Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill: Third Reading
336
Ayes
—
242
Noes
Passed · Government won
68 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 9 July 2025 to give the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill its Third Reading, the final Commons stage before a bill passes to the House of Lords. The vote passed by 336 ayes to 242 noes, meaning the bill cleared the Commons and will proceed to the upper chamber for further scrutiny. **Why it matters:** The bill introduces significant changes to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the two main working-age benefits in the UK welfare system. PIP supports disabled people and those with long-term health conditions with the additional costs of daily living and mobility. The changes are expected to tighten eligibility criteria and reduce the overall cost of the benefits bill. Critics argue the reforms will cut support for some of the most vulnerable people in Britain; supporters argue they are necessary to put the welfare system on a sustainable financial footing. **The politics:** The vote exposed a notable split within the governing Labour Party. While 335 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted in favour, 48 voted against the government, a substantial rebellion for a Third Reading vote. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Green, and Reform UK MP who voted did so against the bill, alongside several Independents. The opposition was therefore unusually broad, uniting the traditional left and right of British politics in opposition to a Labour government measure, though for quite different reasons.
Voting Aye meant
Support passing the UC and PIP Bill into law, backing the government's phased approach to reforming Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment.
Voting No meant
Oppose passing the Bill in its current form, either because its welfare cuts go too far or because the reforms are insufficient or poorly designed.
578 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 68 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
296
46
20
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
92
24
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
65
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
39
2
1
Independent
2
9
2
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
9
—
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
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
—
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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · Read full speech (220 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0