A divisionDivision No. 262 · Wednesday, 9 July 2025· Commons· Universal Credit

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: Amendment 45

175Ayes
401Noes
Defeated · majority 226 · Government won
76 did not vote
Aye176No397DID NOT VOTE · 76

652 Members · Aye 175 · No 401 · DNV 76 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 9 July 2025, the House of Commons voted on Amendment 45 to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill during its Committee Stage (the detailed line-by-line scrutiny phase). The amendment, which sought to modify the government's proposed welfare reforms, was defeated by 401 votes to 175. This was one of several divisions held on the same day as the Bill was examined in detail. The amendment would have altered the government's plans to reform Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the main disability benefit for working-age adults. The government's Bill is intended to reshape how these benefits are assessed and awarded, with changes that critics argue will reduce support for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. The defeat of Amendment 45 means the government's preferred approach to this section of the legislation remains intact, keeping its welfare reform programme on track as written. The vote produced a clear cross-party opposition to the amendment, with Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs voting unanimously against (380 in total), while Conservatives (95), Liberal Democrats (65), and smaller parties including Reform UK, the DUP, and several independents voted in favour of the amendment. Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, and the SDLP backed the government by voting no. There were no Labour rebels recorded in this division, in contrast to some other welfare votes where dissent has emerged. This amendment attracted notably higher opposition support than others on the same day, with 175 ayes compared to 149 for Amendment 38 and 130 for New Clause 8.

Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 45, pushing for stronger protections or conditions on welfare reform changes, reflecting concern that the government's approach to PIP and Universal Credit reform is inadequate or harmful to disabled claimants
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 45, backing the government's approach of removing PIP changes from the Bill and conducting a separate wider review before making reforms to disability benefits
§ 01Who voted how.576 voting Members · 76 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
0
339
22
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
95
0
21
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
40
2
Independent
5
6
2
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
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
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
0
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0
Your 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 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 aye · 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_vote_recorded · 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