To think this “crackdown” on benefit fraud is absolutely pathetic

I don’t understand what you mean by not having the facility to stop people paying into your bank account. If you’re claiming means tested benefits you will have provided bank statements when you first claimed and DWP routinely request banks statements periodically to check on claimants. I’m not being dishonest. I’m presenting the facts as I see them. The government will justify the use of AI as a tool to protect the public purse, by detecting fraud and error earlier and preventing same. And I wouldn’t bank on a Labour government stopping any of these plans. Starmer and his shadow work and pensions minister Liz Kendal, are said to think the plans don’t go far enough.

What good will examining my bank account do when I don't have the facility to stop anyone paying money into my account?

This proposal is not merely an extension of the existing agreement and its dishonest to present it as such. Its an entirely new proposal; the routine monitoring of innocent people who have not been accused or suspected of a crime is new.

👏👏👏. Very well said. Scary but true.

I think the lesson here is that if you are a means tested benefit claimant you need to examine your bank account before these plans take effect, and make sure you know what goes into your bank, as well as when and why. That way you’re sure you can justify everything if you are challenged.

The Tories like to float different plans to see how the public responds to them. If they perceive that the response is unfavourable then plans can be dropped. But I wouldn’t count on it with this - they have a solid reason for proposing to use AI to check claimant accounts. It’s cheap and it’s easy to implement, and the justification is that it’s to protect the public purse. As for the legality, it’s just an extension of legislation already in place - the ‘rights and responsibilities’ contract between DWP and claimant, which includes an agreement to the collection and sharing of information with other agencies. At present this includes the banks, where DWP suspects the claimant of fraud. The only difference is that AI will check all claimant accounts regularly. I could see DWP successfully arguing that this will better protect public funds by detecting fraud and error earlier.

Conservatives have always wanted a smaller state and to undo the achievements of post-war Western Europe after the 2WW in providing security for its people. They want and are slowly achieving the US model of people having to take out private insurance for things such as cover for long term sickness and disability as they know state support will be so meagre. Rich don’t care as can afford it, will cost middle-class more than the current universal system and the poor are left to rely on threadbare state support if they become sick and disabled as they can’t afford private insurance cover when on low wages. Professor McKee in an article in the BMJ entitled “The assault on universalism: how to destroy the welfare state” makes this exact point:

“Who benefits from this progressive degradation of the welfare state? Obviously not the lower classes. But nor do the middle classes, as the new, complex, and individualised systems are more expensive than what existed previously, often of poorer quality, and invariably far more complicated. The real beneficiaries are the very rich, who no longer have to pay for services they never used anyway”*

Global financial crash allowed the coalition govt to say back in 2010 austerity was necessary and begin shrinking state welfare support considerably plus public services cuts. Austerity was an economic failure and did not promote good economic growth. (By contrast, the USA launched a financial stimulus at that time under Obama and the American economy grew much more than the U.K.) Covid is now giving them another smokescreen for further cuts. Govt keep saying - and parroted by newspapers - a record number of people are on out of work sickness benefits, 2.6 million, and it is a national scandal. (Note these are separate to disability benefits) Yet this is the same figure as those on out of work sickness benefits in 2010. They declined a bit in subsequent years then have risen by approximately 450,000 after covid back to 2010 figure of 2.6 million.

* researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/20547/1/bmj.d7973.full.pdf

It's very easy to say "tax the rich" or make tax avoidance illegal but it's more complicated then that.

It’s the super rich who should be taxed more. According to the Sunday times rich list, the 1000 richest people in the UK increased their wealth by £500 billion since 2009. Whilst the majority of wage earners have found their standard of living drop since 2009, the super rich have seen their wealth soar. Yes, some would make changes if they were taxed more, but the govt could raise more revenue from them than currently and they should pay more after doing so spectacularly well from quantitive easing etc.

@Rosscameasdoody thanks so much for that information. It's absolutely terrifying, I pray there is a change of government before these worrying plans can ever be put in place.

Thank you
And no it does not. I think I'll be withdrawing mine in cash in the future. The idea of being spied on makes me extremely anxious even though I'm not actually doing anything wrong.

I can't see how its legal to link peoples benefits to an AI interpretation of their bank statement; at the same time its not possible for people to stop anyone paying money into their bank account.

