Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16

Wednesday, 3 December 2025 · Division No. 379 · Commons

143Ayes
304Noes
Defeated

200 MPs did not vote

rightGovernment defeatedPro Pension Reform(Yes)Opposition Amendment(Yes)Pro Retirement Security(Yes)Government Bill Integrity(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the Conservative amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill, seeking to alter or add to the government's pension reform legislation

Voting No means

Reject the Conservative amendment, backing the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill without this change

What happened: 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.

Why it matters: 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 politics: 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.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/273 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
74 Aye/0 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
62 Aye/0 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/25 No
Independent
1 Aye/6 No
Reform UKWhipped Aye
5 Aye/0 No
Democratic Unionist Party
2 Aye/0 No
Ulster Unionist 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.

Voted Aye

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.

Voted Aye

Kirsty Blackman

SNP · Aberdeen North

Neutral

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

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