Pension Schemes Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 88Q
279Ayes
164Noes
Carried · majority 115 · Government won205 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 279 · No 164 · DNV 205 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Commons MPs voted 279 to 164 on 27 April 2026 to reject the Lords' stated reason for maintaining Amendment 88Q to the Pension Schemes Bill, advancing the Government's position in the ongoing dispute between the two chambers. The vote was one of several taken that evening during the Bill's ping-pong stage, the process by which the Commons and Lords send a Bill back and forth until they reach agreement. The Government motion passed comfortably, continuing a pattern of comfortable Government victories across multiple related votes in the preceding weeks. Amendment 88Q sits within the contested heart of the Bill: Clause 40, which gives ministers a power to direct pension schemes toward particular asset allocations. The practical effect of this vote is to keep that ministerial direction power in the Bill and reject the Lords' objections to it. Pension savers, trustees, and the wider financial industry are all affected, since the power would allow the Government to require pension funds to invest in specified asset classes, subject to conditions including a sunset clause ending the regime in 2035 and a restriction to a single use of the power before 2032. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously for the Government position, joined by Scottish National Party members and one each from the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against. No Labour rebels appeared in the tally.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Commons position rejecting the Lords' reason for Amendment 88Q to the Pension Schemes Bill
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' position and their stated reason for Amendment 88Q to the Pension Schemes Bill
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
246
0
115
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
99
17
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
—
1
2
10
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
5
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The reserve power is necessary to solve a collective action problem preventing pension schemes from diversifying into private assets; new amendments strengthen protections for savers and constrain the power narrowly.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,358 words) →
Mandation is flawed in principle and practice; it replaces voluntary trust with legal threat, violates fiduciary duty, and risks undermining auto-enrolment. The amendments merely tinker at margins and do not fix the core problem.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,987 words) →
Mandation is not the way to drive productivity; government should facilitate investment, not dictate it. The pension industry opposes the power and it will cost pensioners if investments underperform.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (399 words) →
Raised concerns expressed by Northern Ireland Assembly colleagues; sought clarification on discussions with devolved administrations regarding legislative consent.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (126 words) →
The government is reneging on the voluntary Mansion House accord by imposing mandation, violating the principle that trustees have an unqualified duty to maximise member returns.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (138 words) →
Confirmed that financial privilege is not engaged by the Lords amendments.Unknown · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (39 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0