A divisionDivision No. 344 · Wednesday, 5 November 2025· Commons· Fraud

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

268Ayes
80Noes
Carried · majority 188 · Government won
299 did not vote
Aye268No82DID NOT VOTE · 299

647 Members · Aye 268 · No 80 · DNV 299 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

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. 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 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.

Voting Aye meant
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 meant
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
§ 01Who voted how.348 voting Members · 299 absent

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
63
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
2
4
7
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
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
Your Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Andrew WesternSupportiveStretford and Urmston
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)
Rebecca SmithSupportiveSouth West Devon
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)
Neil Duncan-JordanOpposedPoole
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)
John MilneOpposedHorsham
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)
Kirsty BlackmanOpposedAberdeen North
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)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
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)
John McDonnellQuestioningHayes and Harlington
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)
Steve DarlingOpposedTorbay
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0