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
On 15 April 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 5 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the government's original text. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 269 votes to 103. This was one of six divisions held on the same day as part of the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," in which the two Houses of Parliament exchange amendments until they reach agreement. The vote advances the government's preferred version of the Pension Schemes Bill by overturning a change the House of Lords had inserted during its scrutiny of the legislation. The Bill as a whole deals with pension policy, meaning the outcomes of these divisions will affect how pension schemes are governed, regulated, or structured for workers and retirees in the United Kingdom. By rejecting Amendment 5 alongside five other Lords amendments on the same day, the Commons was asserting its preferred policy position and pushing back on the revisions the unelected upper chamber had made. The vote divided largely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 264 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of the government's position, joined by four Green MPs, and single votes from an independent, a Liberal Democrat, and a Your Party MP. Opposition came from 85 Conservatives, five SNP MPs, four Plaid Cymru MPs, four Reform UK MPs, and five independents. There were no Labour rebels. The pattern was consistent across all six divisions held that day, though the opposition coalition was notably smaller in this vote (103 noes) compared to the others, which ranged from 155 to 162 noes, suggesting Amendment 5 attracted somewhat less cross-party support for retention than the other Lords changes under consideration.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords' amendment and restore the original Bill text
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords' amendment 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
71
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
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
Your Party
—
1
0
0
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