Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26
269Ayes
162Noes
Carried · majority 107 · Government won216 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 269 · No 162 · DNV 216 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 269 to 162 on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 26 to the Pension Schemes Bill, backing the government's position that defined contribution multi-employer pension schemes must meet minimum scale requirements without exemptions for smaller schemes, however well-run. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed, meaning the exemption the upper chamber had inserted into the Bill was removed. The practical effect is that smaller pension schemes cannot secure a carve-out from the Bill's requirement for DC multi-employer auto-enrolment schemes to hold at least £25 billion in assets under management by 2030. Supporters of the government's position argued that scale reduces costs, opens up broader investment strategies, and ultimately delivers better returns for savers. Opponents argued that the amendment recognised a simpler principle: good governance and strong performance matter more than size alone, and that forcing well-run smaller schemes to consolidate squeezes out competition and innovation. The vote split almost entirely along party lines. All 263 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. The 87 Conservatives, 59 Liberal Democrats, 5 SNP members, 4 Plaid Cymru members, and 4 Reform UK members who voted all opposed. The Greens' four voting members backed the government. This division was one of several on the same day in which MPs rejected Lords amendments to the Bill, including a parallel vote on Amendment 1 concerning government direction of pension investment, which passed 278 to 158.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that pension schemes must meet minimum scale requirements, rejecting Lords-backed exemptions for smaller schemes on the grounds that consolidation benefits savers through lower costs and better investment returns.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment allowing well-run smaller pension schemes to be exempt from forced consolidation, arguing that good governance and performance matter more than sheer size, and that the government's approach squeezes out competition and innovation.
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
23
0
19
Independent
—
1
6
6
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 · 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