A divisionDivision No. 258 · Wednesday, 9 July 2025· Commons· Universal Credit

Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 39

35Ayes
469Noes
Defeated · majority 434 · Government won
145 did not vote
Aye38No466DID NOT VOTE · 145

649 Members · Aye 35 · No 469 · DNV 145 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 9 July 2025 on Amendment 39 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill during its committee stage (the detailed line-by-line scrutiny phase of the legislation). The amendment was defeated heavily, with only 35 MPs voting in favour and 469 voting against. It was the most lopsided result among the related votes on this bill that day, suggesting it represented a more radical departure from the bill's existing provisions than other amendments considered in the same session. The amendment concerns welfare reform, specifically changes to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which are the main income-replacement and disability-related benefits in the UK. Whatever specific change Amendment 39 proposed, it failed to attract support beyond a small coalition of left-leaning and nationalist parties. The bill itself continues to progress through Parliament, and the defeat of this amendment means the bill proceeds without this particular modification. The politics of this vote reflect a clear left-nationalist fringe versus the rest of Parliament. The 35 Ayes came from nine Labour MPs (voting against their own government), the Scottish National Party's nine MPs, four Plaid Cymru MPs, four Green MPs, two Social Democratic and Labour Party MPs, and seven Independents. Every Conservative, Reform UK, and Democratic Unionist Party member present voted No, as did the overwhelming majority of Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs, with 358 combined voting against the amendment. The vote illustrates the difficulty faced by parties and MPs seeking more expansive welfare protections in getting traction against a combined government and official-opposition majority.

Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 39 to the UC and PIP Bill, likely proposing a change to the government's proposed welfare reforms
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 39, backing the government's version of the UC and PIP Bill without this change
§ 01Who voted how.504 voting Members · 145 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
9
316
36
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
93
23
Liberal Democrats
2
0
70
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
41
1
Independent
7
5
1
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0
Your Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 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 · 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 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