Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 77
271Ayes
95Noes
Carried · majority 176 · Government won282 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 271 · No 95 · DNV 282 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 77 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which had called for a formal government review of the long-term cost and sustainability of public sector pension schemes. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 271 votes to 95, restoring the government's position that no such statutory review is needed. The amendment addressed how unfunded public sector defined benefit pensions, which are paid from current taxation rather than pre-built investment funds, will be met over time. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated those long-term liabilities at around £1.4 trillion. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that a transparent review was needed to assess sustainability and fairness between generations, since commitments made now will fall on future taxpayers. The government, in rejecting the amendment, maintained that such a review was unnecessary. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 264 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted supported rejecting the Lords amendment, joined by four Greens and three independents. The 95 votes against came predominantly from the 85 Conservatives who voted, along with four SNP members, four Plaid Cymru members, one Reform UK member, one Democratic Unionist Party member, and one independent. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The division was one of several on the same day in which the government overturned Lords amendments to the Bill, having suffered 12 defeats in the upper chamber.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's position that a statutory review of public sector pension sustainability is unnecessary
Voting No meant
Oppose rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the call for a transparent review of the long-term costs and intergenerational fairness of public sector pensions
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
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
—
3
1
9
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
4
5
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
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_vote_recorded · 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_vote_recorded · 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