by the state. After eleven weeks, the remaining 13 weeks can be transferred to the birth partner to be used as extra maternity leave. Parents also have the option to postpone up to 13 weeks of parental leave until their child is aged nine. Research by the Centre for Progressive Policy found that there was a 4% decrease in the gender wage gap in countries with more than 6 weeks of paid paternity leave. Furthermore only 18% of people they surveyed felt that 2 weeks of paternity pay in the UK was enough. So, there is plenty to work on and to consider. The review is expected to take 18months. If you would like to raise anything with me about this issue or any other, please contact my office on 01978 788854 or email
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Ian Blackford: SNP must offer Scots a bold economic plan
Mr Blackford warned that the dire state of the UK's public finances would have direct consequences for Holyrood, whose budget is heavily dependent on decisions taken at Westminster. Read more: 'For the SNP Government, whose budget is largely based on Barnett consequentials, it means an ongoing squeeze on real-terms spending,' he wrote. 'The 2026 election will largely focus on devolved responsibilities, but the capacity to deliver over the next Parliament will be constrained by the UK financial settlement.' Mr Blackford said the scale of the UK's fiscal challenge was stark. The tax burden continues to rise, with the UK Government's own forecasts suggesting the tax-to-GDP ratio will hit 37.7% by 2027–28 — the highest level seen in peacetime Britain. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said this could rise to 38% later in the decade. Yet despite the record tax take, the UK Government is still struggling to balance the books. Public sector net debt now stands at £2.87 trillion — around 96.4% of GDP — the highest May debt-to-GDP ratio in modern times. Servicing that debt costs more than £100 billion a year, or roughly 3.9% of GDP. All of this is adding to the pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has committed to not borrowing to fund day-to-day public spending, and to get debt falling as a share of GDP by 2029–30. She has limited choices following last week's U-turn on the welfare bill, which wiped out a projected £5bn saving. Labour has insisted it will keep its election promises not to increase income tax, National Insurance or VAT, but Ms Reeves has reportedly told Cabinet colleagues further hike may now be necessary in the Autumn Budget. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Chancellor may ultimately need to find an additional £25bn to £30bn by 2028 to avoid imposing deep cuts to public spending. Mr Blackford said there little chance of Ms Reeves scrapping her fiscal rules, and borrowing more. 'The financial markets will punish the Chancellor if she tries to increase borrowing, and she knows this,' he wrote. 'Put simply, the financial markets will largely determine the fate of the Chancellor and our fiscal future.' The prospect of a new Chancellor who might change the borrowing rules has already spooked the markets. When Ms Reeves was seen crying in the Commons at Prime Minister's Questions — after Sir Keir Starmer refused to back her — the pound fell against the dollar and the euro, while gilt yields soared. Rachel Reeves wipes away a tear during PMQsMr Blackford, a former investment banker, said: 'International comparisons make clear that investors impose a risk premium on UK debt. The current 10-year UK Government gilt yield is 4.5%. In Germany, it is 2.6%. In Switzerland, a modest 0.4%. Our neighbour Ireland has a rate of 2.8%. 'We are paying a price for the perception of investors of a lack of financial competence. We make jokes about Liz Truss and her cataclysmic approach to financial management, but her predecessors and successors hardly earn an A-plus.' Mr Blackford said the result would be a period of sustained pressure on public services across the UK, including in Scotland. 'For the public, the catastrophic failure to deliver an economic policy that supports sustainable growth has meant declining living standards,' he wrote. 'The last Westminster Parliament was the first in the post-war period during which living standards fell. I would not bet on this Parliament delivering a different outcome.' He also warned of the UK's limited ability to cope with any future economic shocks. 'Heaven help us if we face another external shock, given UK PLC's balance sheet. I shudder to think how the UK could finance another Covid-style crisis.' However, the bleak picture, he said, presented the SNP with an opportunity. 'Politics ought to be about hope. The SNP can seize the opportunity to paint a landscape showing how things could be different in Scotland,' he wrote. 'I have previously argued for the establishment of an industrial council. It is much needed. Or, if one is not to be established, the SNP at the very least needs to set out how it will drive a step change in investment, jobs and growth. 'We have the opportunity to drive economic opportunity from our massive potential in green energy — not green energy in itself, but using that power to create a sustainable green industrial future, building on our strategic opportunity to create a competitive advantage from affordable green energy. 'Doing our bit for net zero while creating the circumstances for a sustainable increase in economic growth.' Ian Blackford called on the SNP to look at establishing an Industrial CouncilMr Blackford argued that Scotland's ability to achieve this economic renewal was inextricably linked to the case for independence. 'When we talk about independence, it is not about an abstract concept. It is about transforming life chances. More of the same within the UK — low growth and public services under pressure — can be broken. 'The SNP needs to spell out how it can change the landscape and unlock economic growth by harnessing our natural resources and, of course, our human capital. There is a better way. It is up to our leaders to chart it.' Read more: Currently, around one-third of Scotland's budget comes via the Barnett formula, meaning UK Government spending decisions directly influence Holyrood's funding envelope. Last month, Ms Reeves set out her spending plans for the next three years, with the Scottish Government due to see a £9.1bn increase in funding during that period. A breakdown of the spending, released yesterday by the UK Government, showed that included a £5.8bn rise in health spending. Education consequentials were worth £2.1bn, while justice spending added £451m, housing and local government £380m, and transport £807m. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray hailed the increase, saying: 'The UK Government's Plan for Change has delivered the largest real terms settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution began in 1999, and ensured a definitive end to austerity in Scotland with £9.1bn more for the Scottish Government until the end of the decade. 'That's £9.1bn over and above record real terms budgets. 