POLL: Power of the state to look in and take money from bank accounts without a warrant
The UK Parliament has just passed the second reading of a bill giving the state the power to look in and take money from current and former benefit claimants' bank accounts, without a warrant, when there is reasonable suspicion of overpayment.
Comments (48)
Which of the two is more dangerous you think?
For me it is obvious, since we had a case in the Netherlands that touches on this exact subject, the end result of which was thousands of families being crushed by the government apparatus for wrongs they had not committed.
If you want to know the types of damage: evictions, suicides, children being taken away, children being never found again, etc. - people and families utterly ruined at the hands of the state.
There is literally no greater danger in this world than the incompetence (and occasional malice) of governments.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0167/240167.pdf
I'm not too exercised about it either way. I was under the impression that benefit fraud is a relatively minor issue as compared to, say, the shocking lack of a wealth tax.
No, the Direct Deduction Order is not a court order. It's ordered from the bank by the state.
It's for overpayments from error too, which is quite common.
If so that seems a bit shocking. Have I misunderstood?
OK, so the minister may (not 'must') transfer his powers under the bill to the newly created Public Sector Fraud Authority. However that authority doesn't look very independent to me. I wonder if there is an appeal process that can use the courts, or whether claimants will just have to rely on Judicial Review.
OK, so you can apply to the minister for a review, and then appeal to the first tier tribunal, so the courts can get involved. Jeez, I bet the first tier tribunal are looking forward to this (not). I'm not keen from what I've read so far.
On the other hand, if you needed a court order for every Direct Deduction Order, that might clog up the courts. Maybe it makes sense to the judiciary only to get involved at the appeal stage.
I heard about that. Sounded awful
Yes, you're spot on.
Even Reform abstained, and they're no friend of people on benefits.
What about private companies? The state is the only thing we have to protect us against them. Good systems of public governance are essential to mitigating both threats I suppose.
I suppose they are very anti-state interference, even against people on benefits.
I do wonder if this is an expensive draconian solution to a non-problem. Apparently it's nearly 4% of benefit expenditure is overpaid. Is that a massive problem compared to other problems? So 4/100 people get a bit more than they are entitled to? Compare that to billionaires not paying taxes.
So some idiot pays a claimant too much money and before proving enough suspicion to obtain a warrant, that idiot gets to grab the money without the claimantÂ’s consent? Terrible idea.
Quoting bert1
Exactly. The Green Party have a policy of a wealth tax, and I'm very tempted by them. I usually vote Labour as the lesser of the two evils, but I'm not actually sure it is the lesser of the two evils under this leadership.
I guess you vote SNP up there in Scotland? Hopefully they give Labour a kicking at the next election.
Yes, but I'd rather vote Green. Electoral reform and a wealth tax, in that order, are my main political wishes. Then people can start taking an interest in the big issues like climate change when their vote counts and they're not in survival mode.
This is an aspect of UK life which I find so worrying and leads me to believe that the UK is becoming an experiment in authoritarian totalitarianism. The biggest problem is that such interventions are on the basis of 'suspicion of fraud' as opposed to proof of it. The DWP makes so many mistakes and this is going to be a potential area for great disaster and a means by which the state can just take anyone's money.
So many individuals and organisations, including banks are opposed. Nevertheless, it is being pushed through by the current government alongside an agenda of many reforms aimed at giving increasing power to the state.
Yes, putting aside the arguments of government overreach, checks and balances, etc, this does disproportionately affect disabled people. People that even if they understood what was going on, are not in the financial position to spend on lawyers to fight government barristers.
That fiat money isn't printed for public serivce is because your politicians aren't really giving a damn about that vs other interests.
The first is to improve the controls within the benefit-granting agency. Recipients are not 'guilty' of agency errors, but they might still be liable for repayment.
The second is to claw back the over-payment following due process. For instance, notifying the recipients of probable over-payment; providing a period during which the recipients can contest the probable-overpayment, and then an administrative hearing to determine whether an over-payment did occur. If it did, then the government can claw back the over-payment all at once or over time, whichever causes the least reasonable disruption to recipients' finances.
In the United States, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) allows for seizure of any assets from those identified by law enforcement as having ill-gotten gains. It is carried out through court orders. It allows the government to more efficiently dismantle organized crime*** operations. There aren't many limitations on what can be seized, so it is critical to government legal creditability that the RICO case be very solid.
RICO would not apply to government payment systems which might result in over-payment in most cases, unless there was a 'conspiracy' to obtain inflated benefits.
***As mafia operator Bill Bonanno said, "Crime doesn't pay UNLESS it's organized."
Generally my government policy is to starve it: I'd rather give the people too much control over themselves than the government too much control over the people.
The way things are done now, prior to the bill becoming law, is the government contacts the benefit claimant, demanding return of the overpayment, and failing this, issues proceedings at the local civil court. They would have to prove their case on the balance of probabilities to recover any monies.
