Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43

Wednesday, 5 November 2025 · Division No. 344 · Commons

268Ayes
80Noes
Passed

299 MPs did not vote

rightGovernment wonAnti Fraud Enforcement(Yes)Pro Independent Oversight(No)Pro Welfare Accountability(Yes)Lords Scrutiny Checks(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the government's rejection of the Lords requirement for the independent reviewer to include a statement in every report confirming they received all necessary material, on the basis that existing safeguards already ensure this

Voting No means

Support the Lords amendment's additional transparency safeguard requiring the independent reviewer to explicitly confirm in each report whether they received all material needed, as a check on government compliance

What happened: The House of Commons voted on 5 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 43 to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which concerned the scope of a power known as the eligibility verification measure. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 268 votes to 80, sending the bill back toward its final stages with the government's preferred wording intact.

Why it matters: The eligibility verification measure gives the Department for Work and Pensions the power to issue notices to financial institutions, requiring them to identify accounts into which certain benefit payments are made, check those accounts against eligibility indicators, and share details with the DWP where incorrect payments may have occurred or be occurring. Lords Amendment 43 would have altered the scope of that power, and the Commons voted to remove it. The bill more broadly establishes new investigative and recovery powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority across government, as well as modernising the DWP's tools for tackling fraud and error within the social security system. The practical effect of the vote is to preserve the government's version of these bank-account checking powers, which critics argue represent an unprecedented extension of state access to private financial data.

The politics: The vote was carried almost entirely on Labour and Labour and Co-operative votes, with 266 government-side MPs voting aye against a no lobby made up predominantly of Liberal Democrats (63), alongside Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, the SNP, and a small number of independents. Notably, one Labour MP voted against the government. The Conservatives, with 116 MPs absent, cast no votes on either side. Within Labour, backbench dissent was visible in speeches from John McDonnell and Neil Duncan-Jordan, both of whom pressed the minister on safeguards, though neither ultimately voted against the government. The bill has been subject to extensive amendment in the Lords and cross-party negotiation in both chambers.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
235 Aye/1 No

1 rebel: Apsana Begum

Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/63 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
31 Aye/0 No
Independent
2 Aye/4 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Democratic Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Your Party
0 Aye/1 No

1 MP voted against their party whip

What They Said in the Debate

Neil Duncan-Jordan

Liberal Democrat · Poole

Opposed

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.

John Milne

SNP · Horsham

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Kirsty Blackman

SNP · Aberdeen North

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Steve Darling

Liberal Democrat · Torbay

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Jim Shannon

DUP · Strangford

Questioning

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.

Voted No

John McDonnell

Labour · Hayes and Harlington

Questioning

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.

Andrew Western

Labour · Stretford and Urmston

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Rebecca Smith

Conservative · South West Devon

Supportive

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.

Related Votes