A divisionDivision No. 72 · Tuesday, 17 December 2024· Commons· Taxation

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill Committee: New Clause 1

195Ayes
353Noes
Defeated · majority 158 · Government won
104 did not vote
Aye194No351DID NOT VOTE · 104

652 Members · Aye 195 · No 353 · DNV 104 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons, sitting as a Committee of the whole House, voted on 17 December 2024 on New Clause 1 to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. The new clause, tabled by the Conservative opposition, sought to add protections or exemptions for certain businesses and organisations facing increased employer National Insurance contributions under the Bill. The motion was defeated by 353 votes to 195. The underlying Bill raises the rate of secondary Class 1 National Insurance contributions, paid by employers, from 13.8% to 15%, while also lowering the threshold at which employers begin paying. New Clause 1 would have limited the scope of those increases by carving out protections for specified sectors. Debate centred heavily on the impact of the rises on GP surgeries, care homes, hospices, charities and nurseries, all of which are privately operated but substantially funded through public commissioning. Opponents of the clause argued that rejecting it was necessary to protect public finances and fund NHS investment; supporters argued the rises would directly undermine the very services the government said it wanted to protect. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 347 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK and Plaid Cymru all voted in favour of the new clause. There were no notable rebellions on the Labour benches. The vote sits within a broader contested narrative about the October 2024 Budget, with the opposition accusing the government of breaking pre-election pledges not to raise National Insurance, and the government arguing the rises were made necessary by inherited fiscal pressures.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Conservative new clause opposing or restricting the government's employer National Insurance increase, arguing Labour broke its election promise not to raise National Insurance
Voting No meant
Reject the Conservative new clause and support the government's employer National Insurance rise as a necessary measure to fund public services
§ 01Who voted how.548 voting Members · 104 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
310
51
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
96
0
20
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
69
0
3
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
37
5
Independent
5
3
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
0
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0
Your Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Pippa HeylingsOpposedSouth Cambridgeshire
Opposes the Bill; warns it will devastate GPs, care homes, and hospices already under strain and undermine efforts to move healthcare into the community.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,623 words)
Joe MorrisSupportiveHexham
Supports the Bill as necessary to repair public finances and rebuild NHS following Conservative mismanagement; rejects claims of unintended damage to frontline services.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,131 words)
Gareth DaviesOpposedGrantham and Bourne
Opposes the Bill; argues it breaks manifesto promises and will force 940,000 employers to pay an average £26,000 more, harming services and employment, particularly in healthcare and childcare.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,967 words)
Dr Luke EvansOpposedHinckley and Bosworth
Opposes the Bill; questions how taxing GPs, care homes, and hospices aligns with NHS support; demands government clarify funding source and impact on employment.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,256 words)
Yuan YangSupportiveEarley and Woodley
Supports the Bill; argues a simplified, consistent tax approach is preferable to sector-by-sector exemptions; emphasizes employment allowance protects 865,000 smallest employers.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,634 words)
Carla DenyerQuestioningBristol Central
Questions government's approach; notes five GP surgeries warned NI increase will undermine patient care and that contract negotiations are too slow for urgent staffing decisions.Green Party · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (119 words)
Sorcha EastwoodOpposedLagan Valley
Opposes the Bill for Northern Ireland; argues healthcare, social care, hospices, and community sectors are uniquely vulnerable and should be exempted given regional funding strain.Ulster Unionist Party · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,089 words)
Chris CurtisSupportiveMilton Keynes North
Supports the Bill; argues it funds essential services and crime prevention; rejects Opposition claims as 'fantasy economics' without acknowledging Conservative legacy.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,762 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