Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Second Reading
343
Ayes
—
87
Noes
Passed · Government won
217 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 3 February 2025, the House of Commons voted on the Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which would give public bodies new powers to identify and recover money lost through fraud and error in benefit payments and wider public spending. The bill passed by 343 votes to 87, clearing its first major parliamentary hurdle and proceeding to further scrutiny. **Why it matters:** The bill advances a significant expansion of the state's ability to investigate and claw back public money. In practical terms, it would give authorities enhanced tools including powers relating to data matching and debt recovery, aimed at reducing losses the government attributes to fraud and error in the welfare system and other areas of public spending. The measures would affect benefit claimants, public bodies, and financial institutions required to cooperate with investigations, making it one of the more consequential pieces of welfare administration legislation in recent years. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 341 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted in favour, delivering the government a comfortable majority. The opposition against the bill came from the Liberal Democrats (65 votes against), the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and Northern Irish unionist parties, with concerns centred on civil liberties and due process rather than the principle of tackling fraud. The Conservatives are absent from the breakdown, suggesting they did not vote as a bloc either way, a notable feature of the division. The bill subsequently reached Report Stage in late April 2025, where a series of amendments and new clauses proposed by opposition parties were defeated by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Bill's measures to tackle fraud against the public purse, including benefit fraud by criminal gangs and individuals, as well as fraud by companies abusing public contracts
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill, citing concerns that new investigatory powers could disproportionately target vulnerable and genuinely disabled claimants, causing harm and anxiety to innocent people
430 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 217 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
304
0
58
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
65
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
2
5
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
7
2
Reform UK
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
0
0
1
The Bill is tough but fair, modernising DWP fraud powers to tackle £55 billion annual fraud while protecting genuine claimants through independent oversight and human decision-making.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,008 words) →
Conditionally supportive of fraud-tackling aims, but raises concerns about ministerial powers lacking oversight, impact on banks, proportionality of 40% capital recovery limits, and whether the Bill adequately addresses sickness benefits caseload.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,173 words) →
While fraud must be tackled, the Bill risks damaging trust in DWP and harming vulnerable claimants; demands risk assessments, safeguarding details, and lessons from housing benefit AI fraud scandal before proceeding.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,172 words) →
Opposes the Bill as a 'Big Brother' and 'snoopers charter' that prioritises surveillance over reform; calls for withdrawal pending the carer's allowance review and proper safeguard consultations.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (861 words) →
Firmly opposed; the Bill treats benefit claimants as suspects rather than citizens, risks damaging stigma and trust, and focuses on small-scale fraud while ignoring larger tax fraud—should be scrapped in favour of co-designed reform.Green · Voted no · Read full speech (831 words) →
While fraud must be tackled, the Bill underemphasises error (far bigger than fraud) and lacks clarity on bank partnerships; warns of disproportionate impact on vulnerable claimants and requests scrutiny of the 28-day appeal window.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,779 words) →
Strongly supportive; fraud robbed the state of £20,000 per minute under the last government; the Bill's search, seizure, and recovery powers are essential to protect taxpayers and public services.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,246 words) →
Opposed on data protection grounds; the Bill threatens UK data adequacy with the EU, violates presumption of innocence, and improperly enlists banks as 'judge, jury and executioner' of welfare policy.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,100 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0