A divisionDivision No. 379 · Wednesday, 3 December 2025· Commons· Pensions

Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16

143Ayes
304Noes
Defeated · majority 161 · Government won
200 did not vote
Aye145No304DID NOT VOTE · 200

647 Members · Aye 143 · No 304 · DNV 200 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 3 December 2025, MPs voted on Amendment 16 to the Pension Schemes Bill at its report stage (the stage where the full House of Commons reviews and can amend a bill after it has been scrutinised in committee). The amendment was tabled by the Conservative opposition and sought to modify the government's pension proposals. It was defeated by 304 votes to 143, with the government's position prevailing. The Pension Schemes Bill is a significant piece of legislation affecting millions of people with occupational and private pensions across the United Kingdom. Among its most prominent measures are new clauses introduced by the government to provide prospective indexation of Pension Protection Fund and Financial Assistance Scheme payments relating to pensions built up before 6 April 1997, linked to the Consumer Prices Index and capped at 2.5%. The government stated this change would benefit over 250,000 members, boosting average compensation by around 400 pounds a year over five years. By defeating the opposition amendment, the Commons backed the government's version of these reforms rather than the modified approach proposed by the Conservatives. The vote divided along clear party lines. All 298 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment, while all 74 Conservatives, all 62 Liberal Democrats, and all 5 Reform UK members who voted supported it. There were no cross-party rebels on either side of note, though six independents voted with the government against the amendment. The Bill has proceeded with a degree of cross-party support on broad principles, with the Conservative shadow minister and the Liberal Democrats both acknowledging positive elements of the legislation, but the opposition sought through amendments to strengthen or adjust specific provisions. The defeat of Amendment 16 reflects the government's comfortable Commons majority on its legislative programme.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Conservative amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill, seeking to alter or add to the government's pension reform legislation
Voting No meant
Reject the Conservative amendment, backing the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill without this change
§ 01Who voted how.447 voting Members · 200 absent

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
273
88
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
74
0
42
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
25
17
Independent
1
6
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
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
1
0
0
Your Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Torsten BellSupportiveSwansea 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.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (17,722 words)
James WildNeutralNorth 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.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,224 words)
Olly GloverQuestioningDidcot 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.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (105 words)
Sir Julian LewisQuestioningNew 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.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (345 words)
Dame Nia GriffithQuestioningLlanelli
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)
Sean WoodcockSupportiveBanbury
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)
Dr Al PinkertonQuestioningSurrey Heath
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)
Kirsty BlackmanNeutralAberdeen North
Welcomes trustee guidance proposal but requests clear timeline and roadmap for consultation and resulting primary/secondary legislation.SNP · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (3,621 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0