National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 21B
314
Ayes
—
196
Noes
Passed · Government won
137 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 21B to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, by 314 votes to 196. The motion, brought by the government, instructed the Commons to disagree with the Lords amendment, which had sought to modify the employer National Insurance contribution changes introduced by the Bill. This was one of several Lords amendments considered that day, alongside 1B, 5B and 8B, all of which the government also moved to reject. The vote matters because it clears the way for the government's employer National Insurance reforms to proceed without the modifications the House of Lords had introduced. The Bill raises the rate of secondary Class 1 National Insurance contributions (paid by employers) from 13.8 percent to 15 percent, and simultaneously reduces the earnings threshold at which employers begin paying from £9,100 to £5,000. The Lords amendments sought to exempt certain health and care providers, including GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, care homes, hospices and small businesses, from these changes. By rejecting Amendment 21B, the Commons upheld the government's position that no such statutory exemption should apply to those providers, meaning they face the full impact of both the rate rise and the lower threshold. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 312 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party members who voted supported the government. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, Green and Reform UK member who voted backed the Lords amendment. There were no Labour rebels. The division sits within a broader pattern of the government using its Commons majority to override Lords amendments in the final stages of the Bill, with a parallel vote the same day on Amendment 1B producing a similar result of 312 to 190.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords protection for hospices and social care providers, maintaining the NI rise applies to these sectors while pointing to separate capital funding
Voting No meant
Oppose overriding the Lords amendment; want hospices, social care providers and NHS contractors exempted or compensated for the employer NI increase
510 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 137 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
282
0
80
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
100
16
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
1
5
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
9
—
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
3
1
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
—
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0