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

Parliament voted on 28 April 2026 to back the government's position in a prolonged dispute with the House of Lords over the Pension Schemes Bill. Division 513 passed by 335 ayes to 158 noes. The motion asked the Commons to insist on its disagreement with a large group of Lords amendments, principally those concerning a ministerial reserve power over pension fund asset allocation, and to propose further amendments in lieu of some earlier Commons additions. The central question was whether ministers should hold a time-limited reserve power, running to 2035, to direct defined contribution pension schemes toward particular asset classes, including private markets, if voluntary investment targets agreed under the Mansion House accord are not met. The Lords had stripped this provision from the Bill on three separate occasions. The government argued the reserve power is an essential backstop underpinning those voluntary commitments and ultimately serves savers. Opponents argued that allowing ministers to mandate where pension funds invest risks poor returns for ordinary workers and represents inappropriate state interference in investment decisions. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 324 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted aye, joined by nine SNP members and one Ulster Unionist. All 97 Conservatives and 54 Liberal Democrats present voted no, alongside five DUP members and a handful of smaller-party representatives. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. This was at least the third time the Commons had voted to override the Lords on this specific provision, with the government winning previous comparable divisions by margins exceeding 100.