Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 3
Wednesday, 3 December 2025 · Division No. 377 · Commons
263 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
Support easing access to pension compensation for terminally ill people by allowing use of end-of-life fast-track rules
Voting No means
Oppose this specific amendment, likely preferring existing access arrangements or addressing the issue through other means
What happened: On 3 December 2025, the House of Commons voted on New Clause 3 to the Pension Schemes Bill at report stage (the stage where MPs debate and vote on amendments before a Bill proceeds to the House of Lords). The amendment was defeated by 299 votes to 87. The clause was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, who led the Aye vote alongside the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Greens, and a handful of independents. Labour voted unanimously against.
Why it matters: The Pension Schemes Bill is a wide-ranging piece of legislation affecting how occupational pensions are managed, invested, and protected. The debate surrounding this amendment centred on pre-1997 pension indexation: the question of whether pension payments accrued before April 1997 should be increased in line with inflation. This is a long-standing concern for hundreds of thousands of pensioners, particularly those whose former employers, including large multinationals such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, 3M, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Pfizer, and Atos, have declined to apply voluntary inflation-linked increases for periods of up to 23 years. The Government separately tabled its own amendments (New Clauses 31 to 33) to extend indexation within the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme, benefiting over 250,000 members with an average boost of around 400 pounds a year over five years. The opposition amendment sought to go further, pressing for redress beyond the PPF framework.
The politics: Labour voted solidly against the amendment, reflecting the Government's position that its own new clauses represented the appropriate and balanced response to the indexation issue. The Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK, DUP and Greens all voted in favour, forming a broad but ultimately thin cross-party Aye coalition. Notably, only two Conservatives voted Aye, with 114 absent, meaning the official opposition did not meaningfully contest the amendment despite voicing support for aspects of the Bill. The debate revealed frustration on the Labour backbenches as well, with several Labour MPs making the case for stronger action against solvent private employers refusing to index-link pensions, even as they ultimately backed the Government's position.
How They Voted
Government position: No
What They Said in the Debate
Labour · Didcot and Wantage
Welcomes PPF improvements but expresses concern that AEA Technology pension campaigners lack redress route despite NAO/Select Committee reports; urges reconsideration of new clause 1.
Conservative · New Forest East
Notes ExxonMobil private DB scheme pensioners feel discriminated against as they gain no benefit from FAS/PPF indexation improvements; questions whether trustees have sufficient leverage against foreign-headquartered employers.
Labour · Llanelli
Expresses scepticism about whether surplus release changes will actually force companies like 3M and Hewlett Packard to provide index-linked rises; seeks meeting to understand available mechanisms.
Voted No
Conservative · Surrey Heath
Seeks reassurance for Surrey Heath constituents working for large US firms whose pensions fall outside PPF/FAS and receive no pre-1997 uplift.
Voted Aye
Conservative · North West Norfolk
Supports many Bill measures for pension accessibility but criticises that it fails to address pension adequacy; over 50% of savers will miss retirement income targets; proposes five-year review requirement via new clause 25.
SNP · Aberdeen North
Welcomes trustee guidance proposal but requests clear timeline and roadmap for consultation and resulting primary/secondary legislation.
Voted Aye
Labour · Swansea West
Supports Bill as foundation for pension returns; announces prospective CPI-linked indexation (capped 2.5%) for PPF/FAS pre-1997 service and promises statutory guidance on trustee investment duties rather than primary legislation changes.
Voted No
Labour · Banbury
Welcomes Chancellor's Budget announcement on pensions; praises government action after decades of Conservative delay; seeks confirmation of benefit amounts from indexation changes.
Voted No
Related Votes
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill Committee: New Clause 3
23 Feb 2026
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Third Reading
23 Feb 2026
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Second Reading
3 Feb 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: Amendment 5
21 Jan 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: New Clause 5
21 Jan 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Third Reading
21 Jan 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Second Reading
17 Dec 2025
Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 26
3 Dec 2025
Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16
3 Dec 2025
Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15
3 Dec 2025