Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 21
95Ayes
257Noes
Defeated · majority 162 · Government won293 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 95 · No 257 · DNV 293 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 29 April 2025 on New Clause 21 to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, a Conservative amendment that would have created a specific criminal offence targeting so-called "sickfluencers": social media figures who coach people to exaggerate or fabricate health conditions when claiming disability benefits. The amendment was defeated by 257 votes to 95, Division 182. The Bill itself creates new powers for the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions to investigate, prevent and recover money lost to fraud and error across the public sector. New Clause 21 would have added a targeted provision to that framework, creating a distinct legal tool aimed specifically at those who encourage fraudulent benefit claims through social media advice. Conservatives argued this was necessary because existing legal powers were not deterring the behaviour. The government opposed it on the grounds that current powers are adequate and that a broadly drafted offence risked catching people who provide legitimate guidance to genuine claimants, such as Citizens Advice workers. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 90 voting Conservative MPs backed the amendment, joined by 4 Reform UK members and one each from Traditional Unionist Voice and Ulster Unionist Party. All 224 voting Labour MPs and all 26 voting Labour and Co-operative MPs opposed it, as did the three voting Green MPs and the two members of Your Party. The SNP's Kirsty Blackman indicated in debate that she would not support the amendment due to concerns that even a carefully drafted clause might unintentionally catch those offering genuine advice. The defeat fits a wider pattern on the same day, with several other Conservative amendments to the Bill similarly rejected.
Voting Aye meant
Support creating a specific legal provision to target 'sickfluencers' who encourage fraudulent benefit claims, arguing current powers are insufficient to deter this growing form of welfare fraud.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, arguing existing powers are adequate and that a broadly drafted new offence risks catching people who provide legitimate advice to genuine claimants — such as Citizens Advice workers.
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 No
0
224
137
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
90
0
26
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
26
16
Independent
—
1
3
9
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Bill is tough and fair, essential to tackle £7.4bn benefit fraud and £55bn public sector fraud; includes robust safeguards, independent oversight, and will recover £1.5bn; existing legislation already covers sickfluencers and similar offences.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (6,372 words) →
Bill will only recover 1.8% of fraud losses (£1.5bn of £55bn); concerned that suspicionless financial surveillance may breach Human Rights Act articles 8 and 14; demanded legal advice be made public.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (429 words) →
Bill has gaps where not tough enough and parts vaguely prepared; supports new clauses on sickfluencers (10-year sentences), arrest powers for DWP investigators, liability orders for asset seizure, and independent tribunal appeals instead of ministerial review.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,733 words) →
Bill presents Orwellian mass surveillance risk; concerns about proportionality, impact on 136,000 carer's allowance claimants, and lack of fundamental DWP reform; fears powers will worsen situation for vulnerable people without independent oversight.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,014 words) →
Welcomes Bill as crackdown on £7.1m fraud in Wales; supports Government amendments on devolution, safeguards, and proportionality; Bill protects vulnerabilities and encourages early dialogue to prevent error escalation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (913 words) →
Existing powers against sickfluencers are not being used effectively; supports new clauses 8 and 21 for targeted legislation; called for annual reporting of recovered amounts and assurances on Scottish Government fraud reporting.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (335 words) →
Questioned whether Bill contravenes Human Rights Act 1998 secrecy provisions; sought assurance on legal compliance.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (51 words) →
Expressed concerns about automated decision-making, AI, and algorithms; sought commitment to transparency to protect vulnerable people from unfair treatment.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (87 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0