National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 21B
314Ayes
196Noes
Carried · majority 118 · Government won137 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 314 · No 196 · DNV 137 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 314 to 196 on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 21B to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. The amendment would have required the government to publish detailed assessments of the economic and sectoral impacts of the employer National Insurance rise before it took effect. By voting to disagree with the Lords, the government ensured no such assessments would be legally required. The vote matters because the employer NI rise, which increases the rate from 13.8% to 15% and lowers the threshold at which employers become liable from £9,100 to £5,000 per year, is due to take effect from 6 April 2025. Opponents argued that a thorough sectoral analysis was essential to understand the consequences for hospices, GP practices, social care providers and small businesses. The government countered that HMRC had already published a tax information and impact note covering the policy, including estimates that around 940,000 employers would see their NIC liability rise and around 250,000 would see it fall. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 311 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, DUP, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru and Green MP who voted did so against. Two independents voted with the government; five did not vote. The division came on the same day as a parallel vote on Lords Amendment 1B, which the government also won by 312 to 190, suggesting a consistent pattern of cross-opposition unity that fell short of overturning the government's majority.
Voting Aye meant
Reject the Lords' demand for detailed impact assessments, trusting the existing HMRC analysis is sufficient and keeping the NI rise on track
Voting No meant
Support requiring the government to publish fuller economic and sectoral impact assessments before the employer NI rise takes effect, to expose its consequences for hospices, small businesses and health services
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
281
0
80
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
100
16
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
63
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
—
2
6
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
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
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