Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 26
77Ayes
298Noes
Defeated · majority 221 · Government won272 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 77 · No 298 · DNV 272 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
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. 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 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.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring an independent review into the pension losses of former AEA Technology employees, who lost out when the company was privatised
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating an independent review into AEA Technology pension losses, likely preferring existing mechanisms or opposing the specific legislative vehicle
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 No
0
266
95
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
26
16
Independent
—
4
3
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
—
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour 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
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Your Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (17,722 words) →
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.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,224 words) →
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.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (105 words) →
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.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (345 words) →
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.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,877 words) →
Welcomes Chancellor's Budget announcement on pensions; praises government action after decades of Conservative delay; seeks confirmation of benefit amounts from indexation changes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (82 words) →
Seeks reassurance for Surrey Heath constituents working for large US firms whose pensions fall outside PPF/FAS and receive no pre-1997 uplift.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (168 words) →
Welcomes trustee guidance proposal but requests clear timeline and roadmap for consultation and resulting primary/secondary legislation.SNP · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,621 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0