Published: 19th August 2024 The Department of Work and Pensions has failed to deliver on its promise of transparency, despite committing to publish analysis of bias in its automated systems after PLP’s concerns were raised by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last year. Read our pre-action letter to the DWP on behalf of the Work Rights Centre. DWP’s annual report and accounts for 2023-24, published on 22 July 2024, has provided more insight into DWP’s desire to increase reliance on AI and automation, including for detecting fraud and error in social security claims and payments. The report speaks a lot in general terms about the DWP’s use of data analytics and machine learning, including, in equally general terms, of the safeguards in place. However, the report provides no meaningful information about what technologies DWP is piloting or actually using nor how they are, or will be, deployed. It similarly provides very little information about DWP’s own assessment of the potentially discriminatory impact that the technologies might have on protected groups or vulnerable claimants. This weak compliance with the PAC’s recommendation to report to Parliament on an annual basis on the impact of data analytics on protected grounds and vulnerable claimants is very disappointing, especially since: There is also scant detail on the safeguards that DWP is purportedly adopting to mitigate harm; and The DWP has provided no real detail to allow meaningful scrutiny of the impact of the tools it is adopting. There is a real risk that (as identified by the National Audit Office) technologies of this nature may lead to discriminatory outcomes by unfairly targeting particular claimants, including because of their protected characteristics. Although the DWP’s report does refer to a fairness analysis it has carried out in relation to the Universal Credit (UC) Advances model, the results have not been published. The report simply states that the results ‘do not present any immediate concerns of discrimination, unfair treatment or detrimental impact on customers’. The DWP has not provided any details of its assessment due to concerns that publication would allegedly ‘allow fraudsters to understand how the model operates’. DWP’s use of automation and AI could be unlawful Why does transparency around automation and AI matter? Because such technologies are currently being used to process UC Advances and to investigate or suspend UC payments, and right now, without transparency, we cannot hold the DWP to account if it is using those technologies unlawfully. PLP is currently acting for the Work Rights Centre (WoRC) in relation to a potential claim against the DWP regarding its use of automated technologies in: Triaging claims for UC Advances for enhanced review prior to payment, and Identifying UC payments for investigation and suspension. PLP and WoRC consider that DWP’s lack of transparency and current deployment of such technologies may be unlawful for a number of reasons, including that their use does not appear to accord with published guidance and may be contrary to data protection law, human rights law and equalities law. PLP sent an initial pre-action letter to DWP on behalf of WoRC earlier this year, raising eight potential grounds of challenge. A copy of the pre-action letter is available here. We continue to engage in pre-action correspondence with DWP, with the aim of learning more about how precisely it is using these technologies and what safeguards it is adopting to mitigate harm. PLP is interested in speaking to UC claimants or practitioners/caseworkers supporting UC claimants who may want to share experiences of: UC Advance payment requests that may have been subjected to enhanced review prior to payment. This may include situations where advance payments were delayed or where UC claimants were notified that more information was required before payment was made; and UC payments, where an existing UC award is in place, that have been investigated or suspended due to suspicion of fraud or error. This may have involved DWP teams known as the ‘Risk Review Team’, the ‘Enhanced Review Team’ or the ‘Enhanced Checking Service’. PLP would also be interested to hear from practitioners/caseworkers who may want to discuss the pre-action letter that we have sent. If you have relevant experiences you want to share or are a practitioner/caseworker who wants to discuss the pre-action letter, please get in touch by email to [email protected].