Division · No. 135Wednesday, 19 March 2025Commons Taxation

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4

313
Ayes
190
Noes
Passed · Government won
142 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 19 March 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 4 to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, passing the motion by 313 votes to 190. The amendment, which had been passed by the House of Lords, 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 voting to reject it, the Commons overturned that protection and kept the government's original policy intact. **Why it matters:** The Bill raises the rate of employer secondary Class 1 National Insurance contributions and lowers the threshold at which employers begin paying them. Lords Amendment 4 was one of a group of amendments seeking to carve out NHS-commissioned and social care providers from those increases. The government's rejection means that independent contractors providing primary care, such as GP surgeries, community pharmacies, dental practices and hospices, will face the higher employer National Insurance bills without a direct government exemption. The government has said it will provide additional funding to these sectors through wider spending settlements rather than through a direct exemption, but it has confirmed that direct employer National Insurance support will go only to central government departments, local government and public corporations, not to independent contractors. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 311 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, Green and DUP member who voted opposed the government, totalling 190 Noes. The debate was particularly sharp on the treatment of hospices and primary care providers, with opposition members from across the spectrum arguing the government was giving one-off capital funding with one hand while imposing a recurring payroll cost with the other. The government invoked Commons financial privilege (meaning the Lords cannot insist on amendments that impose a charge on public funds not authorised by the Commons) against Amendment 20, and moved to disagree with all 20 remaining Lords amendments as a block, framing the Lords changes as a threat to the fiscal consolidation at the heart of the October 2024 Budget.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's original Bill and reject the Lords' amendment to the employer National Insurance legislation
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment and oppose the government overriding the upper chamber's change to the National Insurance Bill
§ 01Who voted how.503 voting members · 142 absent
Aye313No193DID NOT VOTE · 142

503 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 142 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
281
0
81
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
97
19
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
2
6
5
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