A divisionDivision No. 260 · Wednesday, 9 July 2025· Commons· Welfare and Benefits

Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 12

105Ayes
370Noes
Defeated · majority 265 · Government won
172 did not vote
Aye108No369DID NOT VOTE · 172

647 Members · Aye 105 · No 370 · DNV 172 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 9 July 2025 on Amendment 12 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill during the committee stage of that legislation. The amendment was defeated by 370 votes to 105. No debate excerpts are available in the record, so the precise content of the amendment cannot be determined from the available data. The bill, which deals with Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment, is one of the most contested pieces of welfare legislation in the current Parliament. Without the text or debate record for this specific amendment, it is not possible to say with certainty what policy change it would have made. The stance tags in the voting data suggest it was associated with opposition to benefit cuts or support for welfare expansion, but the practical effect of the amendment cannot be confirmed from the material provided. Nearly all Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against the amendment, providing the government with a decisive majority. Support for the amendment came from the Liberal Democrats, who supplied 65 of the 105 aye votes, along with the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, most Reform UK MPs who voted, and several independents. Eight Labour MPs voted with the ayes, a notable but small rebellion against the government's position.

Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 12 to the UC and PIP Bill, as proposed by a minority of MPs
Voting No meant
Reject Amendment 12 to the UC and PIP Bill, backing the government's preferred version of the legislation
§ 01Who voted how.475 voting Members · 172 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
8
325
28
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
64
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
41
1
Independent
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
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
Your Party
1
1
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
0
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist 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_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 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