Division · No. 260Wednesday, 9 July 2025Commons Welfare and Benefits

Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 12

105
Ayes
370
Noes
Defeated · Government won
172 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on Amendment 12 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill on 9 July 2025, during the bill's committee stage on the floor of the House of Commons. The amendment, which sought to introduce more generous or protective provisions for disability benefits and Universal Credit claimants, was defeated by a substantial margin of 370 votes to 105. The vote has direct practical consequences for disabled people and those receiving welfare support. The amendment would have placed additional protections or expanded entitlements into the bill, but its defeat means the government's original welfare reform plans remain intact. The outcome affects a large number of people who rely on Personal Independence Payment and Universal Credit, and the result signals that the government retains firm control over the bill's direction at this stage of its passage. The division revealed a near-complete split between the governing Labour Party and almost every other party in the Commons. All 326 Labour MPs and all 41 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the amendment, while the Liberal Democrats provided the largest block of support with 65 votes in favour. The Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the Democratic Unionist Party, and even Reform UK all voted for the amendment. Eight Labour MPs broke with their party's whip to support it, representing a notable but small rebellion on a welfare measure affecting some of the most vulnerable constituents.

Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 12 to the UC and PIP Bill, likely seeking to modify or restrict elements of the government's welfare changes
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 12, backing the government's UC and PIP Bill in its unamended form
§ 01Who voted how.475 voting members · 172 absent
Aye108No369DID NOT VOTE · 172

475 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 172 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
8
326
28
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
41
1
Independent
6
1
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
Reform UKWhipped Aye
3
0
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
1
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Siân BerryOpposedBrighton Pavilion
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 aye · Read full speech (2,306 words)
Debbie AbrahamsNeutralOldham East and Saddleworth
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)
Graham StuartOpposedBeverley and Holderness
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 no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,443 words)
Rachael MaskellOpposedYork Central
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)
Kirsty BlackmanOpposedAberdeen North
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 aye · Read full speech (2,083 words)
Jim ShannonOpposedStrangford
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0