The legislation to introduce AI monitoring of claimant bank accounts has already been introduced I think. There is already an agreement to data sharing in the contract between DWP and the claimant, so it’s just an extension of that - so instead of asking for periodic bank statements, DWP will utilise the banks’ capability to use AI to check claimants’ accounts every month. It’s being rolled out as part of the crackdown on UC claims, and will be extended to all means tested benefits in time. There are also plans to collect data on how benefit money is spent - doesn’t take a genius to work out how they’ll use that information.

He didn’t mention targeting those already claiming, or that the measures are being specifically aimed at those with LCWRA. He was, as I and a few others on the thread predicted, deliberately vague. But he did confirm that these plans would be enacted and the plans to force people into work placements if they’re still unemployed after 18 months will apply to everyone, including those currently in LCWRA, unless they have been redefined as unable to work under whatever eligibility criteria are introduced as part of the new system. The details of what’s being proposed can easily be found on various websites - I’ve posted a few links upthread.

Evasive is the word. And I haven't found anything regarding the plan to start spying on bank accounts.

Hopefully they'll drop that idea.

I'm either stupid or he's been extremely evasive but I watched the whole thing and I didn't think he mentioned targeting those already claiming sickness and disability benefits. Was he referring to those with LCWRA etc when he talked about forcing people into work placements if they'd been on benefits for so long and hadn't found a job? I'd like to see them put my psychotic dh into work experience somewhere, the place would be closed down by lunchtime!

I’m not entirely sure we could go back to something like sheltered workshops set up from scratch now to be honest. If you ask the ex employees I’m sure they would say that they would rather be gainfully employed at reduced rates in a supportive environment, than living on benefits - personally I think that’s a valid point of view but I’m not sure it would be acceptable these days. I think the bigger problem here was that the extra support promised to the ex employees never materialised and a fair proportion either found work under their own steam or remain unemployed. The Tories have an appalling record when it comes to their treatment of disabled claimants and if what happened with Remploy is anything to go by, I don’t hold out much hope for a fair shake for the disabled under these plans.

He announced the changes to the disability benefits system but, as predicted he didn’t go into any great detail, and he certainly didn’t make it clear that these proposals are aimed at the sickest and most disabled people in the country - people who have already been deemed to be unable to work by the present system. The government can’t change the fact that these people are too sick to work, so they have to change the system used to assess their ability to work - in other words they will move the goalposts, remove support and make it very difficult not to engage with the new process.

We have a government who are not interested in being fair to disabled people. They have systematically reduced support and introduced more conditionality on people who are least equipped to deal with it. Now they are after the group which presently have the protection of not being compelled to work or to engage in job search because they have been deemed to be too sick or disabled. Benefit fraud in disability benefits is around 0.5% - very low. I accept that even that figure isn’t ideal. But what I don’t accept is that that is the fault of the genuinely sick and disabled, and what your post demonstrates is that you fail to grasp that it is those people who will pay the price.

I also accept that it must be very difficult running a business at the moment and that it must be hard to accept that some abuse the benefit system. But we’re not discussing the cheats here. We’re discussing the genuinely very sick and disabled people now in the governments’ crosshairs for reduction in support and increase in conditionality which will see them forced to look for work - and let’s be clear, this will be any work they can get, and not necessarily suitable for their condition. As a result many will become sicker through the stress of trying to hold down employment, and some will die. DWP policy has already been responsible for claimant deaths and the department steadfastly refuses to make public a recent report into that.

Your whole post demonstrates that you have, like most people with little or no experience of disability benefits, bought completely and unthinkingly into the government narrative that will allow these plans to go ahead unchallenged. Well done.

Well. I'm not sure if im not searching correctly but I cannot find a damn thing about this in the reports on the budget.
Did he confirm this plan or not?

@pam290358 I worked for Remploy over 50 years ago, and was disappointed when first Labour closed around 30 factories in 2008, and then in 2012, the remaining 50+ were disposed of by the Tories. They were heavily subsidised, never profitable, but they, IMO, provided a safe working environment for people who might otherwise never have found work.