You suggest an administrative hearing. Do you mean a hearing conducted by the judiciary, such as by way of a tribunal, or by the state itself? The problems is, in the UK the government picks the head of the other elements of the state, such as the Met Police, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ofcom, Financial Conduct Authority, National Health Service.
You say "generally". Where do you draw the line?
But then who protects the weak from the strong? What happens to the rule of law?
On the other hand the matter could be handled by a "small-claims court" -- a judicial unit that handles small cases, where people often represent themselves on both sides. Hearings are short, judgement is is usually swift. It's a low cost option.
The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state.
As @Jack Cummins has hinted to, the Department for Work and Pensions are notoriously bad.
Before appealing a PIP (disability benefit) decision to a judicial tribunal, you lodge a reconsideration request with the state - approximately 22% of the time they overturn their original decision. Of those that are then appealed to an independent judicial tribunal, approximately 70% are won by the claimant.
And you cannot go to the tribunal until they have reconsidered their decision. People go for years waiting for reconsideration - all this period without an income, and many die after being declared "fit for work" waiting for reconsideration.
A warrant should always be present when conducting infringements on people's properties or information. It's foundational in order to behave as a state of law rather than a state of power.
I know what you mean, but I don't think that actually makes sense. The purpose and 'interest' of that state is, in part, to deliver statutory services including benefits. So it isn't in the state's interests to not deliver those services. Of course it has to balance its commitments. The big failure of the state in the UK and elsewhere is the redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle economic classes to the already rich.
You can't have a body independent of the state deciding how a state will spend its money - that would be a disaster.
Tories are in power for the bulk of the time. Do you believe they are more interested in providing services or cutting public spending? I would argue that their overriding interest is cutting public spending, and they are biased by this.
The stats speak for themselves:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I agree. But the state is more than the executive. There are tensions within a state, like the tension between a Tory government and its obligation to deliver services. It's parliament and the judiciary's role to prevent Tories completely screwing benefits in an excess of Tory classism. An elected Tory government has a mandate to reallocate spending away from benefits to an extent, but never to scrap them altogether. In a democracy, that's just tough luck on benefit recipients. Yes, there is a conflict of interest between benefit claimants and a Tory government, but managing that by providing an extra-state safeguard would be anti-democratic and indeed unconstitutional - parliament would not be sovereign. The solution is to win the policy argument.
I didn't know what we were arguing about, but looking back I see it now. That's my fault - I misspoke. I meant the conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the non-judicial parts of the state (namely the executive and the "independent" public bodies the executive appoints the head of).
You are talking about the UK. Similar problems occur in the US. But given the state's dominance, what is the solution?
Ineffective, abusive, and unresponsive behavior by agencies may be built-in by design. The behavior of ostensibly non-political agencies, such as disability, unemployment services, or food inspections may be strongly flavored by past or current political party agendas.
Socially conservative politicians tend to be suspicious of working class peoples claims, for instance. It's an old example, but in the 1980s, AIDS patients who were often in very bad health found it difficult to claim disability benefits, thanks to the frank hostility of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Or disputed unemployment claims tend to be resolved against the worker.
What Donald Trump is doing in Washington is aimed at crippling government programs, many of which deliver pretty obvious public goods, so that they will not be able to deliver effective services in the future, or function at all.
My point is that the cure for ineffective state services is political. At other times, it was political will that produced good-to-excellent state services. Elections have consequences.
Robodebt on steroids in Australia. Turned out the Aus Federal govt method of calculation was illegal.
Life in the checks and balances of nations.
sad smile
To be honest, I am not sure of the exact threshold; but I do lean towards the people over the government. I do believe, to relate to the OP, that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in, on, or with their private property as long as they, within that private property, create the privacy. So letting the government willy-nilly enter into people's bank accounts is a no-no: that gives them entirely too much power.
Applied ethically, I think educating the people and arming them is the best solution against tyranny and injustice. I am not saying we get rid of the police or the justice system, but I wouldn't rely on it heavily like China does.
The government would argue it's not going to be will-nilly. They are only going to do it when they have reasonable suspicion of overpayment.
Surely you trust government to get this right? They have such a good track record :roll:
:lol:
I struggle to imagine how that could work out well.
That's how it works in the US, and it has worked fine.
I have a disabled wife, and we've had similar things happen (though, they have not gone into bank accounts) which has left us in terrible circumstances. But it was correct to do so. We were overpaid.
Quoting AmadeusD
Shouldn't this be checked by a judge to make sure government is not abusing its power?
I'm also not entirely sure it's going to help. Quite a number of beneficiaries (potentially a majority) are dishonest about their income, out going and circumstance. These things would create other crimes which could be adequately seen to without the above suggestion.