Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

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

28 April 2026 · 3 other contributors

Opened by Torsten Bell 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

Torsten Bell raised concerns about the 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

  • Moves amendments to the Bill to retain original policy intent while addressing concerns in both Houses
  • Proposed changes include a new requirement for regulators to assess barriers to private asset investment
  • Amendments aim to ensure competitive pressure on cost minimisation does not hinder diversification

How the debate unfolded

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

Opened the debate

Torsten Bell Lab Constituency

Moves amendments to the Bill that aim to retain the original policy intent while addressing concerns raised in both Houses. The proposed changes include a new requirement for regulators to assess barriers to private asset investment, placing a duty on the Government to have regard to these assessments before using the reserve power; reinforcing the role of trustees and providers by modifying the savers’ interest test; and allowing for consideration of direct or indirect holdings in specific investment vehicles. The amendments aim to ensure that competitive pressure focused on cost minimisation does not hinder diversification, as recommended by the Labour party manifesto and confirmed by the industry.

Other contributors (3)
  • Lindsay Hoyle Lab Chorley

    Informs the House about procedural changes to the Bill following a message from the Lords. States that nothing in the Lords' message affects Commons financial privilege.

  • Helen Whately Con Faversham and Mid Kent

    Argues against clause 40, stating that it allows ministers to direct pension investments into pet projects without considering savers' interests. Highlights concessions made by the government but maintains opposition based on principle.

  • Steve Darling not specified

    Opposes mandation due to concerns that it undermines confidence in pensions and changes dynamics of pension investments. Supports significant concessions but continues to oppose clause 40.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy