A divisionDivision No. 132 · Wednesday, 19 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

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

307Ayes
182Noes
Carried · majority 125 · Government won
154 did not vote
Aye309No185DID NOT VOTE · 154

643 Members · Aye 307 · No 182 · DNV 154 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Commons MPs voted on 19 March 2025 to reject a package of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. The amendments, grouped as Lords Amendment 1 and related amendments, would have exempted NHS providers, GPs, dentists, pharmacists, hospices, charities and other sectors from the bill's increase in employer National Insurance Contributions. The government asked the Commons to disagree with those exemptions, and the motion passed by 307 ayes to 182 noes (Division 132). The vote keeps the employer NIC rise applying universally from 6 April 2025, with no sector carve-outs. The bill raises the employer NIC rate from 13.8% to 15% and lowers the earnings threshold at which employer NICs become due from £9,100 to £5,000 per year, while doubling the Employment Allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. Rejecting the Lords amendments means organisations such as GP practices, hospices and charities face the same increased payroll costs as any other employer, without statutory relief beyond the expanded Employment Allowance. Every Labour and Labour and Co-operative MP who voted backed the government. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, Green and DUP MP who voted opposed it. Three independents voted with the government and four against. The vote sits in a longer parliamentary argument over the NIC rise, with opposition parties consistently arguing the measure breaks a pre-election promise and will cost jobs, and the government maintaining that universal application is essential to tax simplicity and the fiscal foundations for NHS investment.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords exemptions and keeping the employer NIC rise universal, arguing that sector-by-sector carve-outs would complicate the tax system, reduce revenue, and undermine the fiscal case for NHS and public service investment.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendments granting exemptions for the NHS, social care, hospices and charities, arguing the NIC rise breaks a pre-election promise, harms public services and small businesses, and will cost jobs.
§ 01Who voted how.489 voting Members · 154 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 Aye
277
0
84
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
93
23
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
59
12
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
3
4
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
0
Your Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist 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.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