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

Monday, 23 March 2026 · Division No. 455 · Commons

279Ayes
167Noes
Passed

200 MPs did not vote

rightGovernment wonPro Employer Ni Increase(Yes)Pro Pension Saver Protections(No)Anti Lords Override(Yes)Pro Worker Earner Protections(No)

Voting Yes means

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 means

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.

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.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
251 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/88 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/57 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27 Aye/0 No
Independent
2 Aye/4 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/6 No
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0 Aye/3 No
Traditional Unionist Voice
0 Aye/1 No
Ulster Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Your Party
1 Aye/0 No

What They Said in the Debate

Mark Garnier

Conservative · Wyre Forest

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Charlie Maynard

Liberal Democrat · Witney

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Sir Ashley Fox

Conservative · Bridgwater

Opposed

Challenges the government as unfairly raising taxes on savers while increasing welfare spending; questions the integrity of using the policy to fund other priorities.

Voted No

Jim Shannon

DUP · Strangford

Questioning

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.

Voted No

Torsten Bell

Labour · Swansea West

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Chris Vince

Labour · Harlow

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Related Votes