Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15
154Ayes
303Noes
Defeated · majority 149 · Government won189 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 154 · No 303 · DNV 189 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
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. 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 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.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Conservative opposition's proposed change to the Pension Schemes Bill (Amendment 15), as tabled by shadow ministers
Voting No meant
Reject the Conservative amendment and back the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill as it stands
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
75
0
41
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
61
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
25
17
Independent
—
2
6
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
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
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 aye · 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