Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 78
277Ayes
150Noes
Carried · majority 127 · Government won221 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 277 · No 150 · DNV 221 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 277 to 150 on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 78 to the Pension Schemes Bill, backing the government's position that the amendment should not stand. The Lords had inserted a requirement for a formal review of the cost and long-term sustainability of public sector pension schemes. By passing this motion to disagree, the Commons removed that requirement from the Bill. The amendment would have mandated a transparent review of public sector defined benefit pension schemes, which, unlike most private sector arrangements, are largely funded from current taxation rather than pre-built investment funds. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated the long-term liability of these schemes at around £1.4 trillion. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that a review was needed to assess the long-term sustainability of these commitments and their fairness to future taxpayers. The government, and the majority of MPs who voted with it, disagreed, treating the amendment as unnecessary or outside the scope of the Bill. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 268 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK voted against, totalling 150 noes between them. A small number of independents and Scottish and Welsh nationalist MPs also voted with the government. This was one of several government victories over Lords amendments to the Bill on the same day, with similar vote tallies recorded in related divisions.
Voting Aye meant
Back the government in removing the Lords' requirement for a review of public sector pension scheme costs and sustainability, arguing it is unnecessary or outside the scope of the Bill.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' call for a transparent review of long-term public sector pension liabilities — estimated at around £1.4 trillion — and their fairness to future taxpayers.
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
241
0
120
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
58
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
4
2
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
5
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
1
4
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
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 no_vote_recorded · 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