Division · No. 140Tuesday, 25 March 2025Commons Taxation

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

312
Ayes
190
Noes
Passed · Government won
143 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 1B to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 312 votes to 190. The amendment, which the House of Lords had sent back to the Commons, sought to create a power to exempt health and social care providers, including GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, care providers, and charitable providers of palliative care, from the employer National Insurance contribution increases contained in the Bill. The government successfully defeated this amendment, clearing one of the final legislative hurdles before the Bill becomes law. The Bill raises employer secondary Class 1 National Insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% and simultaneously lowers the threshold at which employers begin paying those contributions from £9,100 to £5,000 per year. The government has already committed to compensating public sector bodies, including NHS England, local government, and public corporations, for the increased costs they face. The Lords amendment would have extended similar protection to private and charitable providers that deliver NHS-commissioned services. Opponents of the amendment argue this creates an anomaly: hospices, care homes, GP surgeries, and community pharmacies face the full cost of the rise despite functioning as integral parts of the health and care system. Supporters of the government's position maintain that the approach follows the same model used for previous National Insurance changes, and that the government has separately provided £100 million for adult and children's hospice facilities alongside £26 million in revenue funding for children's and young people's hospices. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the amendment, contributing 311 of the 312 Aye votes. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK MP who voted did so against the government. There were no notable Labour rebels. One independent MP voted with the government. The vote sat within a broader pattern of the Lords and Commons exchanging amendments in what is known as parliamentary ping-pong, with the Lords having returned amended versions of provisions the Commons had already rejected in an earlier round.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords exemption, keeping children's hospices and social care providers subject to the employer NI rise (while providing separate funding support rather than a legislative carve-out)
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment to exempt children's hospices and social care providers from the employer NI increase, arguing these organisations cannot absorb the costs as they rely on charitable income and state commissioning
§ 01Who voted how.502 voting members · 143 absent
Aye313No192DID NOT VOTE · 143

502 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 143 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
279
0
83
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
100
16
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
32
0
10
Independent
1
5
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
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
1
0
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
James MurraySupportiveEaling North
Government must reject amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B as they undermine £24bn funding target; exemptions would require higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises; approach mirrors Conservative health and social care levy policy.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,713 words)
Gareth DaviesOpposedGrantham and Bourne
Amendments essential to protect hospices facing £30m annual cost, children's hospices facing £5m combined cost, and smallest businesses already hit by business rates cuts and Employment Rights Bill red tape.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,943 words)
Daisy CooperOpposedSt Albans
Henry VIII powers in amendments would allow government to exempt health and care providers when growth materializes; capital funding for hospices is insufficient; amendment 8B should empower exemption of small businesses.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,137 words)
Sir Roger GaleOpposedHerne Bay and Sandwich
Bill directly taxes jobs in hospices and care sector; government claim of compensation is illusory; hospice care is integral to NHS and should be treated as such; staff reduction is inevitable.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (587 words)
Dave DooganOpposedAngus and Perthshire Glens
Social care, GP, pharmacy and hospice sectors cannot diversify or raise prices; government's £24bn fiscal drag produces only £10bn net benefit and would fall to £8bn if proper exemptions granted; this represents catastrophic policy misadventure.Scottish National Party · Voted no · Read full speech (1,046 words)
Gregory StaffordQuestioningFarnham and Bordon
Inconsistency: NHS England exempted but NHS GPs, dentists not; unclear why public body gets exemption while contractors delivering same services do not.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,136 words)
Jerome MayhewOpposedBroadland and Fakenham
Government's exemption of NHS proves it understands the damage to healthcare; deliberate decision to penalize hospices; perverse that assisted dying funding may come from taxation of palliative care.Conservative · Voted teller_no · Read full speech (469 words)
Sir Edward LeighOpposedGainsborough
St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln losing £300,000 annually; government health settlement does not compensate; contradicts commitment to palliative care expressed in assisted dying debates.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (86 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