Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Second Reading
343Ayes
87Noes
Carried · majority 256 · Government won217 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 343 · No 87 · DNV 217 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 3 February 2025 to give the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill its Second Reading, approving its passage to the next stage of scrutiny. The vote passed by 343 ayes to 87 noes. A Second Reading is the first substantive Commons vote on a bill, approving its general principles rather than its precise wording. The Bill creates new statutory powers for two bodies. The Public Sector Fraud Authority, operating through the Cabinet Office, would gain powers to search premises, compel businesses and individuals to hand over information, and recover money directly from bank accounts or earnings without separate court proceedings. The Department for Work and Pensions would gain what the Bill calls Eligibility Verification Notices, requiring banks to check claimants' financial data, along with powers of entry and search, direct bank-account deductions, and driving-licence disqualification as a last resort for persistent non-repayment. The Government framed these as tackling fraud estimated at £55 billion a year across the public sector, including £7.4 billion in benefit fraud. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 341 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the Bill. The Liberal Democrats provided the largest bloc of opposition, with all 65 of their voting MPs opposing it, joined by the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and most of the smaller Northern Ireland parties. The Conservatives, who might have been expected to lead opposition to a Government bill, had no vote recorded for any of their MPs, suggesting widespread absence rather than active dissent or support.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Bill, backing stronger state powers to crack down on fraud against the public purse, including new investigatory and debt-recovery tools for the PSFA and DWP, while accepting that safeguards will protect legitimate claimants.
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill, raising concerns that powers such as bank-account deductions and eligibility verification notices are disproportionate, risk penalising disabled people and genuine claimants, and lack sufficient independent oversight.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
304
0
57
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
64
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
—
2
6
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
7
2
Reform UK
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The Bill is tough but fair, modernising DWP fraud powers to tackle £55 billion annual fraud while protecting genuine claimants through independent oversight and human decision-making.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,008 words) →
Conditionally supportive of fraud-tackling aims, but raises concerns about ministerial powers lacking oversight, impact on banks, proportionality of 40% capital recovery limits, and whether the Bill adequately addresses sickness benefits caseload.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,173 words) →
While fraud must be tackled, the Bill risks damaging trust in DWP and harming vulnerable claimants; demands risk assessments, safeguarding details, and lessons from housing benefit AI fraud scandal before proceeding.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,172 words) →
Opposes the Bill as a 'Big Brother' and 'snoopers charter' that prioritises surveillance over reform; calls for withdrawal pending the carer's allowance review and proper safeguard consultations.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (861 words) →
Firmly opposed; the Bill treats benefit claimants as suspects rather than citizens, risks damaging stigma and trust, and focuses on small-scale fraud while ignoring larger tax fraud—should be scrapped in favour of co-designed reform.Green · Voted no · Read full speech (831 words) →
While fraud must be tackled, the Bill underemphasises error (far bigger than fraud) and lacks clarity on bank partnerships; warns of disproportionate impact on vulnerable claimants and requests scrutiny of the 28-day appeal window.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,779 words) →
Strongly supportive; fraud robbed the state of £20,000 per minute under the last government; the Bill's search, seizure, and recovery powers are essential to protect taxpayers and public services.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,246 words) →
Opposed on data protection grounds; the Bill threatens UK data adequacy with the EU, violates presumption of innocence, and improperly enlists banks as 'judge, jury and executioner' of welfare policy.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,100 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0