Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 35
275Ayes
159Noes
Carried · majority 116 · Government won212 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 275 · No 159 · DNV 212 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Commons MPs voted 275 to 159 on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 35 to the Pension Schemes Bill, upholding the government's version of the legislation. The motion to disagree passed comfortably, with the government securing a majority of 116. The vote was one of several on the same day in which MPs overturned Lords changes to the Bill, which is designed to reform how workplace pension savings are managed and invested across Great Britain. The amendment sat within a broader cluster of Lords changes concerning the scale requirements placed on defined contribution pension schemes. The government's Bill requires DC multi-employer schemes to reach minimum asset thresholds, and Amendment 35 was part of a group, including Lords Amendment 26, that sought to create exemptions for smaller, well-run schemes from those compulsory scale requirements. By voting to disagree, MPs removed that exemption route and kept the Bill's mandatory consolidation framework intact. The practical effect is that pension schemes will face binding scale obligations without the flexibility the Lords had sought to insert. The vote split sharply along party lines. All 271 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's position, joined by four Green MPs and single independents from two smaller groupings. All 85 Conservatives, 60 Liberal Democrats, five SNP MPs, four Plaid Cymru members, and two Reform UK members who voted opposed the motion, supporting the Lords amendment instead. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued the government was overreaching into private savings and that smaller well-performing schemes should not be forced to consolidate purely on size grounds, while ministers contended that scale reduces costs and improves returns, and that exemptions would create unworkable uncertainty.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the Pension Schemes Bill as the government intends — including consolidation of pension schemes, mandatory scale requirements, and reserve powers to direct pension investment into private assets
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, opposing the government's approach — arguing that mandatory consolidation and state direction of pension investment are heavy-handed, that smaller well-run schemes should be exempt from scale requirements, and that the government is overreaching into people's private savings
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
245
0
116
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
59
12
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
—
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
5
4
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
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