Pensions Scheme Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
269
Ayes
—
103
Noes
Passed · Government won
275 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened** On 15 April 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 5 to the Pension Schemes Bill, restoring the government's original text. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 269 votes to 103. This was one of six divisions held on the same day as part of the parliamentary process known as "ping-pong," in which the two Houses of Parliament exchange amendments until they reach agreement. **Why it matters** The vote advances the government's preferred version of the Pension Schemes Bill by overturning a change the House of Lords had inserted during its scrutiny of the legislation. The Bill as a whole deals with pension policy, meaning the outcomes of these divisions will affect how pension schemes are governed, regulated, or structured for workers and retirees in the United Kingdom. By rejecting Amendment 5 alongside five other Lords amendments on the same day, the Commons was asserting its preferred policy position and pushing back on the revisions the unelected upper chamber had made. **The politics** The vote divided largely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 264 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of the government's position, joined by four Green MPs, and single votes from an independent, a Liberal Democrat, and a Your Party MP. Opposition came from 85 Conservatives, five SNP MPs, four Plaid Cymru MPs, four Reform UK MPs, and five independents. There were no Labour rebels. The pattern was consistent across all six divisions held that day, though the opposition coalition was notably smaller in this vote (103 noes) compared to the others, which ranged from 155 to 162 noes, suggesting Amendment 5 attracted somewhat less cross-party support for retention than the other Lords changes under consideration.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords' amendment and restore the original Bill text
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords' amendment to the Pensions Scheme Bill
372 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 275 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
238
0
124
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
1
0
71
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
1
5
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
5
4
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
1
4
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
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
0
0
1
Your Party
1
0
—
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