Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 35

**What happened** On 15 April 2026, MPs voted by 275 to 159 to reject Lords Amendment 35 to the Pension Schemes Bill, a Bill designed to improve retirement outcomes for savers through consolidation of pension schemes and reforms to asset management. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed comfortably, meaning the Commons restored the government's preferred approach on this part of the legislation. This was one of several votes held on the same day in which the Commons pushed back against changes made by the House of Lords, with related divisions producing similar results across amendments 1, 15, 26, 43 and 77. **Why it matters** The Pension Schemes Bill seeks to increase returns for pension savers by requiring schemes to operate at greater scale, reducing fragmentation and improving investment strategies. The government's position is that consolidation and reformed asset management will generate higher returns for the millions of workers saving into workplace pensions through auto-enrolment. The central controversy in the Bill concerns reserve powers that would allow ministers to set regulations directing pension schemes toward certain asset classes, including UK productive assets, subject to limits matching the Mansion House commitments. Critics, including the Lords, argued this gave ministers excessive control over private savings. The government introduced safeguards, including a cap of no more than 10% of assets in qualifying assets overall and no more than 5% in UK assets, along with a requirement that any regulations remain neutral between asset classes. **The politics** The vote divided along almost entirely partisan lines. All 271 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and most independents voted against. Four Green MPs voted with the government, partly reflecting their interest in directing pension investment away from fossil fuels and toward green infrastructure. Reform UK's two voting members sided with the opposition. The Conservatives attacked the Bill as an attempt to direct workers' savings toward government priorities, while the government and its supporters characterised that framing as scaremongering, noting that industry bodies including Pensions UK had broadly welcomed the asset allocation approach.