Division · No. 380Wednesday, 3 December 2025Commons Pensions

Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15

154
Ayes
303
Noes
Defeated · Government won
189 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on Amendment 15 to the Pension Schemes Bill on 3 December 2025. The amendment, tabled by opposition parties, was defeated by 303 votes to 154. The government's own version of the Bill, along with a package of government new clauses it had introduced, was therefore preserved. **Why it matters:** The Pension Schemes Bill makes significant changes to how occupational pension schemes operate in the United Kingdom. Among the most substantial changes being debated were new government clauses (31 to 33) introducing prospective indexation of Pension Protection Fund and Financial Assistance Scheme payments relating to pensions built up before 6 April 1997, linked to the Consumer Prices Index and capped at 2.5%. This affects over 250,000 members of those schemes, with the average PPF compensation expected to rise by around £400 per year over five years. A separate and contested question, raised by multiple MPs, concerns whether similar protections should extend to members of private defined-benefit schemes run by solvent companies, many of them large multinationals, who have not passed on any indexation increases for periods of up to 23 years. **The politics:** The vote divided largely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against the amendment, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party all voted in favour. There were no notable cross-party rebels on the government benches. The result reflects the broad arithmetical dominance of the Labour majority in the current Parliament. Although there is stated cross-party agreement on the broad aims of pension reform, the opposition parties sought specific changes the government declined to accept, preferring instead its own set of new clauses tabled alongside the Bill.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Conservative opposition's proposed change to the Pension Schemes Bill (Amendment 15), as tabled by shadow ministers
Voting No meant
Reject the Conservative amendment and back the government's version of the Pension Schemes Bill as it stands
§ 01Who voted how.457 voting members · 189 absent
Aye156No304DID NOT VOTE · 189

457 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 189 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
274
88
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
75
0
41
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
61
0
11
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
25
17
Independent
2
5
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Torsten BellSupportiveSwansea West
Supports Bill as foundation for pension returns; announces prospective CPI-linked indexation (capped 2.5%) for PPF/FAS pre-1997 service and promises statutory guidance on trustee investment duties rather than primary legislation changes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (17,722 words)
James WildNeutralNorth West Norfolk
Supports many Bill measures for pension accessibility but criticises that it fails to address pension adequacy; over 50% of savers will miss retirement income targets; proposes five-year review requirement via new clause 25.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,224 words)
Olly GloverQuestioningDidcot and Wantage
Welcomes PPF improvements but expresses concern that AEA Technology pension campaigners lack redress route despite NAO/Select Committee reports; urges reconsideration of new clause 1.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (105 words)
Sir Julian LewisQuestioningNew Forest East
Notes ExxonMobil private DB scheme pensioners feel discriminated against as they gain no benefit from FAS/PPF indexation improvements; questions whether trustees have sufficient leverage against foreign-headquartered employers.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (345 words)
Dame Nia GriffithQuestioningLlanelli
Expresses scepticism about whether surplus release changes will actually force companies like 3M and Hewlett Packard to provide index-linked rises; seeks meeting to understand available mechanisms.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,877 words)
Sean WoodcockSupportiveBanbury
Welcomes Chancellor's Budget announcement on pensions; praises government action after decades of Conservative delay; seeks confirmation of benefit amounts from indexation changes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (82 words)
Dr Al PinkertonQuestioningSurrey Heath
Seeks reassurance for Surrey Heath constituents working for large US firms whose pensions fall outside PPF/FAS and receive no pre-1997 uplift.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (168 words)
Kirsty BlackmanNeutralAberdeen North
Welcomes trustee guidance proposal but requests clear timeline and roadmap for consultation and resulting primary/secondary legislation.SNP · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,621 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