A divisionDivision No. 455 · Monday, 23 March 2026· Commons· Pensions

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2

279Ayes
167Noes
Carried · majority 112 · Government won
200 did not vote
Aye281No169DID NOT VOTE · 200

646 Members · Aye 279 · No 167 · DNV 200 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, passing the government's motion to disagree with the amendment by 279 votes to 167. The amendment, introduced in the House of Lords by Baron Leigh of Hurley, would have excluded salary-sacrificed pension contributions above the £2,000 annual cap from the calculation of student loan repayments. By voting to reject it, MPs kept student loan repayment rules unchanged. The bill applies National Insurance contributions to employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements above £2,000 per year, taking effect from the 2029-30 tax year. The Lords amendment addressed a side effect of this change: that salary sacrifice pension contributions above the cap could, depending on how student loan repayments are calculated, affect the amount a younger worker repays on their student loan. Opponents argued this created a double burden for younger workers trying to save for retirement while repaying student debt. The government's position was that the £2,000 cap already protects most lower and middle earners, that the measure targets a relief disproportionately used by higher earners, and that student loan rules should remain separate from this legislation. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 277 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's motion to reject the Lords amendment, with no votes recorded against. All 88 Conservatives, 57 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP members, 5 DUP members, 4 Reform UK members and 3 Plaid Cymru members who voted opposed the motion. Three independents voted with the government and four against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions on either side.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping student loan repayment thresholds unaffected by the new NICs rules — backing the government's position that the £2,000 cap is sufficient and that student loan rules should remain separate
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment exempting salary-sacrificed pension contributions above the cap from student loan repayment calculations, arguing the bill otherwise penalises younger workers saving for retirement while repaying student debt
§ 01Who voted how.446 voting Members · 200 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
250
0
111
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
88
28
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
56
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
3
5
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
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
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