A divisionDivision No. 477 · Wednesday, 15 April 2026· Commons· Pensions and Retirement

Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

278Ayes
158Noes
Carried · majority 120 · Government won
211 did not vote
Aye280No159DID NOT VOTE · 211

647 Members · Aye 278 · No 158 · DNV 211 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 15 April 2026, the House of Commons voted 278 to 158 to reject Lords Amendment 1 to the Pension Schemes Bill, supporting the government's motion to disagree with the change. The Lords had inserted the amendment to remove ministers' power to direct pension schemes to invest in particular assets, sectors, or locations, reserving those decisions entirely to scheme trustees. By backing the government's motion, MPs voted to strip that protection from the Bill and restore the reserve power for ministers to set mandatory asset allocation requirements on pension funds. The vote determines whether government ministers can, through secondary legislation (regulations passed without full parliamentary debate), require pension schemes to channel savings into specific investments, such as UK infrastructure or growth assets. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that this power, even if described as a backstop, fundamentally shifts control of pension savings away from trustees whose legal duty is to act in savers' best interests. Opponents of the Lords amendment, including the government, argued the power is needed to support economic growth and improve returns, and is consistent with the Bill's broader goal of ensuring pension savings work harder. Labour MPs voted unanimously for the government's position, with 240 Labour and 26 Labour and Co-operative members voting aye and none voting no. Conservatives (87 no), Liberal Democrats (59 no), Reform UK (5 no), the Green Party (4 no), and the Democratic Unionist Party (2 no) all voted against the government. The Scottish National Party (5) and Plaid Cymru (4) voted with the government. The vote reflects a broader pattern of ping-pong (the process where a bill passes back and forth between the two Houses as each seeks to amend or reverse the other's changes) in which the Lords inflicted twelve defeats on the government during the Bill's passage through the upper House. The government returned to the Commons on 15 April to reverse several of those defeats in a single sitting.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government retaining powers to direct pension schemes toward specific investments (such as UK infrastructure or growth assets), rejecting the Lords' attempt to strip those powers from the Bill.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment: investment decisions should rest with trustees acting in savers' best interests, not with ministers, and the government should not hold reserve powers to steer pension funds toward particular assets or sectors.
§ 01Who voted how.436 voting Members · 211 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 Aye
240
0
121
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
87
29
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
58
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
5
2
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
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
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
Defends the reserve power on asset allocation as a necessary backstop to overcome collective action problems preventing diverse investment, but limits it to 10% qualifying assets and 5% UK assets to align with Mansion House accord; opposes most Lords amendments as unnecessary or undermining policy intent.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,240 words)
Helen WhatelyOpposedFaversham and Mid Kent
Argues the mandation power is fundamentally wrong in principle—pensions belong to savers, not the state—and that the government is seizing a £400bn piggybank for ideological purposes; calls for removal of the reserve power entirely.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,051 words)
Tom TugendhatOpposedTonbridge
Warns that regulatory intervention to mandate pension investment repeats a 30-year error of gradually shifting from equities to bonds, weakening economic growth and intergenerational wealth transfer; opposes mandation on principle.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,546 words)
Steve DarlingOpposedTorbay
Opposes mandation as state interference antithetical to free market principles; supports limited government guidance but not direction of pension investments; will vote against government amendments on mandation.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (746 words)
Clive JonesOpposedWokingham
Criticizes the Bill for failing to address pre-1997 pension indexation injustice affecting nearly 1 million pensioners; argues surplus extraction should not proceed until this long-standing wrong is remedied.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,027 words)
Debbie AbrahamsSupportiveOldham East and Saddleworth
Defends the asset allocation changes as aligned with Mansion House accord; dismisses scaremongering about government theft of pensions; supports the Bill and presses government on pre-1997 indexation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (572 words)
Neil Duncan-JordanOpposedPoole
Argues Lords amendments preventing direction of pension investment away from fossil fuels and unethical assets are too restrictive; calls for binding targets to phase out thermal coal and arms manufacturers from pension funds.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,004 words)
Alison GriffithsOpposedBognor Regis and Littlehampton
Objects to the reserve power on principle—pension decisions should rest with trustees, not ministers; supports Lords amendments to strip out asset allocation requirements and require transparency on public sector pension affordability.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (680 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