Would sheltered workshops still be acceptable places of employment in today’s society? I’m unsure.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/end-of-an-era-at-remploy-as-final-three-factories-are-sold/#:~:text=By%20the%20late%201980s%20there,would%20be%20sold%20or%20closed.

It's very easy to say "tax the rich" or make tax avoidance illegal but it's more complicated then that.
Opening a businesses is extremely risky and requires huge investments. Majority of businesses fail and very few manage to achieve big profits. That's why taxation is usually favourable towards businesses otherwise investors will just take their money elsewhere and the government will lose revenue all together. And especially after brexit UK is already not the most attractive place for businesses.

Don't even get me started on tax avoidance because saying it should be illegal shows how uneducated you are about tax and law. There are certain situations which reduce someone's profit and it's only fair that they then pay less tax. Otherwise it would be unjust.

People on benefits already sign up the agreement about transparency. The only thing that is going to change is AI will make things more efficient and cheaper. I think payments should not stop suddenly as that can cause unnecessary stress to honest claimants and yes that should be part of the conversation. But benefits fraud is much bigger problem then is assumed and people cheating the system take money away from those who need it and from hardworking tax payers.

Oh and yes I have experience of being on benefits so I understand both sides of this discussion before I'm accused of being "privileged".

I wonder how many of you have your own proper company? I wonder how many of you have experience of paying your own taxes and stress of running an established business? I assume not many judging by the comments.

Poor people don’t have the means to employ accountants to get around tax law. So it’s a double whammy and win win for the government.

And adding insult to injury, if they are under the savings threshold after a year, they will have to justify every penny spent in order to avoid being accused of deliberate deprivation of assets, and disqualified from benefit !!

freezing

Further the idea to reduce/cut inheritance tax whilst feeding benefits is disgraceful.

The reality is that beyond the plan to dismantle the work capability assessment - the mechanism which delivers support to those too sick to work - nothing else has been properly thought through. Lots of rhetoric on stick and almost no mention of carrot. No detail as to how these WFH jobs are to be sourced or how they plan to get employers on board with recruiting very vulnerable people. Or indeed how they’re going to reduce the NHS waiting lists which mean that many of these people are awaiting treatment/surgery before they can even think about work. And the plan to stop access to free prescriptions if they don’t conform gives you an idea of the short sighted thinking involved.

Anyone who trusts that the welfare of disabled people is centre to these plans would do well to remember 2010 when the Tories rushed through plans to close sheltered workshops like Remploy, which provided meaningful employment to many severely disabled people - the reasoning was that sheltered workshops were old fashioned and there were better ways to support severely disabled people into open employment. They promised extra ‘tailored’ support to those who lost their jobs. It never materialised and as a result, many of those people are still unemployed - part of the support group/LCWRA and once again in the governments’ crosshairs.

Traditionally, government ministers have hinted at controversial plans /cuts in the run up to budget statements, to test the water, so to speak. Speculation and trepidation build and then the announcement reveals the plans to be significantly different from what was touted. I don’t think that will happen here. I think the government has forcing as many disabled people as possible back into work firmly in its’ sights. I agree with this poster in that the plans will be announced in broad terms with very little detail and sold as ‘support’ - the detail will be saved for when legislation is in place to implement the proposals and they’re too late to stop.

Just had a look at the full article. The language used by the minister is typical of Tory ministers since 2010. The narrative has always been that the most severely disabled people can work but choose not to.

Those who qualify for the support group/LCWRA have always beenjudged to be too vulnerable to be compelled to work or subject to sanctions, and have received extra financial support in recognition of that. But the Tories have always had this group in their sights with regard to introducing some form of compulsion to find work. Now it seems they’ve found the mechanism to do it by the miracle that is working from home.

The statement from the minister mentions that support will be provided for these people to find and retain suitable WFH jobs, but crucially there’s no mention of how these jobs are magically going to appear or how they’re going to persuade employers to take on what in many cases will be very sick and severely disabled employees.

My prediction for the announcement at the Autumn Statement is that the plans will be announced in very broad terms as supporting disabled people into work. It won’t be made clear that the target group are the sickest and most severely disabled. If the public knew the devil in the details they would be outraged, so best to keep it simple until the proposals become law and it’s a fait accompli. The sooner this government is voted out and safely consigned into long term opposition, the better.