Division · No. 261Wednesday, 9 July 2025Commons Universal Credit

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: Clause 2, as amended, and Clause 3 stand part

335
Ayes
135
Noes
Passed · Government won
178 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 9 July 2025 to approve Clauses 2 and 3 of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill as amended, the core provisions of the government's welfare reform legislation. The motion passed by 335 votes to 135. These clauses contain the principal substance of proposed changes to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment, the two largest working-age benefits in the UK system. The vote advances the government's plan to reshape how disability and incapacity benefits are assessed and paid. The reforms affect millions of claimants across the country, altering eligibility criteria and payment structures for Personal Independence Payment and the health-related components of Universal Credit. Supporters argue the changes are necessary to ensure the benefits system is sustainable and better targeted, while opponents contend the reforms will reduce support for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions who depend on these payments. Labour voted largely in favour, providing the government its majority, though 38 Labour and Labour and Co-operative members voted against, representing a notable rebellion on the government's own benches. Every other party with members present voted against, including the Liberal Democrats (63 votes against), the Scottish National Party (9), Plaid Cymru (4), the Green Party (4), and the Democratic Unionist Party (4). The bill sits within a wider political controversy over welfare spending that has dominated parliamentary business through mid-2025, with the government facing sustained pressure both from opposition parties and from within its own parliamentary group over the pace and scale of cuts to disability support.

Voting Aye meant
Support retaining the government's welfare reform clauses in the Bill, allowing changes to Universal Credit and PIP to proceed
Voting No meant
Oppose the clauses standing part of the Bill, seeking to remove or block these specific welfare reform measures
§ 01Who voted how.470 voting members · 178 absent
Aye334No137DID NOT VOTE · 178

470 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 178 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
294
36
32
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
63
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
38
2
2
Independent
2
8
3
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
9
Reform UK
0
1
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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