Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16
143Ayes
304Noes
Defeated · majority 161 · Government won200 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 143 · No 304 · DNV 200 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Conservative Amendment 16 to the Pension Schemes Bill was defeated at Report Stage on 3 December 2025, by 304 votes to 143. The amendment had been tabled by the opposition to require the Bill to address pensions adequacy, the risk that a large proportion of savers will retire without sufficient income. The government voted it down. The vote matters because it determines whether Parliament uses this Bill to compel action on retirement income sufficiency. Research cited during the debate, from Pensions UK, suggested that more than half of savers will fail to meet standard retirement income benchmarks under the current framework. By defeating the amendment, the government confirmed that the Bill will proceed without a formal adequacy requirement, leaving that question to be addressed through other means or at a later date. The division split almost entirely along party lines. All 273 Labour MPs and 25 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment. The 74 voting Conservatives, 62 Liberal Democrats, 5 Reform UK MPs, 2 DUP MPs and 1 Ulster Unionist MP all voted in favour. One independent voted aye and five voted no. No cross-party rebellion was recorded among Labour members. The result reflects the broad opposition coalition pressing the government on an issue the Bill's own supporters acknowledge it does not fully resolve.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the Bill to address pensions adequacy, reflecting concern that over half of savers will fail to achieve adequate retirement incomes under the current framework
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, arguing the Bill's existing reforms to value-for-money, consolidation and scale are sufficient or that pensions adequacy is better addressed separately
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
61
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
25
17
Independent
—
2
5
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
Your Party
—
0
1
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
—
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 aye · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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