National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: New Clause 5
195
Ayes
—
317
Noes
Defeated · Government won
142 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 21 January 2026 on New Clause 5 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pension Contributions) Bill during its Committee stage. The new clause was defeated by 317 votes to 195. The Bill itself concerns a government proposal to cap the amount employees can salary-sacrifice into pension schemes free of National Insurance Contributions (NICs) at £2,000 per year, with the measure set to take effect from April 2029. New Clause 5 was part of a package of opposition amendments seeking to add protections or exemptions for employers and employees in relation to that cap. The vote matters because it determines the shape of a significant change to how workplace pension saving is taxed. Salary sacrifice is an arrangement where employees give up part of their gross salary in exchange for employer pension contributions, reducing the NICs liability for both the employer and employee. The government's cap would mean that contributions above £2,000 per year made through this mechanism become subject to NICs from 2029 onwards. The government argues the cost of the current uncapped arrangement was set to nearly treble, from roughly 2.8 billion pounds in 2017 to 8 billion pounds by 2030. Opponents argue the cap disproportionately affects middle earners, particularly those trying to catch up on pension saving, and could discourage retirement saving at a time when state pension finances are under pressure. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Every Labour and Labour-Co-operative MP who voted did so against the new clause, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK and the Traditional Unionist Voice all voted in favour. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The Bill subsequently passed its later stages, and in March 2026 the government moved successfully to disagree with several Lords amendments, suggesting the measure is proceeding largely in its original form.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to publish an assessment of how this Bill changes lifetime pension values, arguing taxpayers deserve to know the real cost to their retirement savings
Voting No meant
Oppose the transparency requirement, backing the government's position that such an assessment is unnecessary and that the Bill should proceed without mandated impact calculations on pension values
512 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 142 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
282
80
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
98
0
18
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
31
11
Independent
6
1
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UKWhipped Aye
4
0
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
1
0
—
Opposes the Bill as regressive, harming lower earners and graduates disproportionately; argues the £2,000 cap should exempt basic rate taxpayers and be indexed to inflation.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,086 words) →
Supports the Bill as pragmatic and necessary reform to control salary sacrifice costs rising from £2.8bn to £8bn by 2030; defends the £2,000 cap as affecting only 5% of lower earners.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,373 words) →
Opposes the Bill, citing lack of impact assessments, burden on small businesses, and disincentive to pension saving; supports amendment requiring publication of lifetime pension value impacts.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,053 words) →
Supports the Bill; emphasizes need to address cost-of-living crisis and that many constituents cannot afford pensions; agrees the salary sacrifice cost is unsustainable.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (259 words) →
Agrees with Conservative criticism that the Bill attacks younger people and families; views it as harmful to those with aspirations for the future.Democratic Unionist Party · Voted aye · Read full speech (106 words) →
Challenges the Minister on the inequity of the cap, questioning how withdrawing 17% relief from basic rate taxpayers with student loans is pragmatic.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (52 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0