A divisionDivision No. 454 · Monday, 23 March 2026· Commons· Pensions

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

280Ayes
161Noes
Carried · majority 119 · Government won
204 did not vote
Aye282No164DID NOT VOTE · 204

645 Members · Aye 280 · No 161 · DNV 204 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The Commons voted on 23 March 2026 to reject a Lords amendment to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill that would have raised the salary-sacrifice pension threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 per year. The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 passed by 280 votes to 161, keeping the government's original £2,000 cap intact. The bill applies Class 1 National Insurance contributions to amounts of salary sacrificed for employer pension contributions that exceed £2,000 per year, with effect from the 2029-30 tax year. Contributions below that threshold remain free of NICs. The Lords had sought to raise the cap to £5,000, arguing the lower figure would erode in real terms through inflation and discourage pension saving. By rejecting that change, the Commons preserved the government's tighter limit. The measure affects employees whose employers offer salary sacrifice pension schemes and who contribute more than £2,000 annually via that route. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 276 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's position. All 88 Conservative MPs who voted opposed it, as did all 54 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP members, 5 DUPs, 4 Reform UK, 2 Plaid Cymru, and 1 Traditional Unionist Voice MP who voted. Four Independents voted with the government, three against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions on the government benches. The division sits within a broader cluster of government-versus-Lords votes on pensions legislation during early 2026, including several contested divisions on the Pension Schemes Bill in April.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that the £2,000 annual threshold strikes the right balance — limiting a costly and unequal NIC relief that disproportionately benefits higher earners, while protecting lower and middle earners from any new charge.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment raising the threshold to £5,000, arguing the £2,000 cap is too low, will erode in real terms through inflation, and risks deterring pension saving — particularly among younger workers and those in companies that use salary sacrifice.
§ 01Who voted how.441 voting Members · 204 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
248
0
113
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
88
28
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
53
18
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
4
4
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
6
3
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
0
2
2
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Your Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 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