Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26

Parliament voted on 15 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 26 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have protected well-performing smaller pension schemes from being compelled to consolidate into larger ones. The motion to disagree with the Lords amendment passed by 269 votes to 162. The result means the government's original "scale requirement," which can oblige pension schemes to merge regardless of their individual performance, remains intact in the Bill. The practical effect is that smaller pension schemes, even those delivering strong returns for their members, may be required to consolidate into larger vehicles under powers the government says will reduce costs, broaden investment strategies and improve asset ownership. Supporters of the Lords amendment had argued that protecting well-run smaller schemes would preserve competition and innovation in the pensions sector; opponents of the amendment contend that fragmentation across the system holds back returns for savers overall. The vote is one of several on the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords changes to the Bill, with similar results recorded on amendments covering investment powers, surplus extraction and scheme governance. The division followed strict party lines. All 263 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's position, joined by four Green MPs and two others. The 162 votes against came from 87 Conservatives, 59 Liberal Democrats, five SNP members, four Plaid Cymru members, four Reform UK members and five independents. There were no notable cross-party rebels. The result sits within a broader pattern on the day: the Commons also disagreed with Lords amendments on investment mandation powers, defined-benefit surplus rules and guidance provisions, each passing by comparable margins. The Pensions Minister, Torsten Bell, framed the Bill as essential to delivering higher returns through scale, while the Conservative shadow minister, Helen Whately, characterised the consolidation and investment direction powers as an improper intrusion into savers' money.