Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15

Wednesday, 15 April 2026 · Division No. 479 · Commons

276Ayes
155Noes
Passed

216 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment wonPro Government Pension Investment Direction(Yes)Pro Pension Fund Trustee Independence(No)Anti Lords Override(Yes)Pro Pensioner Protections(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the power for the government to direct pension fund investments despite concerns it overrides trustees' duties to members

Voting No means

Support the Lords amendment, opposing the government's power to mandate where pension funds invest, arguing it is wrong in principle and threatens pensioners' interests

What happened: The House of Commons voted on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 15 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have removed or restricted government powers to direct how pension funds invest. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 276 votes to 155. This was one of several votes on the same day in which the government successfully reversed a series of defeats it had suffered in the House of Lords.

Why it matters: The vote reinstates a government power to require pension funds to hold a defined proportion of their assets in specified categories of investment, often referred to as the "mandation power." Under amendments to this power introduced by the government alongside its disagreement with the Lords, regulations cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall, or more than 5% in UK assets, figures that align with the so-called Mansion House commitments made by financial institutions. The government argues this measure will improve returns for pension savers by channelling funds into productive investments. Opponents argue it overrides the duty of pension trustees to act solely in the interests of their members and represents inappropriate government intervention in private savings decisions affecting millions of people.

The politics: The vote divided largely along party lines. All 263 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Green Party all voted against. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru voted with the government. The Conservatives had initially supported much of the Bill at Second Reading, a fact highlighted by the minister in closing remarks, but adopted a strongly critical position on the mandation provisions. There were no notable rebels on either side. The vote sits within a broader "ping-pong" process in which the Commons and Lords exchange the Bill until both Houses agree, and the government succeeded in overturning all of the Lords defeats put to a vote on the same day.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
239 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/85 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/60 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
25 Aye/0 No
Independent
5 Aye/1 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5 Aye/0 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4 Aye/0 No
Democratic Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Your Party
0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

Helen Whately

Conservative · Faversham and Mid Kent

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Tom Tugendhat

Conservative · Tonbridge

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Steve Darling

Liberal Democrat · Torbay

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Clive Jones

Conservative · Wokingham

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Neil Duncan-Jordan

Labour · Poole

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Alison Griffiths

Conservative · Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Torsten Bell

Labour · Swansea West

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Debbie Abrahams

Labour · Oldham East and Saddleworth

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Related Votes