A divisionDivision No. 134 · Wednesday, 19 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 3

314Ayes
187Noes
Carried · majority 127 · Government won
147 did not vote
Aye314No187DID NOT VOTE · 147

648 Members · Aye 314 · No 187 · DNV 147 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 19 March 2025, the House of Commons voted by 314 to 187 to reject Lords Amendment 3, which would have exempted employers providing home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities from the rise in employer National Insurance Contributions. The motion passed, meaning the Lords amendment was removed and the NI increase will apply to SEND transport providers as it does to other employers. The vote matters because SEND home-to-school transport is largely commissioned by local councils from private and third-sector providers. Rejecting the amendment means those providers face higher payroll costs from 6 April 2025, when employer NICs rise from 13.8% to 15% and the earnings threshold at which employers become liable falls from £9,100 to £5,000 per year. Councils already funding this transport could face pressure either to absorb higher contract costs or to reduce provision. The government argued it had already set aside £2 billion in grant funding for local government in 2025-26, including £515 million specifically to help councils meet the NICs increase across their services. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 311 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru and Democratic Unionist MP who voted went into the No lobby, alongside four independents. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. The result fits the pattern of the broader ping-pong (the exchange of amendments between the Commons and Lords) on this Bill, with the government defeating all opposition attempts to carve out exemptions from the NI rise.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords exemption for SEND transport providers, backing the government's position that the NI increase must apply broadly to raise the £10 billion intended
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment protecting SEND home-to-school transport providers from the employer NI rise, arguing vulnerable children and councils should be shielded from the tax increase
§ 01Who voted how.501 voting Members · 147 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
280
0
81
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
60
11
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
6
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Your Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
1
0
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