A divisionDivision No. 456 · Monday, 23 March 2026· Commons· Pensions

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3

280Ayes
164Noes
Carried · majority 116 · Government won
203 did not vote
Aye282No165DID NOT VOTE · 203

647 Members · Aye 280 · No 164 · DNV 203 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 3 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, passing the government's motion to disagree with the amendment by 280 votes to 164. The amendment would have required the government to use the affirmative parliamentary procedure (a process requiring both Houses to actively approve a measure) when making changes to how the £2,000 salary-sacrifice pension contribution threshold operates, beyond the existing affirmative requirement that already applies when the threshold is reduced. The vote means that Parliament will not impose the additional scrutiny mechanism the Lords inserted. Under the Act as passed, Treasury regulations that reduce the £2,000 annual cap on salary-sacrifice pension contributions free of National Insurance contributions must go through the affirmative procedure, but other adjustments to how the threshold works do not face that higher bar. The measure affects employers who use salary-sacrifice pension arrangements, with the broader Act applying NICs to salary-sacrifice contributions above £2,000 from the 2029-30 tax year. The division followed strict party lines. All 277 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's motion; no Labour MP voted against. All 87 voting Conservatives backed the Lords amendment, as did all 56 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP members, 5 DUP members, 3 Plaid Cymru members, and 3 Reform UK members. Four independents voted with the government; three voted against. The government did not lose a single Commons vote during the bill's passage, despite, as the Conservative frontbencher Mark Garnier noted, failing to win a single vote in the Lords.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of removing the Lords' additional parliamentary oversight requirement, accepting that existing affirmative procedure protections for threshold reductions are sufficient
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring stronger parliamentary scrutiny over changes to the salary-sacrifice pension NIC rules, arguing the government should face tighter checks when adjusting how the £2,000 cap works in practice
§ 01Who voted how.444 voting Members · 203 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
251
0
110
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
87
29
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
55
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
4
4
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
6
3
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
5
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