Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43
268Ayes
80Noes
Carried · majority 188 · Government won299 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 268 · No 80 · DNV 299 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 5 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 43 to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, by 268 votes to 80. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have required the independent reviewer of the DWP's eligibility verification measure (EVM) to assess whether those powers were being used proportionately, including the costs imposed on financial institutions and any unintended harm caused to benefit recipients. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment passed, removing those requirements from the Bill. The eligibility verification measure allows the DWP to issue notices to banks and financial institutions requiring them to check claimants' account data against benefit eligibility indicators and report results back to the Department. The Bill already provides for an independent annual review of the EVM, but that review is focused on compliance and effectiveness, not proportionality. Lords Amendment 43 would have added proportionality, cost to business, and harm to claimants as explicit requirements of that review. By rejecting it, MPs kept the reviewer's remit narrower, relying on the government's existing safeguards rather than adding a statutory proportionality check. Labour MPs voted overwhelmingly for the government's position, with 235 Labour members and 31 Labour and Co-operative members voting to reject the amendment. The Conservatives, through their spokesperson Rebecca Smith, broadly supported the government's approach to the Bill as a whole. The opposition to the government came from the Liberal Democrats (63 votes against), the Greens (4), Plaid Cymru (4), the SNP (4), and one DWP Labour rebel, alongside a small number of independents.
Voting Aye meant
Reject the Lords amendment, keeping the independent reviewer's remit narrower and accepting the government's existing safeguards as adequate to ensure proportionate use of the eligibility verification powers.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, requiring the independent reviewer to explicitly assess whether the mass bank-data checks on benefit claimants are proportionate and whether they cause unintended harm to recipients — adding a civil liberties safeguard to the surveillance regime.
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
235
1
125
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
—
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
4
5
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
1
4
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
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government amendments strengthen the Bill by clarifying safeguards, embedding human decision-making, and ensuring ministerial accountability while preserving powers to tackle fraud across public sector and social security.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,023 words) →
Lords scrutiny improved the Bill significantly; welcomes Government amendments on proactive investigation powers, oversight, human review of automated decisions, and force restrictions, though regrets missed opportunities on sickfluencers and whistleblowing.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,698 words) →
Lords amendment 43 should be accepted to ensure the independent reviewer assesses proportionality, costs to banks, and harm to vulnerable benefit claimants; opposes mass data access without adequate safeguards.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (409 words) →
The Bill grants dangerous new powers over vulnerable people; DWP has a track record of catastrophic errors that have contributed to deaths, so cannot be trusted with sweeping access to bank accounts without robust protections.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (873 words) →
The Bill is disproportionately targeted at benefit claimants rather than wealthy tax evaders; vulnerable groups need explicit reporting on harms; concerns that EVM data alone could drive fraud investigations despite Government assurances.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (2,110 words) →
Supports the Bill's fraud prevention aims but seeks assurance that inadvertent claimant errors are distinguished from deliberate fraud and treated with sympathy rather than punishment.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (206 words) →
Supports the Bill but presses Government to explicitly confirm the independent reviewer will assess harms to vulnerable people, drawing on lessons from work capability assessment failings that killed over 1,000 people.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (797 words) →
Fraud must be tackled but proportionality is essential; supports Lords amendment 43 to give independent reviewer stronger powers to assess fairness and blanket data access risks.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (539 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0