I read with pain how an alliance of pension and insurance lobbyists and the House of Lords are in danger of derailing several years of work by the DWP and others to get us a Pensions Schemes Act.
This from Corporate Adviser’s Chris Marchant.
Proposed government powers to mandate pension scheme investment have again been defeated in the House of Lords, as the impasse between the peers and the Labour majority in the Commons drags on.
On the evening of 22 April, the government lost a key vote on mandation in the House of Lords by 234 votes to 152, a defeat by 82 votes.
There remains a possibility that the whole Bill could fail to pass, if the Commons and Lords have not agreed on a final version before the end of the Parliamentary session next week (1 May).
Aside from mandation, the bill includes a range of other measures which have seen less opposition, such as consolidation of small pension pots, and rule changes which would allow the Pension Protection Fund to reinstate a levy if it needed to do so.
Am I alone in saying that the House of Lords, which opposes any version of the Government Reserve Powers, are unelected and by and large past working for a living.
The pension and insurance lobbyists who push for an extreme position on policies put in place by those who were elected in a General Election, may well wreck a very good bill. I believe that many who make money out of pensions want things to stay the way things are. They would be happy to see the Pension Schemes Bill be washed up because of disunity between parts of parliament.
There is a part of me that says that this Labour Government should drop mandation which would leave us as we are right now with the majority of money in defined contribution being shipped off to overseas equities (mainly American) and the majority of DB funds being groomed for insurers to ship them off to Bermuda on the slow boat of buy-out.
If the Government has not got the right to have some control over pension fund investment going forward, the electors have no control. I have said it before and it’s worth saying that a large part of my council tax goes to pay for LGPS pensions , a large part of my income tax goes to pay for tax relief and for public pensions.
Since when has the only fiduciary duty been to pensioners. Do those who manage Government pensions have some responsibility to council tax-payers and do not the income tax and corporation tax payers who pay for private pensions deserve pension funds to invest for the good of society and business?
I liked the position that Baroness Altmann took when she argued that pension funds who did not abide by the Mansion House Accord should hand back the tax relief they received. The new Baroness Altmann seems to have thrown herself behind the opposition position on mandation – which now looks like imperilling all the good reform of the Pension Schemes Bill.
I am not taking a party based stance when I ask that our Government, the one we elected and which has a substantial majority, is allowed to get on with reforming pensions.
A personal view … I don’t agree at all. Mandation is a rotten idea, in two senses. It’s a very bad idea, and it will facilitate rakeoffs from the funds. .
The problem with mandation isn’t just Government telling me where to put my funds, although that’s bad enough. It’s also Government sequestering my funds for its own purposes. A Government funded project is odds-on to run over budget and under deliver. Probably it will fail to pay a return on the funds, and even more probably it will waste money.
See HS2 and CalMac ferries for two examples. These are exactly the kind of colossal failures that mandation would fund.
If the Government loses the Bill over mandation, blame the Pensions Minister.
I would like to think that HS2 and CalMac could be better managed in the private sector. Look too at New Towns and you see an opportunity for pensions which I’d like to think my trustees have excitement about!
Henry, I’m sorry you seem to have fallen for the mainstream media’s obsession with Calmac (most notably, but not exclusively, BBC Scotland).
A few observations for context:
1. There are only 104,000
people living on our islands, so it is not a major issue for most Scots. Although the negative media coverage must have some impact on tourism, which I believe is both regrettable and irresponsible on media’s part.
2. Another example of BBC Scotland’s failure to address the more important issues could be seen in last night’s party leaders debate from Aberdeen. More than half the programme was devoted to oil & gas environmental and security issues when the majority of residents in the area no longer have any connection with the oil & gas industry and see other issues as being far more important than offshore energy at this time.
3. The decision to separate Calmac’s operations from its procurement was taken by a minority Labour government in Scotland, not by the SNP.
For some other perspective on Calmac and infrastructure generally, I offer
talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2026/04/05/nowhere-else-in-the-world-runs-their-ferry-networks-like-this-well-only-the-isle-of-wight-the-channel-islands-british-columbia-new-zealand-washington-state-usa/
and more generally
talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2026/04/23/british-government-has-wasted-more-money-on-failed-projects-than-some-countries-spend-building-entire-infrastructure-so-next-time-any-unionist-has-the-temerity-to-mention-the-word-ferry-you-kn/
While we do have a few private sector ferry operators in these parts (eg Western Ferries, Pentland Ferries and Serco Northlink), many of the Calmac routes are “lifeline” services, never going to be commercial without subsidy.
The post-war success of new towns in Scotland was through partnerships between government development corporations and developers.
Sorry this particular blog is steeped in political biase.
Mandation is the slippery slope to communism, and the Minister knows it.
It’s a very very bad idea.
If the govt wants more / better investment in uk economy sort out/do via the appropriate Pension Regulatory regime, and, offer the right incentives.
And remove the criminalisation of risk (ie investment) in the 2021 Act. Not complicated.
Other parts of the Bill, good, important, but the Minister needs to lose a little bit of that legendary arrogance, scale back on mandation, find a way through. Those in the Lords, as far as I can see have no personal agendas to drive. The benefit of age and wisdom allows a focus on doing the right thing, rather than the short term party politics.
Political bias is widely considered to be inevitable, rooted in human psychology and the necessity of interpreting a complex world through personal experiences, values, and social contexts.
While it is a natural human condition, political bias is not inherently “bad,” but it becomes detrimental when it prevents open-mindedness, leads to the distortion of facts, or promotes tribal hostility.
Sadly in Scotland anyway we seem to be lacking in open-mindedness, seeing distortion of facts on a daily basis (it’s no excuse there’s an election coming on 7 May) along with elements of tribal hostility.
As for the Pension Schemes Bill, the current session of the Westminster Parliament, which began in July 2024 following the general election, will have lasted approximately 22 months.
Prorogation will formally end this session and all current parliamentary business (most bills not passed will fall).
Parliament is being prorogued in early May 2026 to end the 2024–26 parliamentary session and prepare for a new session.
The State Opening of Parliament, which marks the start of the new session and features the King’s Speech, is scheduled for 13 May 2026.
At the PLSA (now PUK) investment conference in March 2025 Pensions Minister Torsten Bell challenged pension trustees to move beyond “talking” to “doing” on consolidation and UK investment, while facing accusations of being “tetchy” regarding government intervention.
Viewed from today that looks to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Thanks Jnamdoc, I am sure you aren’t really that political when you take your anonymity cap off!
Derek, I’m doing and talking!