A divisionDivision No. 261 · Wednesday, 9 July 2025· Commons· Universal Credit

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: Clause 2, as amended, and Clause 3 stand part

335Ayes
135Noes
Carried · majority 200 · Government won
178 did not vote
Aye334No137DID NOT VOTE · 178

648 Members · Aye 335 · No 135 · DNV 178 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on 9 July 2025 to keep Clauses 2 and 3 of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in the legislation. The result was 335 votes in favour and 135 against. The clauses reduce the health top-up element of Universal Credit for new claimants from November 2026, while protecting existing claimants, those who meet severe conditions criteria, and people who are terminally ill. The vote advances the government's plan to restructure the health-related component of Universal Credit. From November 2026, new claimants assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity will receive a lower rate of the health top-up than those already on the benefit. The change leaves the rate for existing claimants, severely ill people, and the terminally ill unchanged. The clauses form the core of the bill's welfare spending changes, and passing this vote means those provisions will proceed to later parliamentary stages. Labour MPs provided the majority of the votes in favour, with 293 Labour and 38 Labour and Co-operative Party members voting aye, against 36 Labour and 2 Labour and Co-operative rebels who voted no. All 63 Liberal Democrats, all 9 Scottish National Party members, all 4 Plaid Cymru members, and all 4 Green MPs voted against, as did the Democratic Unionist Party's 4 voting members. The bill has generated internal Labour tension, with the rebel contingent representing a notable dissent. Related votes on the same day, including on amendments to delay or condition the changes, were each defeated by similar or larger margins.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's proposal to reduce the UC health top-up for new claimants from November 2026, while ring-fencing protection for existing claimants, severely ill people, and those who are terminally ill.
Voting No meant
Oppose cutting the UC health element for new claimants, arguing it will harm disabled people and those with long-term health conditions who rely on the benefit.
§ 01Who voted how.470 voting Members · 178 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 Aye
293
36
32
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
38
2
2
Independent
3
8
2
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
0
1
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
0
Your Party
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
0
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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