This speech was made by Labour backbench Sir Stephen Timms in the House of Commons on 29 November during a debate on the government's new Data Protection Bill. I thought it so significant it was worth sharing most of it, some more minor issues being edited out for the sake of clarity:
I rise to speak specifically to Government new clause 34 and connected Government amendments which, as we have been reminded, give Ministers power to inspect the bank accounts of anyone claiming a social security benefit. I think it has been confirmed that that includes child benefit and the state pension, as well as universal credit and all the others. Extremely wide powers are being given to Ministers.
The Minister told us that the measure is expected to save some half a billion pounds over the next five years.
We have also been told—I had not seen this assurance—that these powers will not be used for a few years. If that is correct, I am completely mystified by why this is being done in such a way. If we had a few years to get these powers in place, why did the Government not wait until there was some appropriate draft legislation that could be properly scrutinised, rather than bringing such measures forward now with zero Commons scrutiny and no opportunity for that to occur? There will no doubt be scrutiny in the other place, but surely a measure of this kind ought to undergo scrutiny in this House.
I chair the Work and Pensions Committee and we have received substantial concerns about this measure, including from Citizens Advice. The Child Poverty Action Group said that
it shouldn't be that people have fewer rights, including to privacy, than everyone else in the UK simply because they are on benefits.
I think that sums up what a lot of people feel, although it appears to be the position that the Government are now taking. It is surprising that the Conservative party is bringing forward such a major expansion of state powers to pry into the affairs of private citizens, and particularly doing so in such a way that we are not able to scrutinise what it is planning. As we have been reminded, the state has long had powers where there were grounds for suspecting that benefit fraud had been committed. The proposal in the Bill is for surveillance where there is absolutely no suspicion at all, which is a substantial expansion of the state's powers to intrude.
Annabel Denham, deputy comment editor at The Daily Telegraph warned in The Spectator of such a measure handing
authorities the power to snoop on people's bank accounts.
I suspect that the views expressed there are more likely to find support on the Conservative Benches than on the Labour Benches, so I am increasingly puzzled by why the Government think this is an appropriate way to act. I wonder whether the fact that there have been such warnings prompted Ministers into rushing through the measure in this deeply unsatisfactory way, without an opportunity for proper scrutiny, because they thought that if there had been parliamentary scrutiny there would be substantial opposition from the Conservative Benches as well as from the Labour Benches. It is difficult to understand otherwise why it is being done in this way.
As we have been reminded, new clause 34 will give the Government the right to inspect the bank account of anyone who claims a state pension, which is all of us. It will give the Government the right to look into the bank account of every single one of us at some point during our lives, without suspecting that we have ever done anything wrong, and without telling us that they are doing it. The Minister said earlier that the powers of the state should be limited to those absolutely necessary, and I have always understood that to be a principle of the Conservative party. Yet on the power in the new clause to look into the bank account of everybody claiming a state pension, he was unable to give us any reason why the Government should do such a thing, or why they would ever need to look into the bank accounts of people—everybody—claiming a state pension. What on earth would the Government need to do that for? The entitlement to the state pension is not based on income, savings or anything like that, so why would the Government ever wish to do that?
If we cannot think of a reason why the Government would want to do that, why are they now taking the power to enable them to do so? I think that all of us would agree, whatever party we are in, that the powers of the state should be limited to those absolutely necessary.
The power in the new clause is definitely not absolutely necessary. Indeed, no one has been able to come up with any reason for why it would ever be used.
The amendment gives the Government extremely broad powers, with no checks in place, and it has been done in a way that minimises parliamentary scrutiny of what is proposed. I find it very hard to see how that can possibly be defended. No doubt the Minister will tell us that at some point there will be some document setting out checks and balances and so on, but that needs to be part of this scrutiny. It should not be that the Government take it all away to come back in a few months' time to tell us how they will constrain the use of this power.
Finally, it occurs to me that the power being introduced could be used to establish benefit eligibility for people who do not currently claim benefits. We know, for example, that a large number of people do not claim pension credit, but are eligible for it. A lot of the information about whether they are entitled to pension credit is already held in the public sector, and in local councils in particular. If it were possible to check whether people had less than the threshold savings level, that could help in establishing eligibility for pension credit automatically. Can the Minister tell us whether that is intended with this proposal?
The critical parts of this speech are highlighted.
Twenty-two million people will have no control over their financial privacy if this Bill is enacted, including every old age pensioner, even though old age pension fraud is almost non-existent and there is no means testing related to it (although there is to pension credit).
The power that the government is taking is utterly unreasonable.
