Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 26

Wednesday, 3 December 2025 · Division No. 378 · Commons

77Ayes
298Noes
Defeated

272 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment defeatedPro Pension Protection(Yes)Pro Workers Rights(Yes)Privatisation Accountability(Yes)Pro Independent Review(Yes)

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

Labour PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/267 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
62 Aye/0 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/26 No
Independent
4 Aye/2 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5 Aye/0 No
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4 Aye/0 No
Democratic Unionist Party
0 Aye/2 No
Green Party of England and Wales
2 Aye/0 No
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1 Aye/0 No
Ulster Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Your Party
1 Aye/0 No

What They Said in the Debate

Olly Glover

Labour · Didcot and Wantage

Questioning

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.

Sir Julian Lewis

Conservative · New Forest East

Questioning

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.

Dame Nia Griffith

Labour · Llanelli

Questioning

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

Dr Al Pinkerton

Conservative · Surrey Heath

Questioning

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

James Wild

Conservative · North West Norfolk

Neutral

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.

Kirsty Blackman

SNP · Aberdeen North

Neutral

Welcomes trustee guidance proposal but requests clear timeline and roadmap for consultation and resulting primary/secondary legislation.

Voted Aye

Torsten Bell

Labour · Swansea West

Supportive

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

Sean Woodcock

Labour · Banbury

Supportive

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