'That's more money than ever before for the Scottish Government to invest in Scottish public services like our NHS, police, housing and schools. 'It is for the Scottish Government to determine how it spends this money. 'It is notable, however, that almost £6bn of additional funding has been generated by health spending, and over £2bn has been generated by spending on education. 'Many Scots will expect to see better outcomes in their schools and hospitals given this record funding.' However, Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison said the settlement still left Scotland short-changed. 'The UK Spending Review document sets out in black and white that our funding for day-to-day spending is set to grow by only 0.8% over the next three years, compared with 1.2% average growth for UK Government departments,' she said. 'This will short-change us by £1.1bn. 'What's more, we face an estimated £400m shortfall from the UK Government's failure to fully fund their employer National Insurance increase.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Blackford: The markets are in charge now, not the Chancellor
We can debate how we got here. However, the harsh reality is that the Chancellor has the responsibility to chart a course off the current path. Given spending commitments and the lack of fiscal headroom, tax rises are coming again. Indeed, we now know that Rachel Reeves has told the Cabinet this. The pattern of the last few years is recurring, although tax rises cannot be matched by another increase in borrowing. The financial markets will punish the Chancellor if she tries to increase borrowing, and she knows this. Put simply, the financial markets will largely determine the fate of the Chancellor and our fiscal future. The consistent increase in tax and borrowing over the last 17 years is not sustainable. The party is over. We had the spending. Get set for the financial hangover. The Government's own forecasts suggest tax will rise to 37.7% of GDP by 2027–28, the highest tax-to-GDP ratio of all time. Higher and higher is not a compelling mantra. We ought to be focusing on how to turbocharge economic growth as a source of tax receipts, using growth receipts to invest in public spending and, over the longer term, seeking to pay down debt. What is missing is a material programme to drive up growth and investment. Where is the sense of urgency that recognises an acceleration of growth over a sustained period is the only way of improving finances and allowing for the investment in public services we all want to see? It is the lack of consistent, material economic growth over the last 17 years that led to increased Government spending as a shock absorber for the financial crisis, Covid, and the impact of the cost of living. That is what has resulted in today's high-debt, high-tax outcome. Heaven help us if we face another external shock, given UK PLC's balance sheet. I shudder to think how the UK could finance another Covid-style crisis. When Labour was last in power from 1997 to 2010, reasonable economic growth allowed for public sector investment to grow without increasing Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Indeed, the ratio fell from 37.4% of GDP to 36.3% of GDP between 1997 and 2007. The financial crisis of 2008 saw the Government having to stand behind the financial system, and by 2010 the debt ratio had increased to 70.3%. It has climbed continuously since, reaching 96.4% in May 2025, a record for any May, up from 95.9% the previous year. Never mind the ratio. Our debt now sits at a mouth-watering £2,867 billion and results in debt servicing costs of over £100 billion. That is a lot of cash that could have been invested in public services. International comparisons make clear that investors impose a risk premium on UK debt. The current 10-year UK Government gilt yield is 4.5%. In Germany, it is 2.6%. In Switzerland, a modest 0.4%. Our neighbour Ireland has a rate of 2.8%. We are paying a price for the perception of investors of a lack of financial competence. We make jokes about Liz Truss and her cataclysmic approach to financial management, but her predecessors and successors hardly earn an A-plus. The financial markets have delivered their judgment on UK PLC. We are all paying the price. High interest rates crowd out public spending and also have a knock-on effect for business borrowers. The UK pays a premium and a higher cost of capital — additional costs that feed into higher prices. If I were the Chancellor, I would be concentrating not just on the budget for the coming year but on addressing the structural weaknesses that are self-evident in the UK. Hoping for growth will not do. For the public, the catastrophic failure to deliver an economic policy that supports sustainable growth has meant declining living standards. The last Westminster Parliament was the first in the post-war period during which living standards fell. I would not bet on this Parliament delivering a different outcome. It is little wonder the Tories paid a price at the UK General Election. But what next if Labour fails to deliver in this Parliamentary cycle? With an increasingly discontented population, the potential for populist parties is plain to see. The rise of Reform ought to worry all of us in the mainstream parties. The threat of a Reform government cannot be discounted. What does this mean for Scotland? For the SNP Government, whose budget is largely based on Barnett consequentials, it means an ongoing squeeze on real-terms spending. The 2026 election will largely focus on devolved responsibilities, but the capacity to deliver over the next Parliament will be constrained by the UK financial settlement. Politics ought to be about hope. The SNP can seize the opportunity to paint a landscape showing how things could be different in Scotland. I have previously argued for the establishment of an industrial council. It is much needed. Or, if one is not to be established, the SNP at the very least needs to set out how it will drive a step change in investment, jobs, and growth. We have the opportunity to drive economic opportunity from our massive potential in green energy. Not green energy in itself, but using that power to create a sustainable green industrial future — building on our strategic opportunity to create a competitive advantage from affordable green energy. Doing our bit for net zero while creating the circumstances for a sustainable increase in economic growth. When we talk about independence, it is not about an abstract concept. It is about transforming life chances. More of the same within the UK — low growth and public services under pressure — can be broken. The SNP needs to spell out how it can change the landscape and unlock economic growth by harnessing our natural resources and, of course, our human capital. There is a better way. It is up to our leaders to chart it. Ian Blackford was SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber from 2015 to 2024, and served as the party's Westminster leader from 2017 to 2022.