What is more, they are not even justifying it by saying that the power to collect data will be used to pay people sums to which they are entitled when unpaid benefits considerably exceed the cost of so-called pension fraud.
One final thought. I have long called for banks to be required to provide relatively modest amounts of data to HM Revenue & Customs each year on balances and deposits made by all UK-based limited companies to prevent corporation tax fraud, but no action has ever been taken on this when the need is very apparent, and the scale of fraud is very much larger. The government is, as ever, picking on the vulnerable and ignoring real crime in the UK.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for bring this to the wider world. I don’t remember hearing it on the news.
This is a bizarre proposal which is more suited to the Chinese government than the british one.
So everyone, get on to your MPs (etc)
What makes this worse is the de-monetisation of banking (the de facto elimination of legal tender, and making the commercial banks the only provider, and therefore controller of the public’s access to ‘money’). We are making every individual the prisoner of the banks; which the Government then legislates to monitor and oversee. This has always been the big concern that exercised me; we have not been sufficiently challenging and sceptical about where the digitisation of the world, and Big Tech are taking us.
The problem with every great technical transformation in history, is that unfailingly we are seduced by the picture technical transformation paints for itself, for us, and for an elusive future that promises the realisation of dreams; and we never look back as we follow that path, and face the detritus, the wreckage we have left behind us, and the mess we have made of the world while chasing the dream that of course remains unrealised, just out of reach; leaving us wading through the wreckage, and needing another transformation, with ever bigger promises.
James McGill Buchanan would have been proud. He viewed the poor and underprivileged as parasitic vermin out to to steal the rightfully acquired money and property of the wealthy.
His views seem to have silently permeated modern right-wing thinking.
Secondly, given the massive amount of data this would involve, they must be thinking of applying AI technology to process it, which is even more dystopian.
It’s been said elsewhere but is worth repeating
Hypocrisy knows no bounds
When peers, members their families and companies exploit offshore secrecy jurisdictions and defraud the public purse and avoid tax obligations we never know the truth
They hide in the shadows and society suffers
And this dwarfs all benefit fraud
Unclaimed benefit figures are even higher than the fraud
And the costs they say to implement are nearly three times higher than what they expect to reclaim through this travesty
It’s makes a disgusting mockery of the system of governance
This Bill is not only an outrageous attack on the privacy of the individual, and, as you note, targets the most vulnerable in society, while leaving the frauds of institutions and the wealthy untouched, but the manner of its passage through the Commons is yet another example of the government’s ongoing successful concentration of power in the hands of the Executive (the government) and elimination of the sovereignty of the Legislature (the Commons and the Lords).
Forgive me if I quote at length from Chris Bryant’s speech to a motion asking for the amended Bill to be re-presented to the Commons (i.e go through the Reading & Committee stages again)
Start
Let us recall how we got here. A first version of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill was introduced by the previous Member for Mid Bedfordshire on 18 July 2022. It was such a mess that it never even made it to Second Reading. Nadine Dorries was sacked in September last year, and six months later the Bill was sacked as well, to be replaced by a new and improved No. 2 Bill, which had its Second Reading on 17 April and completed its Committee stage on 24 May. That was 190 days ago.
I do not know what has prompted all the delay. Was it the general chaos in Government? Perhaps the Government do not fully understand the term “with immediate effect”. I like the Minister, and I have known and worked with him on many different issues for many years. I had a meeting with him and his officials on Thursday 16 November. He told me then that on Report the Government would table only a few minor and technical amendments to the Bill, which he hoped everyone would be able to agree fairly easily.
On the last available day, 182 days after Committee, the Government brought out 240 amendments. Some are indeed minor and technical, but many are very significant. They strike to the heart of the independence of the new Information Commission, they alter the rights of the public in making subject access requests, and they amend our system in a way that may or may not enhance our data adequacy with the US and the European Union and therefore British businesses’ ability to rely on UK legislation to trade overseas. In some instances, they give very extensive new powers to Ministers, and they introduce completely new topics that have never been previously mooted, debated or scrutinised Toggle showing location ofColumn 849by Parliament in relation to this Bill, which already has more baubles on it than the proverbial Christmas tree. The end result is that we have 156 pages of amendments to consider today in a single debate.
Yes, we could have tabled amendments to the Government amendments, but they would not have been selectable, and we would not have been able to vote on them. So the way the Government have acted, whether knowingly, recklessly or incompetently, means that the Commons cannot carry out line-by-line consideration of what will amount to more than 90 pages of new laws, 38 new clauses and two new schedules, one of which is 19 pages long. Some measures will barely get a minute’s consideration today. That is not scrutiny; it is a blank cheque.”
