Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 11
85Ayes
238Noes
Defeated · majority 153 · Government won320 did not vote
643 Members · Aye 85 · No 238 · DNV 320 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 29 April 2025 on Amendment 11 to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill at report stage (the detailed review stage where MPs propose changes before a bill's final reading). The amendment, tabled by Neil Duncan-Jordan, Labour MP for Poole, would have restricted the DWP's new Eligibility Verification Notice power so it could only be used where there was an existing suspicion of wrongdoing against a benefit claimant, rather than applying to all claimants as a routine check. The amendment was defeated by 238 votes to 85. The Eligibility Verification Notice power requires banks to scan account data for claimants of Universal Credit, Pension Credit and Employment and Support Allowance and report results to the DWP. Removing the restriction means the power can operate before any suspicion of fraud or error arises, allowing the DWP to identify incorrect payments early across the entire claimant population. Supporters of the amendment argued this amounts to mass financial surveillance of people claiming benefits, stripping them of the presumption of innocence, and risks generating large numbers of false positives given the scale of accounts involved. The vote divided sharply along party lines, with Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs providing almost all of the 238 noes. Twelve Labour MPs and one Labour and Co-operative MP voted with the amendment, alongside nearly all Liberal Democrats (45 of 46 voting), all seven SNP MPs, all four Plaid Cymru MPs, all four DUP MPs, all three Green MPs, and several independents. The amendment formed part of a broader set of challenges to the bill on the same day, all of which were defeated by similar margins. The bill itself had passed its second reading in February 2025 by 343 votes to 87.
Voting Aye meant
Support limiting bank account scanning to cases where there is already a suspicion of fraud, protecting claimants' civil liberties and presumption of innocence.
Voting No meant
Oppose the restriction, arguing the eligibility verification power must operate before any suspicion arises in order to detect incorrect payments early — limiting it to suspected fraud cases would make it useless.
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
12
212
137
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
1
0
115
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
44
1
26
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
1
24
17
Independent
—
8
3
2
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
7
0
2
Reform UK
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
2
0
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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (335 words) →
Questioned whether Bill contravenes Human Rights Act 1998 secrecy provisions; sought assurance on legal compliance.Labour · Voted aye · 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 aye · Read full speech (87 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0