Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15
276Ayes
155Noes
Carried · majority 121 · Government won216 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 276 · No 155 · DNV 216 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 15 to the Pension Schemes Bill, passing the government's motion to disagree by 276 votes to 155. The amendment, passed in the House of Lords, would have removed a "reserve power" allowing Ministers to direct pension funds to invest in certain asset classes, specifically the broad private assets category. By voting to reject the Lords amendment, the Commons restored that power to the Bill. The reserve power gives the government the ability to set minimum private-market asset allocation targets for defined contribution pension schemes. The government argues this is necessary to overcome a collective-action problem: individual pension schemes may each recognise that investing more in private assets would benefit their members, but hesitate to move first without certainty that the rest of the market will follow. Ministers contend that the power, used as a last resort, provides that certainty. Opponents argue it allows Ministers to override the fiduciary duty of pension trustees, potentially forcing savers' money into investments that do not serve their best interests. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 264 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. The 85 voting Conservatives and 60 voting Liberal Democrats opposed it, as did all four voting Greens and all four voting Reform UK members. The SNP's five voting members and all four Plaid Cymru members supported the government. This division is one of several on related amendments to the same Bill on the same day, and the reserve power dispute continued through further Lords-Commons exchanges in subsequent votes in late April 2026.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing the Lords amendment and keeping the government's reserve power to direct pension fund asset allocation, on the basis that it is necessary to unlock investment in private markets and improve returns for savers.
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's power to direct private pension investments, arguing that Ministers should not be able to override the fiduciary duty of pension trustees or force savers' money into assets that may not serve their best interests.
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
239
0
122
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
59
12
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
—
5
2
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
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 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
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 · 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 · 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