Division · No. 264Wednesday, 9 July 2025Commons Welfare and Benefits

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 38

149
Ayes
334
Noes
Defeated · Government won
162 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on Amendment 38 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill during its Committee stage on 9 July 2025. The amendment, which sought to provide more generous protections or benefits for claimants, was defeated by 334 votes to 149. The government opposed the amendment, and the result meant it would not be incorporated into the bill. **Why it matters:** The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill is the legislative vehicle for significant changes to the welfare system affecting millions of disabled people and low-income households across the UK. Amendment 38 would have altered the bill's provisions in a direction more favourable to claimants, whether by softening planned cuts, adding eligibility protections, or expanding entitlements. Its defeat means the government's version of these welfare reforms remains intact at this stage, with claimants facing the changes as the government originally proposed them. **The politics:** The most striking feature of this vote was the scale of Labour rebellion: 44 Labour MPs and 4 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against their own government, a combined total of 48 MPs from parties that form the governing bloc. Every other party represented in the division voted in favour of the amendment, including the Liberal Democrats (65 votes), the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the DUP, Reform UK, and the SDLP. Despite this broad cross-party coalition in support, the government's commanding majority meant the amendment fell comfortably. This vote sits within a wider pattern of contested welfare reform divisions on the same day, reflecting sustained parliamentary pressure on the government over its disability and benefits agenda.

Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 38 to protect disabled people with fluctuating conditions from uncertainty caused by welfare changes being implemented before the Timms review on PIP assessments is completed
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, backing the government's approach to proceed with the Bill as drafted without the additional protections for people with fluctuating conditions
§ 01Who voted how.483 voting members · 162 absent
Aye152No335DID NOT VOTE · 162

483 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 162 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
44
295
23
Conservative and Unionist Party
1
0
115
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
4
38
Independent
8
2
3
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
1
0
§ 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 aye · 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