Announces that several Lords amendments engage Commons’ financial privilege if agreed. Does not provide additional details in the provided text.

Raises concerns about pensioner confusion and seeks clarity on correct support and advice. Also asks whether revised investment powers will be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure.

Asks a brief question, 'Then why worry?', during Jim Shannon's intervention but does not provide further arguments or details.

Ms. Whately opposes mandation because it gives the Government power to direct pension fund investments, which she sees as wrong in principle. She highlights industry opposition and argues that the policy may not align with its voluntary predecessor, the Mansion House accord. She also warns of potential negative impacts on investment returns and the economy if the state mandates asset allocations.

Mr. Bedford supports his colleague's concerns about Labour's mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, stating that such policies are a hallmark of Labour Governments running out of other people’s money and eyeing up pension funds.

Debbie Abrahams supports the Government's position on asset allocation, citing Pensions UK's agreement with the change. She opposes scaremongering claims about the Government stealing pensioners' money, arguing it is baseless and inappropriate. She also highlights that other countries invest more in their own assets compared to the UK, suggesting a need for reflection on this issue. Abrahams expresses hope that the Minister will address the pre-1997 indexation matter regarding members of the financial assistance scheme.

Steve Darling opposes mandating pension investments in UK assets due to concerns about state interference and potential negative impacts on economic growth. He draws from a personal story of his father's financial difficulties, emphasising the need for safeguards against poor advice and mis-selling. The Liberal Democrats plan to vote against Government amendments related to Lords amendments 1 and 15 as they believe mandation is counterproductive to pensioners' interests.

Neil Duncan-Jordan focuses on the necessity of limiting Government's ability to direct pension schemes away from high-risk assets, particularly fossil fuels. He highlights that local government pension schemes currently invest over £16 billion in fossil fuels and argues for transparency and action towards phasing out these investments due to their high risk and negative environmental impact.

Vince opposes Lords amendments 6 and 77, arguing that they are redundant as the government has already committed to reviewing employer contribution rates and will publish guidance later in the year. He expresses concerns about creating a divide between public sector pension recipients and private sector workers. While supporting reviews of public sector pensions when necessary, Vince argues that the duty of government should be to improve private pensions so everyone can save successfully for retirement. Additionally, he calls on the minister to continue working with health officials to address wait times at Harlow's Princess Alexandra hospital.

Expresses concern about the impact of the Bill on pension savings, arguing it repeats an error from 30 years ago by de-risking private pensions. He highlights that this has led to a higher proportion of bonds in UK pension portfolios compared to Australia or Canada (60% vs 20%). Tugendhat argues that equities are crucial for economic growth and support young people starting businesses, whereas bonds are 'dead money'. He supports a free market approach over state intervention.

Supports Lords amendment 79, which aims to ensure pension schemes can offer robust guidance without falling foul of new regulatory landscape. Stresses importance of guidance for savers due to poor engagement rates (only 10% engage with Pension Wise). Advocates for automatic booking of guidance appointments and highlights the impact of disengagement on lower income savers disproportionately negatively affected by drawdown use compared to higher earners.

The speaker argues that the bill's current provisions fail to address a long-standing injustice faced by almost 1 million pensioners who have lost out on regular increases for their pensions. He highlights specific examples of pension schemes where individuals were promised indexation but did not receive it, and emphasises the need for mandatory fairness for defined-benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following a law and avoiding doing the right thing.

The speaker interjected to ask whether the bill does not give sufficient protection for pensioners in terms of governance of trustees and equitable distribution of any surplus from defined benefit schemes.

The speaker argues that the bill should not allow Ministers to require pension schemes to invest in particular assets, sectors, or places through regulations. She also highlights concerns about the Government's proposed limits on investment requirements and questions whether the power should exist at all.

Cites new analysis from New Financial that shows a significant decrease in UK equities allocation by DC pensions over the last decade, arguing this has contributed to lower performance. Questions if the Minister agrees with this analysis.

Argues for larger pension schemes in the UK to match those in Canada and Australia, suggesting smaller volumes limit growth. Emphasises that this affects both young and old people. Links the issue of defined benefit schemes with an ageing demographic affecting defined contributions.

Asks if the Minister will write to top 50 pension schemes regarding their investment in thermal coal. Discusses challenges faced by investors due to climate change.

Called out the Minister for not giving prior notice when mentioning colleagues in the Chamber. Advised the Minister to correct any errors as quickly as possible.

[INTERVENTION]: Asked if the Minister would give way, but no further contribution is provided in the given text.

Brought up a point of order regarding a misquote from the Minister during his winding-up speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, highlighting that he had explicitly argued against mandation in a previous debate.

Apologised for not giving advance notice before mentioning John Glen's comments. Clarified the intent behind his statement and acknowledged that Glen had made the case for more investment in UK equities.