National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
278
Ayes
—
164
Noes
Passed · Government won
206 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 6 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, with 278 MPs voting in favour of rejecting the amendment and 164 voting against. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, concerned the treatment of employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements, and specifically sought to exempt small and medium-sized businesses and charities from the changes being introduced by the Bill. The government successfully overturned it, as it did with the other Lords amendments considered on the same day. The Bill alters the tax treatment of employer pension contributions made via optional remuneration arrangements, commonly known as salary sacrifice schemes, under which employees give up a portion of their salary in exchange for employer pension contributions, reducing the national insurance paid by both parties. The government is imposing a cap of 2,000 pounds on the amount that can be contributed through such schemes before additional national insurance becomes payable, with the change due to take effect from 2029. Lords Amendment 6 would have shielded smaller employers and charities from this change. The government argues that tax relief on pension saving remains generous, that 95 percent of those earning 30,000 pounds or less and saving via salary sacrifice are unaffected by the cap, and that the reform is necessary to control costs that would otherwise rise to a level comparable to the entire defence budget. Critics contend that the change discourages pension saving, places administrative burdens on small businesses, and could widen the existing pensions gap. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 275 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted supported the government's position. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Democratic Unionist Party, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK and Traditional Unionist Voice MP who voted opposed it. Two independents voted with the government and two against. This was one of twelve Lords amendments the government moved to reject on the same day, and the voting pattern was consistent across all of them, with margins ranging from 114 to 118.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting Lords Amendment 6, maintaining the original bill's approach to employer National Insurance on pension contributions
Voting No meant
Support keeping Lords Amendment 6, backing the change the House of Lords made to the employer NI pension contributions rules
442 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 206 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
250
0
112
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
89
27
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
57
15
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
2
2
9
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
5
4
Reform UKWhipped No
0
3
5
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