Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Pension Schemes Bill - Clause 40 - Certain schemes providing money purchase benefits: scale and asset allocation

27 April 2026 · 5 other contributors

Opened by Andrew Western Lab Constituency

Benefits & Welfare

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Andrew Western raised concerns about pension schemes bill - clause 40 - certain schemes providing money purchase benefits: scale and asset allocation in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The amendment addresses the Lords' proposed changes on asset allocation for defined contribution schemes.
  • The Government sets a cap on reserve power at Mansion House accord targets and restricts its use to main default funds once, with a 2032 sunset clause.
  • Further amendments are proposed to enhance protections for savers, including lower thresholds and explicit guarantees.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Andrew Western Lab Constituency

The amendment seeks to address the Lords' proposed changes on asset allocation for defined contribution schemes. The Government's approach includes setting a cap on the reserve power at the Mansion House accord targets, restricting the power to main default funds and limiting its use to once with a 2032 sunset clause. The Minister emphasises the need for investment in wider assets despite initial concerns raised by peers and hon. Members. He also proposes further amendments to the savers' interest test to ensure clear protections, lower thresholds, explicit guarantees, due regard to trustees’ assessments, and transparency in decision-making processes.

Other contributors (5)
  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Asked for an indication of the content of discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly regarding concerns raised by some members about the Lords' amendments. Emphasised a need to understand how consent motions were conveyed and agreed despite expressed reservations.

  • Steve Darling

    Mr. Darling argues that mandation is not an effective way to drive productivity in the economy and could lead to poor investments harming pensioners' returns. He believes the Government should facilitate investment rather than dictate it, and cites concerns from the pension industry about mandation.

  • Andrew Western Lab Derby South

    Argued that the reserve power in Clause 40 is necessary to address a collective action problem where funds are hesitant to diversify without certainty. He stated that the industry has recognised competitive pressure as a barrier to delivering on commitments and that the reserve power gives market confidence to move together. The Minister noted that trustees' duties of loyalty, prudence, and acting in members’ best interests remain unaffected by the power.

  • Mark Garnier Con Wyre Forest

    Interjected to argue that introducing mandation powers goes against the fiduciary duty of trustees to get the best return for their members and reneges on a pact with the industry. He stated that dictum meum pactum—my word is my bond—is a fundamental principle in the City of London, which the Government is undermining.

  • Helen Whately Con Faversham and Mid Kent

    Interjected to argue that there is consensus on a collective action problem but not on mandation as the right solution. She noted that measures like the value for money framework and the Mansion House accord can address the issue without mandation.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy