Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D
272Ayes
149Noes
Carried · majority 123 · Government won229 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 272 · No 149 · DNV 229 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Lords Amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill was rejected by the House of Commons on 22 April 2026. MPs voted 272 to 149 in favour of the government's motion, which responded to the Lords' stated reasons for their amendment and effectively maintained the Commons' earlier decision to reject it. The vote is part of the ongoing "ping-pong" process, in which the two Houses exchange the Bill back and forth until they reach agreement or one side yields. The vote concerns the Pension Schemes Bill, a piece of legislation covering how occupational pension schemes are regulated and governed. The specific content of Lords Amendment 88D and the government's precise objection to it are not set out in detail in the available record; however, the government's position was that the Commons should not accept the Lords' reasoning. The outcome keeps the Bill on the government's preferred terms on this particular point, at least for now, as ping-pong was continuing at the time of this vote. The division followed strict party lines. All 258 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, alongside four Plaid Cymru members, three SNP members, two SDLP members, and three independents. All 88 voting Conservatives, all 56 Liberal Democrats, both DUP members, and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP voted against. There were no Labour rebels. The pattern matches closely with several related divisions on the same Bill in April 2026, suggesting a sustained and consistent opposition from Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches throughout ping-pong.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position on Lords Reason 88D, backing the Commons' stance against the Lords' proposed change to the Pension Schemes Bill
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's motion, effectively siding with the Lords' reasoning or amendment on this aspect of 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 party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted Aye
234
0
127
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
88
28
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
55
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
24
0
18
Independent
—
3
3
7
Scottish National Party
Voted Aye
3
0
6
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
Defends the reserve power as necessary to solve a collective action problem in pension investment; has significantly constrained it through amendments to address legitimate concerns while maintaining the core principle.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,570 words) →
Opposes mandation in principle as unwarranted state direction of private pension savings; welcomes some amendments as improvements but argues the fundamental problem remains—mandation was never in Labour's manifesto and undermines fiduciary duty.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,713 words) →
Supports the Government's approach; argues mandation is necessary to overcome inertia and repatriate UK pension investment, essential for addressing Britain's historically low investment rate.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,127 words) →
Broadly supports the Bill but opposes mandation as a Trojan horse; advocates for market shaping through policy and opportunity pipelines rather than direct government direction.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (540 words) →
Questions why the Government rejected an amendment to diagnose the actual barriers to pension investment; argues the problem should be solved by removing obstacles, not by mandation.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (245 words) →
Questioning whether mandation is necessary if the Minister is confident pension funds will invest voluntarily; suggests choice rather than mandate.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (48 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0