End
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-11-29/debates/46EF0AA6-C729-4751-A3DA-6A3683EB8B87/DataProtectionAndDigitalInformationBill
P.S I wish I knew how to format text in these replies
Wll said
And I do not know how to formaty these replies either althohugh I get more options than you do – I have no idea why
Thank you for this.
Surely this must be challengeable under some kind of human rights law – that some citizens can be snooped on by the state and others can’t.
So 1984, so dystopian , almost impossible to believe.
If anyone ‘linked’ to a claimant can have their account surveiled then realistically that’s anyone and everyone.
Yes
I am in receipt of a state pension. When I first got it I opened a new bank account to receive it, for reasons I won’t bother to go into. It now looks an even better idea, as presumably this is the account the government will have access to? You really wouldn’t be able to tell much about my financial position from this bank account.
I am incensed every year when I get a letter from the DWP telling me what my pension will be in the next financial year, as the wording is ‘This is to tell you that from 10 April 23 the amount of benefit you receive will change’. Why can’t they call it a pension? It makes me into a supplicant, not someone who has sensibly provided for their old age.
I so agree – a someone who will have such a payment next year.
Having worked in the then DHSS/DSS back in the 80s, I asked the same question then. The state pension has *always* been treated as a benefit, never as an earned entitlement.
Which is bizarre considering you must have earnings, or contributions, to claim it.
All is possible in the magical realm of government, which chooses to define the state pension as a contributory benefit. Benefits, it should be noted, ceased to be entitlements in 2012 when they became discretionary, ie, at the discretion of the SoS for the DWP.
Meanwhile, in the real world, civil unrest draws ever closer.
It’s amazing to consider this when you think about how disinterested Governments are about the bank accounts of the rich.
Mind you, if you were getting free campaign contributions from those rich, one could see why.
Is there any chance that this won’t make it through the Lords?
Possible, at least
I recall mentioning this on a previous thread, Richard, and your response was why shouldn’t HMRC be able to look into pensioners bank accounts when you have to tell them all about your earnings.
Why have you changed your mind?
Because I was unaware then that no prior suspicion is required
This is very different from the HMRC power, where a case for a request has to be name.
So, I changed my mind.
Access to snoop on bank accounts will provide reasons to limit or withhold benefits. This could tie in with the changes to benefits and the desire to ‘encourage’ those with chronic illness and disabilities back into work. This could be followed by powers to instruct banks to limit or deny certain transactions especially as physical money is phased out and people have to rely more on digital banking and payments.
The government seems to introduce little changes here and there without revealing the bigger picture in the hope that nobody will catch on until it’s too late.
Those ‘linked’ to claimants are liable to having their accounts searched too, according to Georgia Gilholy of Conservative Home (no, really!) “Section 3(a) states that this includes anyone “linked” to the receipt of a benefit. Although Section 2(6) seems to imply that “linked” means the same person claiming said benefit, the term remains vaguely defined, encompassing not only the benefit recipient but also others such as ex-partners, cohabitants, children, or landlords.
Moreover, the lack of specificity in the amendment allows for a broad range of information to be requested, potentially revealing sensitive details about individuals, including their personal preferences and lifestyle choices.”
https://conservativehome.com/2023/12/02/georgia-gilholy-beware-of-this-new-government-threat-to-the-privacy-of-bank-accounts/
Worth mentioning too that the standard of guilty is being downgraded from criminal prosecution level (beyond reasonable doubt) to civil prosecution standard (on the balance of probabilities) so you can find yourself tagged as guilty & punished accordingly without having done anything wrong at all. How very convenient for a govt wanting to justify a wholly unjustifiable expansion of unwarranted intrusive surveillance to be able to justify it by offering the appearance of effectiveness in the form of confected successful prosecutions. All this has waltzed through the Commons. How scared should we be? Very afraid, according to Gilholy, who reminds us “Does anyone really trust the Government to only penalise people who have genuinely committed a criminal offence if this mass monitoring commences? The amendment’s reliance on automated decision-making processes is suspect, as is the lack of legally binding assurances that no automatic decisions will be made based on data alone. ”
As Lord Prem Sikka points out, almost anyone can potentially be hit by this “The focus on bank accounts suggests that the government is looking for unusual patterns. So, if you give a lump sum to a loved one for Christmas, birthday, holiday or home repairs, and it passes through a bank, the government could seize upon that as evidence of excess resources and reduce or stop benefits. Suppose a poor person pawns some household items for a few pounds and that temporarily boosts bank balance. Would that person be penalised?”
https://leftfootforward.org/2023/12/prem-sikka-how-the-data-protection-and-digital-information-bill-is-the-governments-latest-erosion-of-hard-won-rights/
Prem is right about this
I have known those questions in tax investigations, by the way, where they are usual for smaller traders.
