DWP wanted to give fraud officers the power to use physical force on benefits claimants

It has been uncovered that the Labour government wanted to give Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) staff the power to use force on claimants they believed to be committing benefit fraud.

As reported by John Pring on Disability News Service, a part of the Public Authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill was unpicked by the House of Lords during the reporting stage. Importantly, that particular bill has so far not faced any scrutiny from MPs. This key section of the bill would allow the DWP’s fraud squad to gain entry to property and “use reasonable force” on people they believed to be committing benefit fraud. This would give them the same powers as the police.

It looks like this part of the bill has managed to sneak through under the radar because it was overshadowed by the media, political, and public outcry to the controversial powers the bill will give DWP staff to snoop on benefits claimants bank accounts.

Making vulnerable people targets? Very DWP

The bill, of course, claimed these powers would only be used in cases of “serious organised criminality”, but really, what’s to stop them when they’re the ones setting the parameters here? It also ignores, as the DWP often does, that a silent victim in extreme organised crime is trafficked migrants. Maybe I’m being cynical here but what happens if these people, usually women, get caught in the crosshairs of men on an ego trip?

The bill also states it’s about seizing property, but if that’s the case, why do they need to be using force on people, who they only believe to have committed a crime, not who they have proven to have done so. Again, this is just my worry, but what’s to stop a DWP officer from assaulting a potentially vulnerable claimant, especially a disabled person or migrant, whilst using these powers?

Lords derail DWP powers

Thankfully, these plans were derailed by the House of Lords. Lord Vaux a cross-bench hereditary peer proposed an amendment to get rid of this section of the bill. He said:

This would make it lawful for a DWP officer – not a police officer, but a civil servant – to enter your home, seize your belongings and forcibly hold you down while doing so.

He also disagreed with the bill that this would only be used on those committing organised crime, pointing out that it could easily be used on disabled claimants, saying:

The use of physical force marks a far more serious infringement than the powers of search, entry and seizure alone.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Palmer raised concerns about DWP officers having these “physical powers” usually only reserved for the police. He said:

Are we going to train a new breed of DWP officers who have to be tough and able to act as police? It is quite nonsensical.

Baroness Fox agreed that DWP officers are not the right people to have these powers, raising that they “might have been on a minor training course” and not have full training in how to safely restrain someone.

She said:

For them to have that power of physical force aimed at people on benefits seems wholly wrong and morally dubious.

The Conservative shadow work and pensions minister Viscount Younger, who has also been a DWP minister, said

the Government have yet to offer a convincing explanation of why DWP officials need this power at all.

He’s completely right. Why would DWP jobsworths with an overinflated ego ever need the powers to use physical force on someone who they think might’ve defrauded the system? Why would that ever require force?

Labour against protecting vulnerable people, again

Work and pensions minister Baroness Sherlock attempted to placate worried peers by accepting that the bill would give DWP officers the powers to use force against individuals, but rebuffed the claims they would be used on those committing minor fraud. Of course, she did so in a patronising manner:

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, did not mean to do this, but the impression he and some other speakers gave is that the DWP will seek to use these powers against an average benefit claimant who has accidentally overclaimed by £20. I make it clear that this power cannot be used in those circumstances.

She also claimed the “reasonable force” would be used to do things such as unlock cabinets, and seize digital devices. However, this is no such  strict parameter given in the bill, meaning it could’ve been left open to allow this.

Thankfully, the amendment proposed by Lord Vaux, to remove the use of force on people, was passed through the Lords with 212 votes to 144 against. Not a single Labour peer voted for this amendment, which would protect vulnerable claimants.

However, the fact that this power was ever an option that the DWP ever considered, and which made it through the commons, shows just how little regard politicians have for the safety of benefits claimants, if it means they can re-inflate their fraud figures.

Featured image via the Canary