Division · No. 454Monday, 23 March 2026Commons Pensions

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

280
Ayes
161
Noes
Passed · Government won
204 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 1 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, by 280 votes to 161. The amendment had been passed by the House of Lords and represented the upper chamber's primary challenge to the bill's central measure: applying national insurance contributions to employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements, subject to a £2,000 annual cap per employee. By voting to disagree with the Lords, the government maintained its original policy intact. The vote matters because it clears the way for a new tax on a widely used workplace pension saving mechanism. Under salary sacrifice, employees and employers jointly arrange for part of a worker's salary to be paid directly into a pension, a route that has historically been exempt from employer national insurance. The bill ends that exemption on contributions above the £2,000 cap, with the change due to take effect from 2029. Opponents argued the policy would discourage pension saving among low and middle-income workers, increase administrative burdens on small businesses and charities, and risk widening the pension gap over time. The government argued that all workers retain strong incentives to save for retirement, that the existing £70 billion-a-year tax relief system remains largely intact, and that the revenue is necessary to fund public services without cuts to the NHS or welfare. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 277 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, with no rebels. The Conservatives (88 votes), Liberal Democrats (54), Scottish National Party (6), Democratic Unionist Party (5), Reform UK (4), Plaid Cymru (2) and Traditional Unionist Voice (1) all voted against. Three independents voted on each side. The same pattern was repeated across four further divisions held on the same day, as the government rejected Lords Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 by similar margins, defeating a range of Lords proposals including exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises and charities.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's plan to increase National Insurance on employer pension contributions made via salary sacrifice, rejecting the Lords' amendment
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment, opposing the government's extension of National Insurance to employer pension contributions under salary sacrifice arrangements
§ 01Who voted how.441 voting members · 204 absent
Aye282No164DID NOT VOTE · 204

441 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 204 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
249
0
113
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
88
28
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
54
18
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
3
3
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
6
3
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
0
2
2
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
1
0
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Torsten BellSupportiveSwansea West
Supports the Bill and rejects all Lords amendments; argues the £2,000 cap is pragmatic, protects 90% of lower earners, and necessary to control spiralling tax relief costs while maintaining strong pension incentives.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,464 words)
Mark GarnierOpposedWyre Forest
Opposes the Bill entirely and supports most Lords amendments; argues the cap will harm 858,000 basic-rate taxpayers and may cause employers to abandon salary sacrifice altogether, damaging pensions adequacy.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,221 words)
Charlie MaynardOpposedWitney
Opposes the Bill and supports Lords amendments, particularly raising the cap to £5,000; argues the £2,000 threshold will hit modest-income savers and the timing (2029) appears designed to manage fiscal rules rather than be genuine policy.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,143 words)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
Questions whether the Bill creates a financial disincentive for middle-income earners and may increase pensioner poverty, asking if this risks creating a pensions gap and higher state costs.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (136 words)
Chris VinceSupportiveHarlow
Supports the Bill; argues the government should focus on low earners who cannot afford to save, not tax reliefs for higher earners, and notes concern about the pension gap is more relevant to wage levels than tax changes.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (135 words)
Sir Ashley FoxOpposedBridgwater
Challenges the government as unfairly raising taxes on savers while increasing welfare spending; questions the integrity of using the policy to fund other priorities.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (99 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