The FT are clear about mandation of commercial pension schemes to toe the line .

The new word is “capped” which is tantamount to a fudge on mandation that will keep the ABI and all they command quiet.

“Capped”, is spelt out by the FT , which has clearly been briefed…

government officials said ministers would make concessions to try to get the measure through the upper house, which voted last week to remove a “reserve power” allowing ministers to mandate asset allocation targets

That may be the story being fed to the pensions industry but the ABI but what’s being offered is no fudge but just a representation of the same thin – the Government and the Pensions Industry have an accord that is being boulstered,

It is highly likely that the mandate will be used – who would want to walk away from the Mansion House agreement when it’s agreed to be in the nation and the pensioner’s best interests?

The briefing spells out this is a cabinet decision

Pat McFadden, work and pensions secretary, and chancellor Rachel Reeves are determined to keep the “backstop” power, to ensure funds honour their promises to invest more in specific assets to kick-start the economy.

This may be framed by the opposition as a test of the fiduciary duty of trustees but to the Labour Government it is the funds and those who really run them , that are being kept in cheque.

This is the first time I’ve seen the Government taking on the pensions industry in many years. Maybe we have to go back to Gordon Brown and his tax raid on equity dividends at the turn of the century.

Torsten Bell has consistently reminded audiences (the TUC pension conference and the Pensions UK event being but two lectured) that  the “only purpose” of the reserve power was to “backstop” the Mansion House accord and that “we will ensure that is put beyond doubt”.

If this is being sold as a “cap” on the powers of Government , then I’ll be surprised if it is bought by those who want to keep power in their hands.

Sir Steve Webb, former pensions minister and partner at consultancy LCP, may have welcomed amending the “backstop” power in the bill to cap the amount government can force schemes to invest in private markets but said he was still opposed to the measure staying in the bill.

He said by linking it to the success of the Mansion House accord it was like “punishing the good guys” and questioned “who will ever enter into a voluntary accord co-ordinated by the government again?”

I see the backstop as guarding not against the “good guys“, but the bad guys. If Trustees are doing their job they will stay within the rails set by the Mansion House, if they take the train off on other rails – why?

Right now we are seeing large amounts of Britain’s pensions being sold to insurers who are entering into funded reinsurance agreements. These agreements are typically with reinsurers in Bermuda where the money is invested where it suits the insurer. The American owners of our insurance industry have no interest in the Mansion House Agreement.

If Trustees want to entrust our assets to funded reinsurance then they will have to justify how it is within the rails of the Manion House accord. Bell and those he reports to in the Cabinet are being clear who is the boss.

The tax payer is represented by the Treasury and the DWP and it is they who are driving the mandation clause 40 of the Pension Schemes Bill. We voted in this Labour Government and what they want they get thanks to our vote in 2024.

The “good guys”, as Steve Webb calls fiduciaries, are responsible for seeing through the Mansion House accord and the tax-payers a whole as well as their pensioners will benefit from a firm hand from parliament this session.

The Pension Schemes Bill will become the Pension Schemes Act in the next few weeks and a good Easter present it should be to our economy. It will have mandation in clause 40 and rightly so.