Welfare and Benefits
Social security, pensions, and welfare reform
Based on 32 parliamentary votes
Sub-issues
How Parties Voted on Welfare and Benefits
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
MPs voted on the final passage of a Bill to abolish the two-child limit on Universal Credit, which currently restricts child elements of the benefit to the first two children in a family. Removing this limit aims to reduce child poverty by ensuring all children in low-income families receive equal support. Yes = Support removing the two-child benefit cap so that all children in low-income families receive equal Universal Credit entitlements, reducing child poverty · No = Oppose removing the two-child limit, likely citing fiscal cost concerns or preference for keeping existing welfare constraints Govt: Aye | 364-86 | 23 Feb 2026 |
Vote on New Clause 3, an amendment to the bill removing the two-child benefit limit. Based on the debate, this related to additional reporting or consultation requirements around the removal of the limit, which the government was already supporting in principle but opposed this specific clause. Yes = Support adding extra requirements (such as impact assessments or consultation provisions) to the bill removing the two-child limit, going beyond what the government proposed · No = Oppose the additional requirements in New Clause 3, backing the government's approach to removing the two-child limit without extra conditions attached Govt: No | 75-290 | 23 Feb 2026 |
MPs voted on whether to pass a bill removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, which currently restricts child welfare payments to the first two children in a family. The government argued the policy traps children in poverty and has failed to achieve its stated aims, while opponents defended it as encouraging personal responsibility. Yes = Support removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, allowing families to receive welfare support for all their children and reducing child poverty · No = Oppose removing the two-child limit, arguing it encourages personal responsibility and that the state should not subsidise choices to have larger families Govt: Aye | 459-106 | 3 Feb 2026 |
A vote on a Conservative opposition amendment (Amendment 16) to the Pension Schemes Bill. The amendment was proposed by the shadow Treasury team alongside related new clauses, in the context of a Bill aimed at improving pension accessibility and retirement outcomes, though the specific content of this amendment is not fully detailed in the available debate excerpts. Yes = Support the Conservative amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill, seeking to alter or add to the government's pension reform legislation · No = Reject the Conservative amendment, backing the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill without this change Govt: No | 145-304 | 3 Dec 2025 |
Vote on whether to add a new clause to the Pension Schemes Bill that would allow people with terminal illnesses to use special end-of-life rules to more easily access support from the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme, reducing the administrative burden on the seriously ill. Yes = Support easing access to pension compensation for terminally ill people by allowing use of end-of-life fast-track rules · No = Oppose this specific amendment, likely preferring existing access arrangements or addressing the issue through other means Govt: No | 89-297 | 3 Dec 2025 |
A vote on Amendment 15 to the Pension Schemes Bill, one of a series of Conservative opposition amendments tabled at Report Stage. The government defeated the amendment, preferring its own version of the Bill over the changes proposed by the Conservatives. Yes = Support the Conservative opposition's proposed change to the Pension Schemes Bill (Amendment 15), as tabled by shadow ministers · No = Reject the Conservative amendment and back the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill as it stands Govt: No | 156-304 | 3 Dec 2025 |
Vote on New Clause 26 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which proposed an independent review into pension losses suffered by former employees of AEA Technology, a privatised nuclear research company whose workers lost pension benefits. The clause was rejected by the government majority. Yes = Support requiring an independent review into the pension losses of former AEA Technology employees, who lost out when the company was privatised · No = Oppose mandating an independent review into AEA Technology pension losses, likely preferring existing mechanisms or opposing the specific legislative vehicle Govt: No | 79-298 | 3 Dec 2025 |
An opposition-day motion on welfare spending, brought by the Conservatives or another opposition party, was put to a vote. Opposition day motions are used to force a debate and vote on a topic of the opposition's choosing, in this case government welfare policy and spending decisions. Yes = Support the opposition's motion on welfare spending — likely calling for protection or expansion of welfare provision, or criticising cuts to benefits · No = Reject the opposition's motion, backing the Labour government's approach to welfare spending and opposing the opposition's framing Govt: No | 94-400 | 4 Nov 2025 |
Vote on whether to introduce a Bill requiring the government to publish a child poverty strategy that includes removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit — a rule that stops families claiming support for a third or subsequent child. The motion was brought by SNP MP Kirsty Blackman, with Conservatives opposing on grounds of personal responsibility and fairness. Yes = Support introducing legislation to scrap the two-child benefit limit as part of a formal child poverty strategy · No = Oppose scrapping the two-child limit, arguing it undermines personal responsibility and fiscal fairness | 95-78 | 16 Sept 2025 |
An Opposition Day motion on welfare policy, brought by the Conservative opposition, was voted down. Opposition Day motions are non-binding but allow the opposition to force a debate and vote on a topic of their choosing — in this case, government welfare policy. Yes = Support the opposition's motion on welfare, signalling concern about the government's approach to welfare spending or benefit changes · No = Reject the opposition's welfare motion, backing the Labour government's welfare policy direction Govt: No | 107-440 | 15 Jul 2025 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.