Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15
276
Ayes
—
155
Noes
Passed · Government won
216 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 15 April 2026 on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill that would have removed the government's power to direct pension funds toward certain categories of investment. The Commons passed the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15 by 276 votes to 155, reinstating the government's original position and setting up a further exchange between the two Houses known as parliamentary ping-pong. The vote matters because it determines whether ministers can, through secondary legislation (regulations made under powers in the Bill rather than primary law), require pension schemes to hold a minimum proportion of their assets in what the government calls qualifying assets, including UK private markets. The government insists this is a reserve power subject to strict limits, capped at no more than 10 percent of total assets overall and no more than 5 percent in UK assets, matching commitments made at the Mansion House summit. Critics argue that even with those caps, compelling trustees to hold particular assets conflicts with the trustees' core legal duty to act in the best financial interests of scheme members, and that the power sets a dangerous precedent for political direction of retirement savings. The vote divided almost entirely on party lines. Labour MPs, including those elected under the Labour and Co-operative Party label, voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, providing all 264 supporting votes from those two groupings. Conservatives (85 votes) and Liberal Democrats (60 votes) voted solidly against, joined by the four Green MPs and four Reform UK MPs. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru backed the government. Several related divisions on the same day produced near-identical results, with the government winning majorities of between roughly 110 and 180 across the cluster of Lords amendments being contested, suggesting consistent whipping on both sides throughout the day.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the power for the government to direct pension fund investments despite concerns it overrides trustees' duties to members
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, opposing the government's power to mandate where pension funds invest, arguing it is wrong in principle and threatens pensioners' interests
431 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 216 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
239
0
123
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
85
31
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
60
12
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
5
1
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
1
4
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
1
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
0
0
1
Your Party
0
1
—
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 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