A divisionDivision No. 263 · Wednesday, 9 July 2025· Commons· Universal Credit

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Committee: New Clause 8

130Ayes
443Noes
Defeated · majority 313 · Government won
76 did not vote
Aye131No442DID NOT VOTE · 76

649 Members · Aye 130 · No 443 · DNV 76 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 9 July 2025, MPs voted on New Clause 8 during the committee stage of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. The clause was defeated by 443 votes to 130. The committee stage was being heard on the floor of the House of Commons rather than in a separate committee room, meaning all MPs could participate in the vote. New Clause 8 was a proposal to add additional protections or enhancements for welfare claimants to the bill, going beyond the government's original text. Its defeat means the bill continues without those additions, keeping the legislation closer to what the government originally proposed. The bill itself deals with changes to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment, two of the largest working-age benefit programmes in the UK, affecting millions of disabled people and low-income households. The Liberal Democrats (64 ayes), SNP (9), Plaid Cymru (4), Greens (4), and several independents (8) backed the clause, forming a cross-party pro-welfare-expansion grouping. The Conservatives (94) and Reform UK (5) voted against alongside Labour's main block (336 combined Labour and Labour-Co-operative no votes). Notably, 36 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs voted aye, representing a significant internal rebellion against the government's position. The vote sits within a wider pattern of tension over the government's welfare reform agenda, with multiple related divisions on the same day and an opposition day debate on welfare following shortly after on 15 July.

Voting Aye meant
Support protecting Universal Credit for the most vulnerable claimants (those with severe disabilities or terminal illness) in Northern Ireland from real-terms cuts by guaranteeing inflation-linked increases
Voting No meant
Oppose this amendment, either because the government considers it unnecessary, does not want to constrain spending in this way, or prefers to handle Northern Ireland welfare policy separately
§ 01Who voted how.573 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
33
298
30
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
94
22
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
64
0
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
3
37
2
Independent
8
4
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
1
0
0
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
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 aye · 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