A divisionDivision No. 482 · Wednesday, 15 April 2026· Commons· Pensions and Retirement

Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43

273Ayes
159Noes
Carried · majority 114 · Government won
215 did not vote
Aye275No160DID NOT VOTE · 215

647 Members · Aye 273 · No 159 · DNV 215 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted 273 to 159 on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 43 to the Pension Schemes Bill, siding with the government in the "ping-pong" process by which the two Houses exchange amendments. The motion to disagree passed, meaning the Bill's original provisions on pension scheme consolidation and the government's reserve powers over investment direction were restored. The vote was Division 482. The result keeps in place the Bill's requirements for defined contribution multi-employer pension schemes to operate at scale, with a minimum asset threshold of £25 billion by 2030, and preserves the government's reserve power to set minimum private-market asset allocation targets. Lords Amendment 43 was part of a group of amendments that sought to create exemptions from the scale requirements for smaller schemes already delivering good outcomes for members, and to remove or restrict the government's powers to direct where pension schemes invest. Rejecting the amendment means those protections for smaller schemes and those limits on government direction do not form part of the legislation. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 269 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. The Conservatives (86 votes against), Liberal Democrats (59 against) and Scottish National Party (5 against) all backed the Lords position. Four Greens voted with the government. Four independents voted against. Reform UK's single voting MP voted no. There were no notable cross-party rebellions on either side. The vote sits within a sequence of ping-pong divisions on the Bill in April 2026, all of which the government won by similar margins, reflecting the Lords' repeated challenges to the consolidation and investment-direction provisions and the government's consistent success in overturning them in the Commons.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position: reject the Lords amendment and maintain the Bill's original provisions on pension scheme consolidation and investment powers, arguing these are necessary to improve returns for savers by overcoming collective action problems in a fragmented market
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment, arguing smaller well-run pension schemes should be exempt from forced consolidation if they are already delivering for members, and that the government's reserve powers over investment direction represent unacceptable state interference in private savings
§ 01Who voted how.432 voting Members · 215 absent

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
243
0
118
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
58
13
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
1
7
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Torsten BellSupportiveSwansea West
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)
Helen WhatelyOpposedFaversham and Mid Kent
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)
Tom TugendhatOpposedTonbridge
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)
Steve DarlingOpposedTorbay
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)
Clive JonesOpposedWokingham
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)
Debbie AbrahamsSupportiveOldham East and Saddleworth
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)
Neil Duncan-JordanOpposedPoole
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)
Alison GriffithsOpposedBognor Regis and Littlehampton
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0