National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5

Monday, 23 March 2026 · Division No. 457 · Commons

281Ayes
167Noes
Passed

207 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment wonPro Employer Ni Increase(Yes)Pro Small Business Protection(No)Pro Pension Saving Incentives(No)Fiscal Consolidation(Yes)

Voting Yes means

Support the government overriding the Lords and pressing ahead with increasing employer National Insurance on pension contributions without the Lords' proposed protection

Voting No means

Support the Lords amendment, opposing the NI increase on employer pension contributions — particularly to protect small businesses, charities, and pension saving incentives

MPs voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 5 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, by 281 votes to 167. The Lords had inserted the amendment to protect employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements from a planned increase in employer National Insurance, but the elected Commons overturned it. This was one of a series of votes that evening on twelve Lords amendments to the same Bill, all of which the government moved to reject, with similarly decisive margins across each division.

The Bill introduces new National Insurance charges on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements, a form of pay arrangement where employees give up part of their salary in exchange for pension contributions paid directly by their employer, which have historically attracted National Insurance relief. The government argues that the cost of pension tax reliefs is rising sharply and must be kept under review as part of sound public finances. Opponents, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the DUP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK, contend that the change discourages pension saving, hits small businesses, and risks widening the gap between those who do and do not save adequately for retirement. The change is not due to take effect until 2029-30.

Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, DUP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK MP who voted did so against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions on the government side. The Bill has attracted significant opposition in the House of Lords, where, as the Conservative shadow minister noted in debate, the government did not win a single vote during its passage through the upper chamber. The Commons has now systematically reversed all twelve Lords amendments, asserting financial privilege, the constitutional principle that the elected Commons has primacy over money matters.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
246 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/89 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/57 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26 Aye/0 No
Independent
2 Aye/3 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 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