House of Commons · Bill Debate
22 April 2026 · 13 other contributors
Opened by Torsten Bell Lab Constituency
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Torsten Bell raised concerns about pensions bill - clause 122 - commencement in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The lead MP moved that the House insists on its disagreement with several Lords amendments, proposes new clauses, and does not insist on certain other amendments. He aims to ensure that the cultural change in pension fund investments sticks and does not unwind.
The MP supported the Bill's stance on disagreeing with several Lords amendments but proposing new clauses in lieu. She emphasised pensioners' desire for secure and high returns on their savings.
The MP congratulated his colleague on stewarding the Bill and called for a fiduciary duty and code to give trustees clarity in investing. He questioned whether the technical working group would proceed and if further amendments would be brought forward.
The MP, while making a humorous comment about another member's hair, emphasised pensioners' desire for secure pensions and high returns on their savings. He asked for reassurance that the provisions would provide security and best returns.
Ms Whately argues against mandation, stating it is not a natural extension of voluntary agreements and does not solve collective action problems through market intervention. She supports improvements to regulations such as the pensions dashboard and value for money framework that promote informed choice and competition. She also criticises the Government's reserve power argument.
Ms Cummins announces a voting result unrelated to the debate on the Pensions Bill. There is no direct statement of her position regarding the bill's amendments.
Supports the amendment due to its potential benefits for pension savers and long-term economic growth. Argues that current measures are insufficient to repatriate investment saving at a necessary pace.
Acknowledges the need for more UK investment by pension funds but questions whether mandation is the right approach. Highlights that the Minister’s main argument is about solving a collective action problem rather than increasing UK investments.
Questions why the Government voted against an amendment seeking to understand reasons for pension funds not investing in the UK. Suggests that such understanding is necessary before mandating investment.
Supports the Bill but opposes the mandate clause, viewing it as a Trojan horse. Advocates for Government shaping the market through policy rather than dictation to ensure opportunities and sensible investments without stifling risk.
Asked for steps to separate Division on mandation clauses from other amendments, expressing disagreement with Government's grouping of motions.
Responded to the point of order regarding procedure for separating Division on mandation clauses. Advised contacting Public Bill Office for further advice.
Asked for an update from the Intelligence and Security Committee on its work and findings regarding the Mandelson papers.
Responded that the matter is not for the Chair but for the Committee.