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

Monday, 23 March 2026 · Division No. 456 · Commons

280Ayes
164Noes
Passed

203 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment wonPro Ni Contributions Increase(Yes)Anti Lords Override(Yes)Pro Employer Pension Ni Exemption(No)Fiscal Responsibility(Yes)

Voting Yes means

Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the National Insurance employer pensions contributions legislation

Voting No means

Support retaining the Lords' amendment, disagreeing with the government's approach to employer National Insurance contributions on pensions

On 23 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 280 votes to 164 to reject Lords Amendment 3 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The vote was one of a series taken on the same evening, in which the government successfully overturned a sequence of amendments the House of Lords had inserted into the Bill. Each of those related divisions produced similar results, with the government majority holding firm throughout.

The Bill changes the tax treatment of employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements (a system where employees give up part of their salary in exchange for employer pension contributions, reducing national insurance liability for both parties). The Lords amendment sought to limit, delay, or create exemptions from the proposed changes, which will impose a cap of £2,000 on the amount of employer pension contributions through salary sacrifice that can benefit from national insurance relief. The government argued the existing relief is costly and in need of reform, pointing to the overall £70 billion annual spend on pension tax relief. Critics argued the change discourages retirement saving, particularly among low and middle-income workers, and imposes additional administrative burdens on smaller employers.

The vote divided along strict party lines. All 278 Labour and Labour and Co-operative members who voted backed the government. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK, and Traditional Unionist Voice member who voted opposed the motion, producing a No total of 164. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. The result sits within a broader political argument about how the government funds public services, with the government framing the measure as responsible stewardship of tax reliefs and opposition parties contending it undermines pension saving incentives at a damaging moment for household finances.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
252 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/87 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/56 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26 Aye/0 No
Independent
3 Aye/3 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/6 No
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/3 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