Division · No. 132Wednesday, 19 March 2025Commons Taxation

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 1

307
Ayes
182
Noes
Passed · Government won
154 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened** On 19 March 2025, the House of Commons voted by 307 ayes to 182 noes to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. This means MPs rejected a change inserted by the House of Lords that would have maintained existing employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds for NHS-commissioned services, including GPs, dentists, pharmacists, social care providers and hospices. By passing this motion, the Commons upheld the government's original proposal to raise the rate of secondary Class 1 (employer) national insurance contributions. **Why it matters** The vote keeps in place a key revenue-raising measure from the October 2024 Budget, under which the employer national insurance contribution rate rises from 13.8% to 15%, while the threshold at which employers begin paying falls from £9,100 to £5,000 per year. The Lords amendment would have shielded a range of health and care providers from those changes. By rejecting it, the Commons confirmed that organisations such as GP practices, dental surgeries, community pharmacies, independent social care providers and hospices will face the higher employer costs without direct government compensation of the kind given to central government departments and local authorities. The government argued the measure is necessary to fund public services and repair the public finances; opponents argued it will force affected providers to cut staff, reduce appointments or scale back services. **The politics** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 307 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government, with no defections. All 93 Conservatives, all 59 Liberal Democrats, all eight SNP members, all six Reform UK members, all four Plaid Cymru members, all three Greens and all three Democratic Unionist Party members who voted opposed the government. Two independents voted with the government and five against. The Bill had already passed through the Lords, where peers inserted 21 amendments; one was automatically ruled out of order under Standing Order 78(3) on financial privilege grounds, and the government moved to reject the remaining 20. The episode sits within a broader "ping-pong" (the process by which the two chambers exchange amendments until agreement is reached) confrontation between the Commons and the Lords over the employer national insurance increase, which has been one of the most politically contested elements of the government's first Budget.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the government's employer National Insurance rise intact
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, opposing or modifying the government's increase to employer National Insurance contributions
§ 01Who voted how.489 voting members · 154 absent
Aye309No185DID NOT VOTE · 154

489 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 154 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
278
0
84
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
93
23
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
59
13
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
2
5
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
3
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
James MurraySupportiveEaling North
Government must reject all amendments as they risk funding needed to fix inherited fiscal crisis and repair public services; exemptions would require higher borrowing, lower spending, or other tax rises.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,959 words)
Gareth DaviesOpposedGrantham and Bourne
Amendments should be supported to protect healthcare providers, charities, and small businesses; the national insurance rise is a broken manifesto promise that will stifle growth and harm vulnerable sectors.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,721 words)
Daisy CooperOpposedSt Albans
All 21 amendments should pass as the jobs tax is self-defeating, robbing Peter to pay Paul by taxing GPs and care providers who prevent hospital admissions; alternative fairer revenue sources exist.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,111 words)
Dr Jeevun SandherSupportiveLoughborough
Individual exemptions would compromise tax neutrality, simplicity, and stability; a good tax system treats similar activities similarly and does not introduce cliff-edge perverse incentives.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,233 words)
The tax will devastate children's hospices, care homes, nurseries, and early years providers; costs will cascade to vulnerable families and women disproportionately, and the government shows no compassion.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,432 words)
Wendy MortonOpposedAldridge-Brownhills
Labour broke its manifesto promise on national insurance; the amendments protect essential services and vulnerable people, and the threadbare government benches show Labour does not care.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,145 words)
Dave DooganOpposedAngus and Perthshire Glens
The national insurance increase is an unforced fiscal error; 82% of firms face potential lay-offs, and growth is collapsing; the government should conduct a proper impact assessment as Lords amendment 21 requires.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (1,024 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