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
Parliament voted on 3 December 2025 on New Clause 26 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have required the Secretary of State to commission an independent review, within three months of the Act passing, into pension losses suffered by former employees of AEA Technology. Those workers transferred their accrued pension benefits out of the UK Atomic Energy Authority public service scheme when the company was privatised in 1996, and later suffered losses when AEA Technology went into administration in 2012 and its pension scheme entered the Pension Protection Fund. The amendment was defeated by 298 votes to 77. The practical effect of the amendment, had it passed, would have been to compel a formal independent examination of the government's role in those pension transfers during privatisation, the adequacy of safeguards given to workers at the time, and whether affected individuals deserve additional compensation beyond what they received through the Pension Protection Fund. By defeating the amendment, Parliament blocked that mandated review, meaning the government faces no legal obligation to revisit the case. Workers who lost pension value in the 2012 collapse retain whatever PPF compensation they currently receive, with no new process to assess whether that was sufficient. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 266 Labour MPs and all 26 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment. The Liberal Democrats provided the largest bloc of support, with 62 of their MPs voting in favour; the Scottish National Party contributed 5 ayes, Plaid Cymru 4, and the Greens 2, along with smaller groupings. No Conservative votes appear in the party breakdown, which is notable given the bill's passage through a Labour-led Commons. Three independents voted on each side. The result reflects a pattern visible in related votes on welfare and pensions during this parliamentary period, where the government has held its majority comfortably against opposition amendments.
Voting Aye meant
Support mandating an independent review into the pension losses of former AEA Technology workers, who were encouraged to leave a protected public sector scheme and later received reduced payouts through the Pension Protection Fund after the company's collapse.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, likely arguing the matter has already been examined by parliamentary committees or that the bill is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing a specific historical privatisation case.
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
61
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
Your Party
—
2
0
0
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
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