National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
281Ayes
167Noes
Carried · majority 114 · Government won207 did not vote
655 Members · Aye 281 · No 167 · DNV 207 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The Commons voted on 23 March 2026 to reject a Lords amendment to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill that would have raised the annual threshold for NIC-free salary-sacrifice pension contributions from £2,000 to £5,000. The government's motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 passed by 281 votes to 167, a majority of 114. The bill applies Class 1 National Insurance contributions to salary-sacrifice pension contributions that exceed £2,000 per year, taking effect from the 2029-30 tax year. By voting down the Lords amendment, the Commons kept the threshold at the government's original figure of £2,000. Salary sacrifice is an arrangement where employees give up part of their salary in exchange for employer pension contributions, reducing the NIC liability of both employer and employee. Critics of the £2,000 threshold argued it is set too low and will lose real value over time through inflation, hitting lower and middle earners who use the arrangement to save for retirement. Labour MPs voted unanimously for the government's position, providing all 271 of the ayes from the two Labour groupings. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the DUP, Reform UK and Plaid Cymru all voted against, backing the Lords' higher threshold. No cross-party rebellion was visible among Labour members. The vote sits in a period of sustained parliamentary activity around pension policy, with several related divisions on the Pension Schemes Bill taking place in the weeks that followed.
Voting Aye meant
Support keeping the £2,000 NIC-free threshold for salary-sacrifice pension contributions, rejecting the Lords' attempt to raise it to £5,000
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment raising the threshold to £5,000, arguing £2,000 is too low and will erode in real terms, hitting lower and middle earners who use salary sacrifice to save for retirement
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
245
0
116
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
89
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
56
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
—
3
4
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
5
4
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
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0