Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V

MPs voted on 28 April 2026 to insist on a government reserve power allowing ministers to direct pension fund investment allocations, overriding a third attempt by the House of Lords to remove the provision from the Pension Schemes Bill. The motion passed by 335 votes to 158. The government tabled a revised motion on the day, replacing an earlier version withdrawn at 5.55 pm, before the House divided. The provision at the centre of the dispute is clause 40 of the Pension Schemes Bill, which gives ministers a power to mandate that defined contribution pension schemes invest specified proportions of their assets in particular asset classes, such as private markets, if voluntary targets agreed under the Mansion House accord are not met. The government describes this as a reserve or backstop power, constrained by a cap, a sunset clause running to 2035, a single-use restriction, and a strengthened savers' interest test. Opponents argue that even a constrained power to direct where pension funds invest risks undermining returns for scheme members and erodes the principle that pension trustees manage assets in the sole interest of savers. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour, providing 324 of the 335 ayes. The Scottish National Party contributed nine aye votes. Conservatives voted 97 to nil against, and the Liberal Democrats voted 54 to nil against, with the Democratic Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice also voting no. There were no notable rebels on either side. The opposition of both main opposition parties reflects a consistent cross-party Lords position that has repeatedly stripped the clause from the Bill across multiple ping-pong rounds.