National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 2
310
Ayes
—
183
Noes
Passed · Government won
150 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 19 March 2025, the House of Commons voted by 310 to 183 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have maintained employer National Insurance contribution rates and thresholds at existing levels for NHS-commissioned services including GPs, dentists, social care providers, pharmacists and hospices. By voting to disagree with the Lords amendment, the Commons upheld the government's original policy of raising employer National Insurance without carving out those exemptions. **Why it matters:** The vote means that primary care providers, hospices and social care organisations that operate as independent contractors will face the full impact of the employer National Insurance increases introduced in the October 2024 Budget. The government's position is that direct compensation for additional employer National Insurance costs will apply only to central government departments, local government and public corporations, not to independent contractors such as GPs, dentists or charities running hospice services. Opponents of the measure argued that hospices, GP surgeries and community pharmacies, many of which rely heavily on fundraising rather than direct government grants, will face significant cost pressures that could lead to reduced staffing and services. The government countered that it is providing wider funding settlements, including an additional £889 million for general practice, £880 million in new social care grant funding, £100 million for hospice buildings and £26 million in revenue support for children's hospices, alongside a doubling of the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 309 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, with no Labour rebels. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, Green and Democratic Unionist Party MP who voted opposed the government, alongside five independents. The Liberal Democrats had been among the parties most vocal in supporting the Lords amendments relating to primary care providers. The bill had attracted controversy since the Budget, with opposition parties characterising the employer National Insurance rise as a "jobs tax" and pointing to economic figures showing the economy contracted in the period since the policy was announced. The government maintained throughout that it inherited an unsustainable fiscal position, including what it described as a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, making the measure necessary.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to override the Lords amendment and proceed with the employer NI increase as originally planned, accepting that separate grant funding addresses concerns
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, arguing the NI increase unfairly burdens businesses, charities, and public services such as SEN transport providers, and that the government's grant funding is insufficient compensation
493 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 150 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
62
10
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
2
5
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
2
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
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0