Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2025-11-05

05 November 2025 · 15 other contributors

Opened by Andrew Western Lab Work and Pensions Minister

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Andrew Western raised concerns about public authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill 2025-11-05 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill aims to safeguard public money and combat fraud, estimated to deliver 1.5 billion in benefits by 2029-30.
  • The Government introduced amendments to ensure DWP staff consider all relevant information before taking actions, not relying solely on EVM data.
  • The Minister addressed concerns about the independent reviewer's role and the use of reasonable force by authorised investigators.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Andrew Western Lab Work and Pensions Minister

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money. The Bill introduces new powers for the PSFA and DWP to investigate fraud and error, providing modernisation with significant safeguards. It aims to deliver an estimated £1.5 billion of benefits by 2029-30.

Other contributors (15)
  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Concerned about the impact on those who make inadvertent mistakes, Jim Shannon seeks assurance that such individuals will not be penalised unfairly alongside deliberate fraudsters. He emphasises the need for sympathy and proper handling of accidental errors to avoid unnecessary suffering.

  • The Minister detailed how the statutory guidance will outline internal oversight structures, powers delegation, training standards, PSFA collaboration with an independent reviewer, and annual reporting requirements. He rejected Lords amendment 84 due to concerns it would compromise DWP's ability to attribute weight to EVM information obtained through eligibility verification notices. Instead, he proposed Government amendments (a) and (b) to ensure decisions are based on all relevant information rather than EVM alone. He also addressed concerns about the independent reviewer's role and use of reasonable force by authorised investigators.

  • Kirsty Blackman SNP Aberdeen North

    Ms Blackman questioned why the Minister disagreed with Lords amendment 84, particularly in scenarios where DWP agents have only EVM information. She sought clarity on whether decisions could be based solely on EVM data.

  • Mr Western reiterated his stance against Lords amendment 84 and detailed the Government’s amendments (a) and (b), which require DWP staff to consider all relevant information before taking actions. He emphasised that these measures protect individuals from undue scrutiny based on isolated EVM data.

  • Rebecca Smith Con South West Devon

    The shadow minister thanked peers for their constructive engagement and acknowledged the Government's willingness to accept improvements made during scrutiny in the House of Lords. She highlighted the importance of protecting taxpayers' money, ensuring fairness, and providing public bodies with necessary powers to tackle fraud.

  • Neil Duncan-Jordan Ind Poole

    Concerned about the potential harm to individuals from the eligibility verification measure (EVM), especially regarding algorithmic errors that could lead to wrongful investigations. Urges the Minister to accept Lords amendment 43, ensuring a proportionate and fair use of EVM powers.

  • Steve Darling LD Torbay

    Acknowledges improvements made by the Government but still has grave concerns about the Bill's proportionality and fairness. Emphasises the need for more responsibility given to the independent reviewer regarding these aspects.

  • The speaker questioned the reasonableness of political actions in the United States and emphasised the need for caution in adopting similar approaches, urging MPs to guard against such practices in UK legislation.

  • John McDonnell Lab Hayes and Harlington

    McDonnell expressed concern over Lords amendment 84 and sought clarity from the Government on whether decisions could be made solely based on EVM information. He also supported Lords amendment 43, advocating for a stronger independent review process to address concerns about vulnerable individuals.

  • John Milne LD Horsham

    Milne raised significant doubts about the DWP's ability to exercise new powers fairly and responsibly. He cited tragic cases of Philippa Day and Kristie Hunt, highlighting systemic failures and urging for public access to coroners' reports linked to DWP actions.

  • Blackman criticised the Bill's approach as disproportionate, questioning why universal credit claimants should face scrutiny of their bank accounts while those with high incomes do not. She highlighted systemic errors in the DWP and urged for more checks to protect vulnerable individuals.

  • Rebecca Smith SNP South West Devon

    The hon. Member for South West Devon highlighted concerns about the cost of sending bailiffs to collect small amounts of school meal debt, arguing it is disproportionate and harmful. She also raised issues about the impact on vulnerable groups, including those with learning difficulties and physical disabilities.

  • Neil Duncan-Jordan Con Poole

    My hon. Friend supported the SNP's position by emphasising the need for transparency regarding costs and savings and expressed concerns over potential harm to vulnerable communities due to welfare fraud prevention measures.

  • John McDonnell Lab Hayes and Harlington

    The right hon. Member pointed out the importance of an annual review mechanism that examines whether the legislation is causing harm, suggesting this was essential for learning from past mistakes like the Work Capability Assessment.

  • Kirsty Blackman SNP Aberdeen North

    The hon. Member spoke about the need to report on vulnerabilities and inequalities created by the welfare fraud measures, advocating for transparency and awareness of potential harm to vulnerable communities.

Government Response

The Government's amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 84 require DWP staff to consider all relevant information before taking actions, ensuring decisions are not made based on EVM data alone. The Minister also addressed concerns about the independent reviewer’s role and use of reasonable force by authorised investigators. The Minister thanked Members for their contributions and outlined the benefits of the Government’s proposed approach. He confirmed that there will be a take-note debate and meetings with the PSFA independent reviewer. The Minister also emphasised existing layers of protection and the necessity to consider all relevant information before taking any action.

Shadow Response

None

The shadow minister thanked peers for their scrutiny, acknowledged improvements made during House of Lords consideration, and emphasised the importance of protecting taxpayers' money and ensuring fairness in benefit systems. She praised the Government's constructive approach. The right hon. Member clarified that an annual review mechanism is necessary to assess potential harms caused by the legislation, emphasising transparency as a critical requirement.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy