Pensions Scheme Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
269Ayes
103Noes
Carried · majority 166 · Government won275 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 269 · No 103 · DNV 275 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Commons voted 269 to 103 on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 5 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the government's original text on that provision. The motion to disagree passed with government backing. Because no Hansard debate extracts were supplied, the precise content of the amendment cannot be determined from the available record. The vote was one of several divisions on the same day in which the Commons pushed back against changes the House of Lords had made to the Pension Schemes Bill. This pattern of Commons disagreement with Lords amendments is part of the parliamentary process known as ping-pong, in which a bill moves back and forth between the two chambers until both agree on a final text. The outcome preserves the government's preferred drafting on this particular clause, though what that clause does in practice cannot be confirmed without the debate record. The division followed strict party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs supplied all 269 votes in favour, with no recorded votes against from those groups. Conservatives provided 85 of the 103 votes against, joined by five Independents, five SNP members, four Plaid Cymru members, and four Reform UK members. One Liberal Democrat voted with the government; most Lib Dem MPs had no vote recorded. The Greens voted four to nil in favour. The vote is one of a cluster of related divisions in April 2026 in which the Commons disagreed with multiple Lords amendments to the same bill, with the government prevailing on each occasion.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords' amendment and restore the original bill text on this pension-related provision
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords' amendment and accepting the change the upper chamber made to the Pensions Scheme Bill
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
238
0
123
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
—
1
0
70
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
—
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
5
4
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
1
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
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
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) →
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) →
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) →
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_vote_recorded · Read full speech (746 words) →
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_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,027 words) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0