Division · No. 457Monday, 23 March 2026Commons Pensions

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5

281
Ayes
167
Noes
Passed · Government won
207 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 5 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, by 281 votes to 167. The Lords had inserted the amendment to protect employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements from a planned increase in employer National Insurance, but the elected Commons overturned it. This was one of a series of votes that evening on twelve Lords amendments to the same Bill, all of which the government moved to reject, with similarly decisive margins across each division. The Bill introduces new National Insurance charges on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements, a form of pay arrangement where employees give up part of their salary in exchange for pension contributions paid directly by their employer, which have historically attracted National Insurance relief. The government argues that the cost of pension tax reliefs is rising sharply and must be kept under review as part of sound public finances. Opponents, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the DUP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK, contend that the change discourages pension saving, hits small businesses, and risks widening the gap between those who do and do not save adequately for retirement. The change is not due to take effect until 2029-30. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, DUP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK MP who voted did so against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions on the government side. The Bill has attracted significant opposition in the House of Lords, where, as the Conservative shadow minister noted in debate, the government did not win a single vote during its passage through the upper chamber. The Commons has now systematically reversed all twelve Lords amendments, asserting financial privilege, the constitutional principle that the elected Commons has primacy over money matters.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government overriding the Lords and pressing ahead with increasing employer National Insurance on pension contributions without the Lords' proposed protection
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, opposing the NI increase on employer pension contributions — particularly to protect small businesses, charities, and pension saving incentives
§ 01Who voted how.448 voting members · 207 absent
Aye275No168DID NOT VOTE · 207

448 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 207 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
246
0
116
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
89
27
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
57
15
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
2
3
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
5
4
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
§ 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