Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

How the Lords voted

7 formal votes in the House of Lords on this bill, newest first.

These are the occasions when peers formally divided and every vote was recorded. Most decisions in the Lords, including on many amendments, are agreed without a recorded vote, so they do not appear here.

• 21 October 2025Government won

  Viscount Younger of Leckie moved amendment 87, in clause 89, page 54, line 23, to leave out “may” and insert “must”.

  Peers' vote276 peers

  Content · 138Not content · 138

  Labour 0 content, 131 not content · Conservative 104 content, 0 not content · Liberal Democrat 23 content, 0 not content · Crossbench 5 content, 4 not content · Non-affiliated 3 content, 2 not content · Plaid Cymru 2 content, 0 not content · Bishops 0 content, 1 not content · Democratic Unionist Party 1 content, 0 not content

• 21 October 2025Government defeated

  Lord Vaux of Harrowden moved amendment 76, in Schedule 4, page 94, line 11, at end to insert, “(4A) Section 117 (reasonable use of force) is to be read as if at the end there were inserted, “(2) Authorised investigators exercising powers under section 109D may only use reasonable force, if necessary, against items and property, not against persons. (3) Nothing in subsection (2) restricts the power of a police constable to use reasonable force, if necessary, when exercising powers under section 109D Social Security Administration Act 1992.””

  Peers' vote356 peers

  Content · 212Not content · 144

  Labour 0 content, 138 not content · Conservative 137 content, 0 not content · Liberal Democrat 46 content, 0 not content · Crossbench 17 content, 4 not content · Non-affiliated 5 content, 2 not content · Democratic Unionist Party 3 content, 0 not content · Plaid Cymru 2 content, 0 not content · Bishops 1 content, 0 not content · Green Party 1 content, 0 not content

• 21 October 2025Government defeated

  Lord Vaux of Harrowden moved amendment 67, in clause 76, page 44, line 32, at end to insert, “(d) the costs incurred by the Secretary of State and by those who have received eligibility verification notices have been reasonable and proportionate, (e) the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers under Schedule 3B has had any adverse affect on vulnerable people or on the ability of benefit claimants to access banking services, and (f) the independent person has been provided such information as they consider necessary to carry out the review.”

  Peers' vote406 peers

  Content · 253Not content · 153

  Conservative 159 content, 0 not content · Labour 0 content, 142 not content · Liberal Democrat 50 content, 0 not content · Crossbench 26 content, 6 not content · Non-affiliated 10 content, 4 not content · Democratic Unionist Party 3 content, 0 not content · Plaid Cymru 2 content, 0 not content · Ulster Unionist Party 2 content, 0 not content · Bishops 0 content, 1 not content · Green Party 1 content, 0 not content

• 21 October 2025Government defeated

  Lord Vaux of Harrowden moved amendment 52, in Schedule 3, page 80, line 26, at end to insert, “Reasonable suspicion and appropriate review of EVM information 5A (1)The existence of an eligibility indicator alone does not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion for the purpose of section 109BZB(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. (2) Before taking any action to amend or suspend any benefit payments, or exercising the powers in Clause 109BZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the EVM information must first have been reviewed by a person with appropriate seniority and experience authorised by the Secretary of State.”

  Peers' vote419 peers

  Content · 262Not content · 157

  Conservative 163 content, 0 not content · Labour 0 content, 145 not content · Liberal Democrat 54 content, 0 not content · Crossbench 28 content, 6 not content · Non-affiliated 9 content, 4 not content · Democratic Unionist Party 3 content, 1 not content · Plaid Cymru 2 content, 0 not content · Ulster Unionist Party 2 content, 0 not content · Bishops 0 content, 1 not content · Green Party 1 content, 0 not content

• 21 October 2025Government defeated

  Baroness Finn moved amendment 27, in clause 67, page 36, line 1, at end to insert, “(A1) Investigatory and enforcement powers under sections 3 (information notices), 7 (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 etc powers), 17 (direct deduction orders), and 39 (deduction from earnings orders) of this Act shall not be exercised except as provided for in this section.”

  Peers' vote430 peers

  Content · 270Not content · 160

  Conservative 168 content, 0 not content · Labour 0 content, 146 not content · Liberal Democrat 53 content, 0 not content · Crossbench 31 content, 9 not content · Non-affiliated 10 content, 3 not content · Democratic Unionist Party 3 content, 0 not content · Ulster Unionist Party 3 content, 0 not content · Bishops 0 content, 2 not content · Green Party 1 content, 0 not content · Plaid Cymru 1 content, 0 not content

Lords votes last updated 18 October 2026. Source: UK Parliament Lords Votes API.

Sponsored by

Liz Kendall

LabourLeicester West

Bill passage