People volunteer to be traders though, and observe necessary compliance regulations. Nobody volunteers to get old.
I wonder if this also has something to do with the idea of a digital currency so the poor will not have the ability to avoid working or forced labour for benefits. In addition, if they could look at everyone’s bank accounts, the rich would not be able to hide their kickbacks or send money to a tax haven without others knowing.
So when is this meant to be happening? This is a slippery slope we are walking into. It will start with people on benefits then will move onto every British citizen. Hopefully this will be chucked out.
So when is this meant to happen? This is a very slippery slope we are walking into. It starts with people on benefits then will move on to every British citizen. This needs to be fought against. Hopefully it gets chucked out.
Perhaps this will precipitate a brisk trade in offerings of current accounts from banks beyond the scope of this surveillance. Capitalism in action!
It seems to me that the question must be why? and the consequence is a move back to cash, something that you, Richard will not approve of.
Given that the benefit will be paid to a bank account I am not sure what the gain is
Perhaps it is simply being sneaked in now to allow for the “necessary surveillance” when pensions become means tested.
Then why do it for PIP which isn’t means tested? Means testing costs more than it saves, this is widely understood, so any attempt to means test any benefit is an obvious step along the road to removing it altogether. The purpose of social security is the effective buttressing of the economy; the infirm, the old, the disabled are all given enough money to just about tide them over in a basic fashion for the next couple of weeks so they’re effectively forced to spend it to survive. Rinse, repeat. This increases the velocity of money in the economy encouraging corporate investment leading to greater employment. Virtuous circle. Those unable to work become economic assets, making a nonsense of any claims they don’t contribute. Doing away with SS means undermining the economy. This however may well be the real aim for those seeking to establish a neo-feudal era, a new oligarchy, turning the UK once again into a land of Lords & Serfs (and the gradual erosion of car-ownership fits right into that scenario too, one reason I’m distrustful of claims suggesting we’ll all bar the very wealthy have to abandon our cars because of climate change etc.).
Hi, is this in effect now, can they just push this through without debate, lords etc.
Don’t really understand, they pay the pensions, benefits etc, into the banks so they must keep track that way, please excuse my ignorance.
This is not a money bill and so the Lords will try to amend this.
Incredible !
Thanks, Richard, for bringing this to wider public attention
One law for the poor, etc.
Sir Stephen Timms has a fascinating profile on “Theyworkforyou.com,” including the following comment:
“Stephen Timms generally voted for a transparent Parliament; comparable Labour MPs generally voted against.”
It was ever thus! And since when was the state pension a ‘benefit’?
Since it was defined as a contributory benefit https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim76160#:~:text=The%20State%20pension%20is%20a,pension%20income%20(see%20EIM75700).
Mind you, who’ll be doing all this? Certainly not existing DWP staffers, clearly already at the end of their tether https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/dwp-boss-receives-devastating-dossier-staff-services-breaking-point
This is absolutely disgusting. If anything this will be the reason why I and many others will never vote Conservative again.
If this goes ahead then they will definitely lose many voters and people’s trust in the government completely.
Bank details should be and stay private and known only to the persons it belongs to and if there is an issue then to deal with it with the bank themselves.
The government should have no right into this and it shows that Tories only look after the rich and will always prosecute the poor.
Good to know for future reference as I was a tory supporter prior to this, as were many others but no longer if this goes ahead.
I think there is a right to bank data – but there has to be a proven investigative need for it first, as is the case with tax.
I believe unless there was a professional investigation and proven evidence that something is suspicious then by all means go through the legal means to get access to the bank account but other than that I don’t believe it to be right.
I’m sure there will be a fight against this with the data protection act and also other acts that contradict this
I am absolutely disgusted with what the government are going to do. My mum has Dementia and receives a state pension. A bank account should stay private and only known to person who has that account, what will it be next for the government use people’s bank accounts for their own use.
If there is evidence of fraud then bank accounts should be accessible
But there has to be evidence first
My concern is that with such scrutiny could come errors in the operating software system like those in the post office Horizon cases. Post masters were jailed bankrupted and driven to suicide by faulty equipment used by “auditors” and prosecutors who did not consider it possible for ” The computer” to be wrong. Innocent peoples lives were ruined and lost. The government covered it up at the highest levels, the most senior staff had bonuses and golden handshake for a operating a corrupt system. History can and probably will repeat the same mistakes. Pensions in jail on false charges here we go. The courts will be busy, prisons and hospital driven by fanatical mps. Rant Over