National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
279
Ayes
—
167
Noes
Passed · Government won
200 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 23 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 279 to 167 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The amendment, passed in the House of Lords, would have introduced protections or review requirements around the government's plan to impose national insurance contributions on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements. The Commons voted to disagree with the Lords, removing that amendment from the Bill. The vote advances the government's plan to levy employer national insurance on salary sacrifice pension contributions, subject to a cap of £2,000 per employee. The change is not due to take effect until 2029. Proponents argue it addresses the rising cost of tax relief, which currently stands at approximately £70 billion per year, and raises revenue to support public services. Critics contend it discourages pension saving, particularly for lower and middle-income earners, creates administrative burdens for businesses, and could widen the pensions gap over time by reducing the financial incentive to participate in salary sacrifice schemes. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 278 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government, with no rebels. All 88 Conservatives, 57 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP members, 5 DUP members, 4 Reform UK members, and 3 Plaid Cymru members voted against. Two independents voted with the government while four voted against. The division is one of several on the same day, with the government winning parallel votes to reject Lords Amendments 1, 3, 5, and 6 by similar margins, indicating a sustained effort by the Lords to modify the Bill across multiple fronts, each of which the Commons overturned.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords' amendment and keeping the original Bill, which increases employer national insurance on pension contributions without the additional safeguards for lower and middle earners that the Lords proposed.
Voting No meant
Support keeping the Lords' amendment, which sought to protect lower and middle earners — including those using salary sacrifice pension arrangements — from the knock-on effects of higher employer national insurance on pension contributions.
446 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 200 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
251
0
111
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
88
28
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
57
15
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
2
4
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 CymruWhipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
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
—
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0