Fraud.

Aye: 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. · No: 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.

Aye: Support delaying recovery of carer's allowance overpayments until an independent review has concluded and its recommendations implemented, protecting carers from repayment demands before the systemic failures that caused overpayments are fully understood. · No: Oppose the blanket pause on carer's allowance overpayment recovery, accepting the government's argument that existing safeguards protect carers and that suspending all recovery until recommendations are implemented goes too far.

Aye: 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. · No: 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.

Aye: Support limiting bank account scanning to cases where there is already a suspicion of fraud, protecting claimants' civil liberties and presumption of innocence. · No: 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.

Aye: Support amending the Bill to add safeguards against its most punitive powers — including removing driving licence disqualification for debtors, restricting mass bank data trawls to suspected fraud cases, and delaying Carer's Allowance debt recovery pending an independent review — on the grounds that the Bill as written treats vulnerable claimants as suspects and risks a Horizon-style scandal. · No: Reject the amendments and back the Bill's powers as written, arguing existing safeguards are sufficient and that strong enforcement tools are necessary to recover billions lost to fraud and error in the welfare system.