Division · No. 482Wednesday, 15 April 2026Commons Pensions and Retirement

Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43

273
Ayes
159
Noes
Passed · Government won
215 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 15 April 2026, MPs voted to reject Lords Amendment 43 to the Pension Schemes Bill, a government motion known as a "motion to disagree." The vote passed by 273 ayes to 159 noes, restoring the government's preferred version of the relevant clause. This was one of several votes on the same day in which the Commons overturned Lords amendments to the Bill; related divisions on amendments 1, 15, 26, 35 and 77 all passed by similar margins on the same occasion. **Why it matters:** The Pension Schemes Bill is designed to improve returns for workplace pension savers, primarily by consolidating a fragmented pensions landscape and encouraging investment in a wider range of assets. By overturning Lords Amendment 43, alongside several other Lords changes, the government preserved its preferred framework for how pension schemes are governed and how investment powers are structured. The central controversy in the Bill concerns a reserve power allowing ministers to direct pension schemes to hold certain qualifying assets, with the government arguing this is capped at 10% of assets overall and 5% in UK-specific assets, in line with its Mansion House commitments. Opponents, including the Conservative opposition and several peers, argued the power was an unacceptable intrusion into decisions that should rest with pension trustees acting solely in the interests of savers. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 269 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, joined by all four voting Green MPs and one independent. All 86 Conservative MPs who voted, all 59 Liberal Democrats, all 5 SNP members, all 4 Plaid Cymru members and one Reform UK MP voted against. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats aligned in defending the Lords amendments as necessary safeguards, while the government characterised their concerns as scaremongering. The Bill had previously attracted cross-party support at earlier stages, making the sharp division at this ping-pong stage (the process by which the two Houses exchange amendments until agreement is reached) notable. The government had suffered 12 defeats in the Lords, and the Commons voted to reverse the majority of them on this single day.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 43 to the Pension Schemes Bill, maintaining the Commons' version of the pension reform legislation
Voting No meant
Support keeping Lords Amendment 43, backing the change the House of Lords made to the Pension Schemes Bill
§ 01Who voted how.432 voting members · 215 absent
Aye275No160DID NOT VOTE · 215

432 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 215 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
243
0
119
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
86
30
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
59
13
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
1
4
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
5
4
Reform UK
0
1
7
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
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Torsten BellSupportiveSwansea West
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)
Helen WhatelyOpposedFaversham and Mid Kent
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)
Tom TugendhatOpposedTonbridge
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)
Steve DarlingOpposedTorbay
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)
Clive JonesOpposedWokingham
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)
Debbie AbrahamsSupportiveOldham East and Saddleworth
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)
Neil Duncan-JordanOpposedPoole
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)
Alison GriffithsOpposedBognor Regis and Littlehampton
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0