Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 26
Wednesday, 3 December 2025 · Division No. 378 · Commons
272 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
Support requiring an independent review into the pension losses of former AEA Technology employees, who lost out when the company was privatised
Voting No means
Oppose mandating an independent review into AEA Technology pension losses, likely preferring existing mechanisms or opposing the specific legislative vehicle
What happened: On 3 December 2025, the House of Commons voted on New Clause 26 to the Pension Schemes Bill. The clause was defeated by 298 votes to 77. The government and its Labour and Labour-Co-operative members voted solidly against the new clause, while the Liberal Democrats provided the largest bloc of support with 62 votes in favour, joined by the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and a handful of independents.
Why it matters: The Pension Schemes Bill is a significant piece of legislation affecting how occupational pension schemes operate, how the Pension Protection Fund (the lifeboat fund for members of collapsed pension schemes) compensates members, and how trustees manage scheme surpluses. New Clause 26 was one of several opposition amendments seeking to go further than the government's own provisions, particularly on the question of indexation of pensions accrued before April 1997. The government's own new clauses 31 to 33 introduced prospective indexation for PPF and Financial Assistance Scheme payments linked to pre-1997 service, capped at 2.5% and tied to the Consumer Prices Index, benefiting an estimated 250,000 members with an average annual gain of around £400 over five years. The defeated new clause sought additional protections beyond this framework.
The politics: The vote followed party lines closely, with Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs voting unanimously against and opposition parties voting in favour. The Conservative Party did not appear in the division figures, suggesting their members were largely absent. The debate exposed a notable tension within the government's own ranks, with several Labour backbenchers pressing the minister for stronger action on solvent private companies that have refused to index-link pre-1997 pensions, including household names such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, 3M, Goldman Sachs, and ExxonMobil. The minister acknowledged the concern but argued that new powers for trustees and forthcoming Pensions Regulator guidance would help address the issue without further legislation at this stage.
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 3
3 Dec 2025
Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16
3 Dec 2025
Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15
3 Dec 2025