National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6

Monday, 23 March 2026 · Division No. 458 · Commons

278Ayes
164Noes
Passed

206 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment wonPro Employer Ni Increase(Yes)Anti Employer Ni Increase(No)Pro Government Fiscal Policy(Yes)Lords Oversight Support(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the government rejecting Lords Amendment 6, maintaining the original bill's approach to employer National Insurance on pension contributions

Voting No means

Support keeping Lords Amendment 6, backing the change the House of Lords made to the employer NI pension contributions rules

Parliament voted on 23 March 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 6 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, with 278 MPs voting in favour of rejecting the amendment and 164 voting against. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, concerned the treatment of employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements, and specifically sought to exempt small and medium-sized businesses and charities from the changes being introduced by the Bill. The government successfully overturned it, as it did with the other Lords amendments considered on the same day.

The Bill alters the tax treatment of employer pension contributions made via optional remuneration arrangements, commonly known as salary sacrifice schemes, under which employees give up a portion of their salary in exchange for employer pension contributions, reducing the national insurance paid by both parties. The government is imposing a cap of 2,000 pounds on the amount that can be contributed through such schemes before additional national insurance becomes payable, with the change due to take effect from 2029. Lords Amendment 6 would have shielded smaller employers and charities from this change. The government argues that tax relief on pension saving remains generous, that 95 percent of those earning 30,000 pounds or less and saving via salary sacrifice are unaffected by the cap, and that the reform is necessary to control costs that would otherwise rise to a level comparable to the entire defence budget. Critics contend that the change discourages pension saving, places administrative burdens on small businesses, and could widen the existing pensions gap.

The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 275 Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs who voted supported the government's position. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Democratic Unionist Party, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK and Traditional Unionist Voice MP who voted opposed it. Two independents voted with the government and two against. This was one of twelve Lords amendments the government moved to reject on the same day, and the voting pattern was consistent across all of them, with margins ranging from 114 to 118.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
250 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
25 Aye/0 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Independent
2 Aye/2 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

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 — Monday, 23 March 2026 | Beyond The Vote