UK spying bank accounts: Eligibility Verification Measure

I read the article and looked up the case, Catherine. I hadn’t come across it before, so thank you for flagging it. It’s over a year old now, but still very relevant.

The tribunal looked at whether the DWP had to release documents showing how it uses AI to spot fraud. It sided with the DWP, saying full disclosure could help fraudsters game the system.

The DWP did release redacted versions of its Data Protection Impact Assessments after the Information Commissioner told it to revisit the refusal. But the technical detail, how the AI and fraud detection tools actually work,  was withheld. The tribunal agreed with the DWP that it was lawful to withhold details under Section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows secrecy if disclosure might prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

Big Brother Watch, who brought the case, called it a setback for transparency, and I’d agree. It is frightening what can be withheld under that exemption, especially when the profiling is automated and the criteria are kept secret. Their analysis found evidence of bias in the DWP’s Universal Credit Advance model, including disparities by age, nationality, and relationship status.

If the system disproportionately flags certain groups and no one can see or test the logic, those patterns can continue unchallenged. The consequences fall on people who are simply trying to access support, with no way to understand or contest the assumptions being made about them.

Several members of the House of Lords spoke out about the DWP’s new powers to check people’s bank accounts. They were worried this could unfairly target ordinary benefit claimants rather than serious fraudsters. Some said these powers should only be used in serious cases, and only with a judge’s approval. Others warned the rules could quietly expand to cover more benefits without proper checks or debate.

Groups like Big Brother Watch also criticised the Bill, saying it gives the government too much power to snoop and was rushed through without proper scrutiny.

Even with all these concerns, the Lords did not make any changes to the Bill. This is often a tactical move, as peers know the Commons would likely reject any amendments, so they use the debate to get their warnings on record.

This matters, as Hansard, the official record of what is said in Parliament, shows that peers warned ministers. It is not law, but it is strong evidence. If people are harmed by this Bill, campaigners and legal advisers can point to Hansard to prove the government knew the risks and went ahead anyway.

The Lords can debate, suggest changes, or delay a bill, but they cannot stop it. The Commons always has the final say.