Protection failure in DWP’s fraud and error bill ‘risks further tragic deaths’, MPs warn

Cross-party MPs have warned that ministers’ refusal to introduce a key protection into their new fraud and error bill could see a repeat of the countless deaths caused by the austerity measures of past governments.

The concern was raised by MPs debating one of the final parliamentary stages of the public authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill last week.

They raised fears that future “authoritarian” governments could misuse the powers the Labour government is seeking through the bill.

One of those powers will allow the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to force banks to examine the accounts of claimants of means-tested benefits and then provide details of any accounts where there have been potential breaches of benefit eligibility rules.

Concerned MPs called on ministers to support an amendment introduced by peers that would have ensured an annual assessment of the new powers by an independent reviewer included checks on whether they were causing any harm.

One MP, Liberal Democrat John Milne, highlighted how “past DWP errors” had had “tragic consequences”, and he listed some of the disabled people whose deaths have been closely linked to DWP’s actions.

He particularly highlighted the deaths of Philippa Day and Krissi Hunt, but also mentioned Stephen Carré, David Holmes, David Clapson, Errol Graham, Kevin Gale, Jodey Whiting, Roy Curtis and James Oliver*, who he said were all “wrongly hounded by the DWP”, which contributed to their deaths.

Milne told fellow MPs: “The DWP has a long track record of badly handled mistakes.

“That is a cultural failing, and it is wildly optimistic to assume that everything is suddenly going to be fine going forward.

“Do the government really believe that this bill has enough checks and balances to protect vulnerable claimants?

“One thing is for sure: there will be more DWP mistakes.”

Labour’s John McDonnell told MPs: “For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government are resisting having contained within the annual review the question of whether harm is being done.”

He said this was “the only way we will learn whether the legislation is operating in the way the government wish it to, and then whether any changes in the system are needed”.

He added: “I do not want to exaggerate, but I was in the house throughout our discussions of the introduction of the work capability assessment [in the mid-2000s], and, although the last government refused to accept it, we now know that it resulted in a large number of suicides.

“In this instance, I would not want us to enter into a reform of the processes specified in the bill without a regular review of the harms that could be caused, which would enable us subsequently to adjust the legislation if necessary.”

The SNP’s Kirsty Blackman agreed that the disabled people whose names were read out by Milne were “failed by the system that was meant to support them”.

She said that many disabled people “have had to fight for so much, and the system that is meant to support them should not then be another battleground”.

Blackman made clear that her party did not support the bill, partly because of the “potential future risks”.

She said: “I said to the Conservatives when they were in government, and I will say again now that the Labour party is in government, that you will not be in government for ever.

“At some point, somebody else will be in government, and if it is somebody who shares the authoritarian ideas of some potential future leaders, I am not sure that I want them to have access to everybody’s bank accounts.”

Steve Darling, the disabled MP and Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, agreed.

He said: “I am not questioning the reasonableness of the current minister, or multiple ministers who preceded him, but I question what we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic and the person who has the levers of power in the Oval Office.

“What may be seen as ‘reasonable’ in politics in the United Kingdom is sadly a distant memory in the United States of America.

“We must ensure that we guard against that future [in the UK] in the legislation we are putting forward now.”

But work and pensions minister Andrew Western refused to accept the Lords amendment.

He said the work and pensions secretary was already required to provide the independent reviewer with “all reasonably required material, so there is no need for the reviewer to write a statement to that effect in every report”.

But he said that “if they felt the need to, there is nothing to stop them doing so”.

Labour’s Neil Duncan-Jordan told MPs that several witnesses had said during the bill’s committee stage that the new powers “could result in serious harm to benefit recipients”.

He said: “If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just one per cent will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated.”

He said it was vital that the independent reviewer of the new powers “considers the harm to individuals, so that we can understand whether the powers being exercised are proportionate”.

But Western said the “question of whether actions taken as part of the eligibility verification measure are necessary and proportionate is baked into the bill” and that with “additional safeguards” that the government has now added to the legislation, ministers had “reached a point where the bill will achieve what it needs to while being fair and protecting vulnerable people”.

Despite that refusal, the government has agreed to remove plans to give some DWP staff “morally dubious” powers to use “reasonable force” against benefit claimants when exercising powers under the bill.

The bill was set to give authorised DWP staff the same powers of search, entry and seizure as the police.

Western claimed the government had never intended that DWP investigators should be able to use reasonable force against claimants but only to “allow them to gain access to property, such as locked filing cabinets or cupboards, when on premises to search for and seize critical evidence”, and then to rely on “the likes of the police” in situations “where force against a person might be needed”.

But following concerns raised in the Lords, he said the government had now introduced an amendment to the bill that will allow DWP investigators to use “force against property only, while retaining the police’s power to use reasonable force where necessary against people and property”.

He said: “I have repeatedly assured the house that the DWP policy position is that DWP authorised investigators will not use reasonable force against people, and I believe that the amendments put that beyond doubt.”

When the bill returned to the Lords on Tuesday, peers approved the government’s concession on reasonable force, but declined to push any further for the annual assessment of the new powers to include checks on whether they have caused any harm.

The bill is now awaiting royal assent.

*All of these deaths, apart from that of Krissi Hunt, are investigated in The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, DNS editor John Pring’s book on the years of deaths linked to DWP’s actions and failings, which is published by Pluto Press

Picture: Krissi Hunt (left) and Philippa Day

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009.

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…