In Citizen’s Britain Paddy Ashdown argued that despite the Conservative government’s claims of “rolling back the frontiers of the state”, they were in fact spending more and more on social control, coercion, and surveillance. The closing months of Sunak’s government echoed this aspect of the Thatcher era, with it planning to introduce mass surveillance legislation, which now could be implemented under the present Labour government.
The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which the Conservative’s failed to pass before this year’s general election, included surveillance provisions would have forced banks to monitor the accounts of all means-tested benefits claimants, and report every time an account went over the capital limit, or was used abroad for more than four weeks. It would have also empowered designated DWP staff to arrest claimants, search premises and seize any evidence they found without needing to use the police. Such legislation had the potential to create a Horizon-style scandal on a horrific scale, given how DWP software had wrongly flagged over 200,000 people over the last three years for investigation for suspected benefit fraud and error.
Though the details concerning Labour’s Fraud, Error and Debt Bill haven’t been made public recent comments by Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall worryingly indicate people on benefits would be under similar surveillance. The Fraud bill would require banks and other financial institutions to check examine their own data sets to highlight cases of potential benefit fraud, to help the DWP investigate fraud and incorrect payments. Though Kendall made assurances that “only a minimum amount of data will be accessed” and that this would be done in a “legal, proportionate and targeted” manner, groups like Big Brother Watch and Campaign for Disability Justice remain highly sceptical that the government will be so restrained. They have every right to be, given the authoritarian tendencies of the New Labour governments.
As Liberals Democrats we believe in a fair, free and open society and champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals. State surveillance of some of the most vulnerable people in our society runs directly contrary these values and should be strongly opposed both in parliament and on the streets. Even if the government currently won’t implement such a totalitarian plan, we should make it clear that such a plan will face opposition, lest they be pushed into it by reactionaries on the opposition benches at a later date.
To do so would not merely be an act of paternalism, but one of recognition and repayment. In July 10% of voters from the poorest backgrounds in the UK voted for our party, and their votes contributed to the formation of our unprecedentedly large parliamentary party. If we aim to provide better kind of opposition to the government than Conservatives, we must demonstrate it time and time again by living our values. We must stand up for all our voters. We must advocate for the dignity of benefit claimants against heavy-hand efforts to crackdown of welfare fraud.
* William Francis is Chair of the Ealing Young Liberals
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
I am liberal, woke and proud of it. We should all accept such descriptions with pride
The Joy of Six 1539
When the GIs came to Swansea
What's he got?
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Paul Reynolds
Anne Williams
Jana
Peter Martin
Carl Pierce
11 Comments
This post reminds me of 20-30 years ago when many LibDems (and some Tories) were opposing the introduction of security cameras in many cities on spurious grounds of the surveillance from cameras supposedly somehow interfering with people’s freedom. Of course now we’re used to security cameras being everywhere it’s a non-issue – because security cameras don’t curtail our freedom in any meaningful way, but they do help to protect us by detecting or deterring crime.
Maybe we should learn from that experience and avoid repeating this kind of knee-jerk reaction to measures that give the Government more information with which to detect and prevent crime but which don’t actually meaningfully inhibit anyone’s freedom. Benefit fraud is a real crime. It hurts genuine benefit claimants by undermining confidence in the benefit system, hurts us all by reducing what the Government has to spend on other things. We shouldn’t be opposing measures to help prevent that crime unless those measures really do somehow harm people.
Having bank accounts checked in the background for signs of benefit fraud is not much different from the checks banks already do for fraudulent transactions and is benign – provided of course the information doesn’t get misused. Ensuring there are safeguards to avoid misuse is where we should be putting our focus.
Spying on people through IT systems is fraught with dangers as the Post Office scandal shows. Is there also a vital difference between relying on the IT to provoke investigating people and having other evidence first, which then suggests the need to investigate further, using but not relying on the IT ?
I am horrified by what you say about the proposal to use banks to investigate what people spend their money on. Cases arise where friends give money to someone who is poor so that they can have for example a good holiday. That does not provide the long term assistance to that person who will therefore continue to need the benefit payments.
In response to Simon R, a surveillance state is built piece by piece, link by link in an increasingly heavy and unavoidable chain. We move from acceptance of CCTVs in every street and shop (mostly pretty useless except for sparking a trend in hoodies) to carrying little screens around with us all the time which are constantly spying on us, but which we can’t seem to do without. You’re probably using one now, right?
