Decision - Fraud Error and Debt Bill

Brighton and Hove Decided 19 Dec 2024 approved GET /api/coverage

Decision maker

—

Report author

—

Published

23 Jan 2025

Reference

7351

As published

the council's own words, unedited

Resolved to: 1) Request that a report is brought to a future Cabinet meeting once the bill is published which: a) sets out the potential impact of these new powers on B&HCC, including the b) impact on benefit claimants and of new administrative responsibilities; c) explores the legal duties that would fall on the Council in enforcing any measures in the bill.

Parsed from the document

gpt-5.6-luna-2026-07-09 · 925/731 tokens · 6479ms · parsed 9 Sep 2026 15:24

Everything below was read out of a PDF by a model It is useful and it is not authoritative. The document it came from is linked in the rail, and where the two disagree the document is right.

The motion raises concerns that the Fraud Error and Debt Bill could introduce intrusive bank-account surveillance and cause discriminatory impacts on benefit claimants. It asks for a future Cabinet report on the effects for Brighton & Hove City Council and for the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seeking significant changes to the proposals.

Recommendation

Request a report to a future Cabinet meeting after the Bill is published and request that the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions expressing the Council's concerns and asking for the proposals to be significantly rolled back.

Financial impact

none stated

Ward affected

city-wide

Decision maker

Brighton & Hove City Council

Date in document

19 Dec 2024

Stakeholders named

parsed

benefit claimantsBrighton & Hove City CouncilDepartment for Work and PensionsSecretary of State for Work and Pensions

Next steps

parsed

Bring a report to a future Cabinet meeting once the Bill is published.
The report should set out the potential impact of the new powers on Brighton & Hove City Council, benefit claimants and administrative burdens.
The report should explore how the Council can push back on the surveillance measures and clarify which measures it would be legally required to use.
The Chief Executive should write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions expressing the Council's concerns and requesting that the proposals are significantly rolled back.

Precedents

not built

"Decided elsewhere" is not built Finding the same decision in other councils needs semantic matching over decision text, which is part of the search rewrite. Until then, the council's own decisions list is the way through.