A divisionDivision No. 133 · Wednesday, 19 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 2

310Ayes
183Noes
Carried · majority 127 · Government won
150 did not vote
Aye311No187DID NOT VOTE · 150

643 Members · Aye 310 · No 183 · DNV 150 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted 310 to 183 on 19 March 2025 to reject a Lords amendment that would have exempted charities with annual revenues below £1 million from the planned rise in employer National Insurance Contributions. The government's motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 passed, meaning the exemption falls and the NIC increase will apply to smaller charities as to other employers when the changes take effect from 6 April 2025. The vote has direct consequences for the charity sector. Charities with income under £1 million represent approximately 95% of registered charities, according to figures cited in debate. Opponents of the government's position argued the third sector would need to find an additional £1.4 billion to cover the tax rise in its first year alone, placing essential community services at risk of cuts or closure. The government countered that doubling the Employment Allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 already shields smaller organisations, with 865,000 employers set to pay no National Insurance at all next year as a result. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 308 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 motion. Three independents voted with the government; four voted against. No significant cross-party rebellion was recorded on the government benches.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords charity exemption, backing the employer NIC rise as necessary to repair public finances, and arguing the doubled Employment Allowance sufficiently protects smaller charities.
Voting No meant
Oppose overriding the Lords, backing an exemption for smaller charities from the NIC increase on the grounds that the third sector provides essential public services and the tax rise risks forcing charities to cut or close vital community services.
§ 01Who voted how.493 voting Members · 150 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
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
3
4
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
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