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
On 15 April 2026, the House of Commons voted 277 to 150 to reject Lords Amendment 78 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on that point. This was one of several votes on the same day in which the government overturned changes the House of Lords had made to the Bill, with the government winning each division by similar margins. Lords Amendment 78 was one of twelve Lords amendments that the Speaker confirmed engage the Commons' financial privilege, meaning the Lords had inserted provisions touching on public spending or taxation. By rejecting the amendment, the Commons reasserted its position on the Bill and advanced the government's pensions reform package, which centres on consolidating fragmented pension schemes, improving investment returns for savers, and expanding the range of assets pension funds can hold. The vote keeps intact the government's approach to pension scheme governance and investment powers, including a contested reserve power allowing ministers to direct pension scheme investment within defined limits. The vote split almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 266 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported rejection of the Lords amendment, joined by four SNP, four Plaid Cymru, and four independent MPs. The 150 Noes came from 86 Conservatives, 59 Liberal Democrats, 2 Reform UK members, and 1 Democratic Unionist Party member. There were no Labour rebels. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats framed their opposition as defending pension savers from government overreach; the government argued the Bill would increase returns for savers and dismissed accusations of a "raid" on pension funds as scaremongering.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 78 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point
Voting No meant
Support retaining Lords Amendment 78, backing the change the House of Lords inserted into the Pension Schemes Bill
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
59
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
4
1
8
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
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
Your 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