Division · No. 268Tuesday, 15 July 2025Commons Welfare and Benefits

Opposition Day: Welfare

106
Ayes
440
Noes
Defeated · Government won
102 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 15 July 2025, the House of Commons voted on a Conservative-tabled Opposition Day motion criticising the Labour government's approach to welfare policy. The motion was defeated by 440 votes to 106. Opposition Day motions are parliamentary procedures that allow the official opposition to set the agenda for debate and bring a vote on a topic of their choosing, though they are not legally binding on the government. **Why it matters:** While Opposition Day motions carry no direct legislative force, they serve as formal parliamentary verdicts on government policy. This vote reflects the ongoing political battle over welfare reform, occurring in the same period that the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was being scrutinised in committee. The welfare system affects millions of people across the UK, and the Conservative motion sought to register parliamentary disapproval of Labour's direction on benefits policy, including areas such as Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit changes being advanced through that separate legislation. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 102 Conservative MPs who voted supported the motion, joined by 3 Reform UK MPs and 2 Independents. Every other party voted against, including Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens. There were no notable rebels on either side of the government-opposition divide. The motion sits within a broader and contentious political moment, with Labour facing pressure from multiple directions on welfare: from the Conservatives arguing its reforms are too damaging to those in need, and from within its own ranks and from minor parties on questions such as the two-child benefit limit.

Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's motion on welfare, signalling concern about the government's approach to welfare spending or benefit changes
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition's welfare motion, backing the Labour government's welfare policy direction
§ 01Who voted how.546 voting members · 102 absent
Aye107No440DID NOT VOTE · 102

546 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 102 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
312
50
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
102
0
14
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
35
7
Independent
2
8
3
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
3
0
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
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
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Helen WhatelySupportiveFaversham and Mid Kent
The two-child limit should remain because families on benefits should make the same choices as working families; removing it would cost thousands extra per family and entrench dependency.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,162 words)
The Conservative record created the child poverty crisis; Labour is tackling it through employment support, free meals, and fair repayment rates, while considering the two-child cap as part of a comprehensive strategy.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,331 words)
Steve DarlingOpposedTorbay
The two-child limit should be lifted immediately as it punishes innocent children; 72% of children in poverty live in working families, making the cap particularly cruel.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (660 words)
Gill GermanOpposedClwyd North
The two-child cap is a symptom of Conservative failures; Labour is taking real action through minimum wage increases, employment support, and warm home discounts.Plaid Cymru · Voted no · Read full speech (701 words)
Dr Kieran MullanSupportiveBexhill and Battle
The cap ensures fairness: taxpayers should not subsidise larger families on benefits when working families cannot afford more children; scrapping would cost £3.5bn annually.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,415 words)
Matt RoddaNeutralReading Central
The Government inherited a welfare crisis; focus must be on getting people into good jobs through employment support, childcare, and housing investment.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,173 words)
Tom HayesOpposedBournemouth East
Poverty is systemic; stigmatising language used by Conservatives perpetuates shame across generations; Labour's child poverty taskforce will tackle root causes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,397 words)
Ayoub KhanOpposedBirmingham Perry Barr
The two-child cap is immoral and punishes children for circumstances of birth; it should be scrapped to lift 500,000 children out of poverty.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (676 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