Your pension is not the Chancellor’s piggybank
HELEN WHATLEY
This is the transcript of a speech delivered by the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions during the Commons debate on the Pension Schemes Bill on April 15, 2026.
Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea – a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted.
We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, ‘Just imagine what we could do with that money – we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.’ They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.
Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy.
Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock – I could go on – are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do.
He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.
Sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this all as being technicalities, but the fact is that the Government are coming after people’s hard-earned savings, and the public can see it. The Government think it is a pension pot they can mess with. We know that it is people’s own savings. The Government do not know best. The Minister should not just listen to us; he should listen to the noble Lords in the other place.
The Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the other place. That is what happens when a Government put their fingers in their ears. This situation is entirely of the Pensions Minister’s own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here. Across this House, we want pensions policy to move forward.
We have shared ambitions for our pension system, such as boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns, rather than minimising costs. We want greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots and a system that works better for people with terminal illness. Despite all the consensus, the Minister’s Bill is still far from the finish line.
I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement.
On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there is widespread support for those objectives, but even the Minister should have realised that he could not get away with saying that the provision is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement when the mandation power in his Bill was so glaringly different. Back in December last year, I warned him that mandation would not wash, but he did not listen.
That is why I have fought mandation every step of the way, along with the pension sector, my colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lords in the other place, who resoundingly rejected it.
The Minister is back here with his tail between his legs, and he has changed his tune from, ‘It’s all fine, nothing to see here’; he reluctantly tabled three amendments last week. I recognise the direction that the Government are trying to move in. They are reining in the power that they are taking, and trying to make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord.
The fundamental problem remains unresolved, however, because at its core, the Bill still gives the Government the power to direct the investment of people’s pension savings, and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong.
Pensions belong to savers, not the state. Pension fund trustees are not there to fulfil manifesto commitments or chase political pet projects. They are the custodians of people’s life savings.
The Bill gives the Government the power to force people’s pension savings to be invested in so-called qualifying assets, irrespective of the judgment of pension fund trustees, irrespective of what that could mean for returns and therefore retirement incomes, and irrespective of whether it is in the interests of savers.
The Minister may now point to limiting figures – 10% in qualifying assets and 5% in the UK – and present that as progress from the previously unlimited, undefined power. It is true that this is a little less bad, but let me be clear: if this is wrong in principle, it does not become right in small doses. There is a further problem. Even on its own terms, the drafting of the amendment may well not do what the Government intend. The amendment refers to assets held in default funds of the scheme as a whole.
This article (Your pension is not the Chancellor’s piggybank) was created and published by CapX and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Helen Whatley
Leave a Reply