← Back to House of Commons Debates
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2025-11-05
05 November 2025
Lead MP
Andrew Western
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Employment
Other Contributors: 15
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.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
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.
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.
Minister of State for the Department for Work and Pensions
Andrew Western
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.
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.
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.
Name Not Provided
Cons
UK
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.
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
Shadow Response
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
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.