What’s next? Mandatory access to all social media and messaging records by the DWP, just to see if anyone’s getting cash in hand or benefits in kind above the limits? How about giving them location data to see if claimants are doing unofficial jobs?
In the end, we can just let AI spy constantly on everyone and report all our crimes or misdeeds to an ever-so-friendly state. And if your dissenting voice of protest, or your manner of love, becomes the next crime, well tough.
The fundamental difference between checks for fraudulent transactions and for benefit fraud is that the former checks are done on behalf of the account holder who is a potential victim of fraud, while the latter is on behalf of a third party treating the account holder (customer) as the potential perpetrator of fraud. This requires much stronger safeguards, especially when the sums involved are relatively small (as they tend to be for benefit fraud).
@Sophie you seem to be very opposed to gathering information but you don’t seem to explain why.
To take one example you cite: You’re correct that my phone is certainly logging lots of information about how I use it as well as where I (or more correctly the phone) is – what you refer to as ‘spying’. But the fact that it is doing that does not, as far as I can see, cause me any harm. It doesn’t restrict my freedom in any way: There is nothing I can’t do on account of my phone logging info about me that I would otherwise have been free do to. I therefore see no reason to object to my phone doing that. Of course, if someone started using that information for nefarious purposes, THEN I would object, but unless that happens, no harm has been done. So I don’t see what your objection is.
As far as I can see, the same principle holds for the Government using the info about bank accounts we’re discussion. If the information can be used to prevent fraud, and isn’t being used to harm anyone, than there shouldn’t be any objection.
@Simon R – “Having bank accounts checked in the background for signs of benefit fraud is not much different from the checks banks already do for fraudulent transactions and is benign”
The way things are worded and history, tells us this supposed targeted “checking” will be all bank accounts. And why limit it to just the DWP, why not let HMRC in on the act, and if they have access, so do GCHQ and the NSA along with the Russians, Israeli’s and Chinese ie. you need to assume from the outset whatever security you put in place will be quietly compromised…
>”because security cameras don’t curtail our freedom in any meaningful way …
provided of course the information doesn’t get misused.”
As we are learning we have no control over what a future government, or the private contractor (typically US HQ’d and thus subject to different data protection law), will decide is legitimate use of the surveillance data.
@Simon R – “Of course, if someone started using that information for nefarious purposes, THEN I would object, but unless that happens, no harm has been done.”
Bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted…
Remember the UK government thought it was okay to play fast and loose with NHS patient data and through the wolf in sheep’s clothing NHS Digital (a private company outside of the NHS – yes it was deliberately given the ‘NHS’ prefix to mislead, and not subject the NHS data protection legislation) and hand the data to a US company Palantir, with known issues over data protection and who are free to sell access to US healthcare providers… I don’t see the current government terminating the Palantir contract…
Access to financial records is generally granted when a prima face case exists that fraud has been committed. What worries me is that the Tories and some on the Right of Labour believe that claiming benefits constitutes such a case.
@Simon R. I told you why “A surveillance state is built piece by piece, link by link in an increasingly heavy and unavoidable chain.”
We already have very poor control over how large commercial organisations like Apple and Google use the data they collect about us. Yet we feel powerless to actually opt out.
And most of us have little or no understanding about how truly invasive and revealing this data trove is about our lives, or how poorly protected it is against compromise by both state and non-state actors. Further, we need to be aware that these organisations have almost no incentives to resist state demands to “hand it all over”.
As Liberals, we should *always* be concerned at what a future state could do with the multiple surveillance tools we are giving to them, not just with what the current state says they want to do.
@Sophie Bourne
“We already have very poor control over how large commercial organisations like Apple and Google use the data they collect about us. Yet we feel powerless to actually opt out. ”
Yes you do have power. Just don’t use organisations you don’t feel you can trust – find others more to your liking.
@Nonconformistradical “Yes you do have power. Just don’t use organisations you don’t feel you can trust – find others more to your liking.”
Oh please… given the Apple / Android duopoly that’s basically saying “Don’t use a smartphone”
Think you can live without a smartphone? Well you can’t use a tablet either. And since Microsoft are just as bad, you can’t use a PC unless it’s got a Linux OS, and then you can’t visit any websites unless they are also running Linux.
Which in this decade is roughly equivalent to: “You don’t like CCTVs in streets and shops? Well you could always just stay at home all the time”.