Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill: Third Reading
336Ayes
242Noes
Carried · majority 94 · Government won68 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 336 · No 242 · DNV 68 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament passed the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill at Third Reading on 9 July 2025, by 336 votes to 242. The bill now moves to the House of Lords. It restructures two major benefits: it raises the Universal Credit standard allowance in stages over the period 2026-27 to 2029-30, while cutting the health element of Universal Credit for new claimants with limited capability for work, and tightens the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment. The bill's passage matters because it reshapes financial support for hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities or health conditions. New claimants assessed as having limited capability for work will receive a lower health top-up than existing claimants, who retain protections, as do those who are terminally ill or meet a severe conditions test. PIP eligibility is also narrowed. The government argues the higher standard allowance rate offsets the reductions; critics contend many disabled claimants will lose more than they gain. The bill passed on Labour votes alone. All 334 combined Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted split heavily in favour, with 334 ayes against 48 noes, meaning roughly 48 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against their own government. The Conservatives opposed the bill from the other direction, voting no on the grounds the reforms do not deliver sufficient welfare savings. The Liberal Democrats, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru and most independents also voted no, largely in opposition to the disability benefit reductions. The result required the government to rely almost entirely on its own parliamentary majority to get the bill through.
Voting Aye meant
Support passing the government's welfare reform bill, accepting its trade-off of higher standard UC rates against reduced health top-ups for new claimants and tighter PIP assessments.
Voting No meant
Oppose the bill — either because its cuts to disabled people's benefits go too far (Labour rebels, Greens, SNP) or because the reforms are insufficiently robust on welfare savings (Conservatives).
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
295
46
20
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
92
24
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
64
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
39
2
1
Independent
—
3
9
1
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
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
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0