Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15

Wednesday, 3 December 2025 · Division No. 380 · Commons

154Ayes
303Noes
Defeated

189 MPs did not vote

rightGovernment defeatedPro Pension Reform(Yes)Opposition Scrutiny Of Government Bills(Yes)Pro Pension Protection(Yes)Government Bill Integrity(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the Conservative opposition's proposed change to the Pension Schemes Bill (Amendment 15), as tabled by shadow ministers

Voting No means

Reject the Conservative amendment and back the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill as it stands

What happened: The House of Commons voted on Amendment 15 to the Pension Schemes Bill on 3 December 2025. The amendment, tabled by opposition parties, was defeated by 303 votes to 154. The government's own version of the Bill, along with a package of government new clauses it had introduced, was therefore preserved.

Why it matters: The Pension Schemes Bill makes significant changes to how occupational pension schemes operate in the United Kingdom. Among the most substantial changes being debated were new government clauses (31 to 33) introducing 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%. This affects over 250,000 members of those schemes, with the average PPF compensation expected to rise by around £400 per year over five years. A separate and contested question, raised by multiple MPs, concerns whether similar protections should extend to members of private defined-benefit schemes run by solvent companies, many of them large multinationals, who have not passed on any indexation increases for periods of up to 23 years.

The politics: The vote divided largely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against the amendment, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party all voted in favour. There were no notable cross-party rebels on the government benches. The result reflects the broad arithmetical dominance of the Labour majority in the current Parliament. Although there is stated cross-party agreement on the broad aims of pension reform, the opposition parties sought specific changes the government declined to accept, preferring instead its own set of new clauses tabled alongside the Bill.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/274 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
75 Aye/0 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
61 Aye/0 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/25 No
Independent
2 Aye/5 No
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6 Aye/0 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5 Aye/0 No
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4 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.

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