Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 50
103
Ayes
—
416
Noes
Defeated · Government won
127 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on Amendment 50 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill during its Committee stage on 9 July 2025. The amendment, which sought to modify the government's welfare reform proposals, was heavily defeated by 416 votes to 103. The result was decisive, with the government's position prevailing by a margin of more than four to one. **Why it matters:** The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill is the government's primary vehicle for reforming the welfare and disability benefits system. Amendment 50 sought to push back against or alter the direction of those reforms, broadly in the direction of greater welfare provision. Its defeat means the bill continues on its original trajectory, with the government's approach to Universal Credit and PIP changes remaining intact at this stage of the legislative process. The outcome affects claimants of disability and means-tested benefits, potentially numbering in the millions, whose entitlements are shaped by the rules this bill sets out. **The politics:** The vote produced an unusual cross-party pattern. Conservatives (93 ayes) provided the bulk of support for the amendment, joined by Reform UK (5) and the Democratic Unionist Party (4), with 2 independents also voting in favour. The entire Labour and Labour and Co-operative parliamentary bloc voted no, as did the Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens. The Liberal Democrats had a very high absence rate of 63 MPs, though their 9 who voted chose the no lobby. No Labour MPs voted for the amendment, indicating firm whipping on the government side. The vote sits within a broader sequence of committee-stage divisions on this bill, in which the government has consistently seen off amendments while facing varying degrees of cross-party opposition.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 50 to the UC and PIP Bill, likely seeking to modify or restrict changes to disability or welfare benefits proposed in the Bill
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 50, backing the Government's original Bill text without the amendment's proposed changes
519 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 127 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
339
23
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
9
63
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
42
—
Independent
2
7
4
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
9
—
Reform UKWhipped Aye
5
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
0
1
—
The Bill is fundamentally flawed and should be substantially amended or withdrawn; government should fund improvements through wealth tax rather than cutting disabled support; clause 2 cuts are unjustified and clause 3 freezes are harmful.Green · Voted no · Read full speech (2,306 words) →
While welcoming recent government concessions protecting existing claimants, supports delay of UC health changes from April to November 2026 to allow NHS and labour market reforms to take effect; amendments 2(b) and associated amendments are necessary compromises.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (955 words) →
Bill is unaffordable, locks in unfunded spending commitments, fails to address fraud or tie uplifts to employment support, and will ultimately result in higher taxes on working families; amendments 41 and new clause 9 needed for parliamentary control and fraud accountability.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,443 words) →
Bill breaches UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities; £2 billion in cuts will devastate those with fluctuating conditions; clauses 2 and 3 should be withdrawn; amendment 38 essential to protect people with remitting conditions.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (917 words) →
Government should clarify Timms review aims, ensure co-production with dignity at centre, and fix severe conditions criteria wording discrepancy; Bill represents wrong approach given better fiscal options available.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (2,083 words) →
Health element cuts will harm vulnerable people with additional medical costs; system needs compassion and expert input in decision-making.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (220 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0