National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading
186
Ayes
—
330
Noes
Defeated · Government won
130 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 3 December 2024 on a reasoned amendment (a procedural motion that, if passed, would have blocked a bill from proceeding by stating reasons for rejection) to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill at its Second Reading. The amendment was tabled by the Conservative opposition and argued that the bill should not proceed because it would harm businesses, damage employment, and break manifesto commitments made before the 2024 general election. The amendment was defeated by 330 votes to 186, allowing the bill to continue its passage through Parliament. The bill in question raises employers' National Insurance contributions, a measure the government has positioned as essential to funding public services. A vote in favour of the amendment would have halted the bill entirely at this early stage. By defeating it, the government cleared the way for the legislation to advance. The rise in secondary Class 1 contributions directly affects employers across the UK, increasing the cost of hiring staff, and has drawn concern from businesses, charities, and public sector bodies that employ large workforces. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment, while every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and DUP member who voted supported it. This represented a rare moment of cross-opposition unity, though the combined opposition total of 186 fell well short of the government's 330. There were no notable rebels on the government benches. The bill subsequently continued through Parliament, with the Finance Bill's Third Reading in March 2025 passing by 339 votes to 172, confirming the government's ability to sustain its fiscal programme through the parliamentary process.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Bill, arguing that raising employer National Insurance will hurt small businesses, suppress wages, damage charities and voluntary organisations, and ultimately harm workers rather than protecting public finances
Voting No meant
Support allowing the Bill to proceed, arguing the National Insurance rise is a necessary and responsible measure to fix the public finances and fund the NHS without directly cutting workers' take-home pay
516 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 130 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
295
67
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
32
10
Independent
6
3
5
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UKWhipped Aye
7
0
—
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
0
1
—
Defends the Bill as necessary to fix public finances and fund NHS; argues it protects working people (no income tax/VAT/employee NI rises) and small businesses (via doubled employment allowance to £10,500), while businesses with broadest shoulders must contribute.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,810 words) →
Opposes the Bill as breaking Labour's manifesto promise; argues it is a regressive 'jobs tax' that will suppress wages, reduce employment, and harm small businesses, charities, GPs, and hospices without justification.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,610 words) →
Opposes the measure as undermining growth; calls for exemptions for health and care providers; urges consideration of alternative revenue sources (bank tax, gambling duty, digital services tax) that target the wealthy rather than businesses.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,469 words) →
Challenges the Government distinction between pay packets and suppressed wages/lost jobs; notes Scottish hospitality faces particular hardship without business rates relief unlike England.SNP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,568 words) →
Supports the Bill as delivering record NHS investment (£25.6bn), teacher recruitment, and school rebuilding; argues Opposition want services without paying for them and lack credible alternatives.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,539 words) →
Defends the Bill in context of Conservative failure; highlights the £22bn fiscal black hole and need to avoid austerity; attacks Opposition for inconsistency (they voted for health levy in 2021).Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,279 words) →
Opposes as breaking manifesto; reports constituents in hospitality cannot see viable path forward; questions whether Government understood the fiscal situation during transition period.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,002 words) →
Concerned about impact on Welsh public services (30% workforce in public sector, £380m cost); seeks assurance that reimbursement to local authorities will be full and recurring.Plaid Cymru · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,408 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0