Show the Working

Tackle Waste and Corruption in Public Spending

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Tackle Waste and Corruption in Public Spending” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Helps

minor · low confidence

This policy aims to recover lost public money and cut wasteful spending, which could modestly improve public finances — but the biggest recoveries (Covid fraud) are likely already beyond reach, so the real-world gain may be much smaller than the headline ambition suggests.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much Covid fraud is genuinely still recoverable, given the commissioner's own findings that most of the £9+ billion shortfall is now unrecoverable.

Our reading: The policy targets three fiscal leakages: Covid procurement fraud, social security overpayments, and excessive consultant use. On Covid fraud, the scale of the original loss (£10.9bn) is substantial, but the commissioner's own findings indicate that the majority is now unrecoverable — degraded evidence and offshored funds mean the marginal fiscal gain from a new commissioner appointment is likely modest relative to the stated ambition. On social security fraud, significant counter-fraud machinery is already in place and has already saved £4.5bn since 2022; this policy's incremental contribution above the existing programme is unclear and not evidenced. On consultants, Labour's £3.73bn five-year pledge is material relative to a baseline of £3.7bn annual spend, but delivery is contested: spending actually rose to a record high in 2024/25, and the Institute for Government notes that real savings require civil service capability investment rather than blunt contract cuts. Taken together, all three pillars point in the right direction for O12 — reducing unfunded consumption spending and recovering lost revenue improves the debt path at the margin. However, the biggest headline number (Covid fraud recovery) is largely foreclosed, the social security savings are substantially pre-existing, and the consultant savings face real delivery risk. The net additional fiscal improvement is real but modest — hence 'improves/minor'. Confidence is low because the key swing variable (how much Covid fraud remains recoverable) is directly contested by the commissioner's own evidence, and the consultant savings trajectory runs counter to the pledge.

Cost of living — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Recovering fraud money and cutting consultant bills could free up public funds, but the evidence shows most COVID fraud is already unrecoverable, and tougher benefit anti-fraud checks risk wrongly hitting the vulnerable people the system is meant to support. Any net gain for ordinary households' cost of living is likely small and indirect.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether recovered or saved funds are actually redirected in ways that reduce costs or improve services for ordinary households, rather than simply reducing the deficit.

Our reading: This policy operates primarily as a fiscal lever — recovering fraud and cutting wasteful spending — rather than directly touching prices, energy bills, or take-home pay. Its effect on O2 is therefore indirect: savings could free up resources to hold down taxes or fund services, but only if the savings are real and are deployed in ways that reach ordinary households. On the COVID fraud front, the evidence is sobering. The £10.9 billion lost figure is large, but recovery is already stalling at £1.8 billion with the rest largely unrecoverable. A new Commissioner cannot easily reverse this trajectory. The upside for public finances — and by extension, for cost-of-living pressures on households — is therefore modest at best. On social security, the anti-fraud agenda has a sharper and more direct cost-of-living dimension, but it cuts both ways. Recovered overpayments could reduce fiscal drag, potentially protecting benefit levels or freeing resources. But £1.2 billion in underpayments means some claimants are already being denied money they are owed, and advocacy groups warn that tougher enforcement risks compounding harm to low-income households — the very people for whom benefits are a core part of managing the cost of living. This is a real downside risk concentrated among the most financially vulnerable. On consultants, the pledge to save £3.73 billion over five years is ambitious, but the evidence shows spending actually rose to a record high in 2024/25, and experts argue savings require investing in civil service capacity, not just cutting contracts. Realised savings are therefore uncertain and slow to materialise. Overall: there is a genuine but modest upside (if fraud savings are real and redirected usefully) and a genuine downside risk (if social security anti-fraud measures cause wrongful cuts to vulnerable claimants). The verdict is mixed but minor — the policy is unlikely to be a primary driver of cost-of-living outcomes for most households.

Crime, justice & national security — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This policy is primarily about public finances and procurement governance, not directly about street-level crime, courts, or national security — the core O5 indicators. While recovering fraud funds and punishing corrupt procurement touch the edges of 'justice works', the evidence shows most COVID fraud money is already unrecoverable, making even that narrow justice gain marginal.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the Covid Corruption Commissioner actually achieves meaningful prosecutions or recoveries — the existing commissioner's own findings suggest most losses are beyond reach.

Our reading: O5 covers crime rates, charge and conviction times, court backlogs, national security, and resilience to external threats. This policy's primary mechanisms — ending ministerial-access-linked contracting, a fraud recovery commissioner, and cutting consultant spend — are overwhelmingly fiscal and governance instruments. Their main expected impact falls on O12 (public finances) and possibly O9 (rule of law), not on the safety and security indicators that define O5. The narrow O5-adjacent effect is through the justice-works lens: if the Covid Corruption Commissioner successfully prosecutes fraudsters, that marginally demonstrates the justice system functioning. However, the evidence is clear that most COVID fraud losses are already unrecoverable (E7, E9), meaning the prosecution and recovery mechanism has very limited remaining scope. Ending the VIP procurement lane (E1, E2) prevents future corruption but does not address the O5 indicators at population scale. None of the policy's instruments plausibly move crime rates, court backlogs, antisocial behaviour, or national security posture in a material way. The verdict is therefore negligible on O5 — not because the policy is without merit, but because its effects land almost entirely on other fundamentals.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps

minor · moderate confidence

Ending the political-connections route into public contracts addresses a documented equal-treatment failure in procurement; appointing a Covid Corruption Commissioner strengthens rule-of-law accountability. The gains are real but limited in scope, and aggressive anti-fraud enforcement in social security could cut the other way for vulnerable claimants.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether 'ending the link between access to ministers and public contracts' is backed by statutory safeguards or relies on non-binding guidance — the policy text does not specify — determines whether the equal-treatment improvement is durable or easily reversed.

Our reading: O9 asks whether people are treated equally and fairly and whether due process and rule of law are upheld. The evidence shows a documented and court-confirmed failure of equal treatment in COVID-19 procurement: the VIP lane systematically advantaged politically connected firms over others seeking public contracts. Ending the ministerial-access-to-contracts link directly addresses this structural inequality in procurement, providing a genuine if modest improvement to O9. The Covid Corruption Commissioner strengthens rule-of-law accountability for past fraud, though its practical impact is curtailed by the Commissioner's own finding that most funds are beyond recovery. On the social security fraud strand, advocacy sources (Amnesty International — flagged as advocacy) raise concerns that aggressive enforcement could worsen equal treatment of claimants. This counter-signal is real but comes from a single advocacy source and does not dominate the overall direction. Absent the policy, the procurement inequality evidenced by the VIP lane and political connections would persist with no committed instrument to prevent recurrence. The claimed improvement is therefore genuinely additional for procurement equal treatment. Confidence is moderate: the procurement commitment is concrete in direction but unspecified in mechanism (no statutory duty cited), and the anti-fraud and consultant elements have weak O9 implications compared to the procurement reform. Magnitude is minor: the population directly affected by procurement equal treatment is relatively narrow, and the social security tension prevents a higher score.

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home