Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been circling our retirement savings for months. She wants the power to direct where our workplace pensions are invested, for her own ends. Instead of allowing schemes to invest anywhere in the world to get maximum possible returns for members, she wants to dictate which products they can put our money into. That opens the door to funding Labour’s pet political and environmental projects, such as Ed Miliband's net zero charge, rather than prioritising your wealth. Pension savers could end up poorer as a result. Especially since she's keen to gamble it in risky sectors such as private equity.
Money in defined contribution workplace pensions is currently spread across shares, bonds, property and other assets, building for the future while paying existing members. Trillions of pounds are invested this way, with scheme trustees responsible for making strategic decisions over where to invest. Now Reeves wants to override those powers and get her hands on a chunk of it. She wants to steer our retirement savings into UK projects, private markets and infrastructure in a bid to boost the economy. And she’s almost there.
Under the so-called Mansion House Accord, major pension providers including Aviva, Legal & General and M&G agreed to put at least 10% of workplace default funds into private market assets by 2030, with at least half in the UK. That was meant to be voluntary. But Reeves wanted more control, so Labour inserted a clause in the Pensions Schemes Bill giving ministers a “reserve power” to force schemes to comply if they fall short.
Trustees, whose legal duty is to act in savers’ best interests, suddenly face being told how to invest by Westminster. The House of Lords, whose powers Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to reduce, spotted the danger and rejected the clause, warning it handed ministers sweeping powers with few limits. Pension industry figures lined up against it too. Yet despite growing alarm, Labour pushed it through the Commons yesterday.
MPs approved a watered down version of that “mandation” power, allowing ministers to direct schemes into private markets. The Government insists it will apply to just 10% of assets, with 5% in the UK. Sir Mel Stride blasted it as a political takeover of private assets, calling it an “economic bailout” that lets Rachel Reeves tap pension savings to fix her own problems.
He said savers’ money should be invested for them, not used to fund ministerial ambitions. And he’s not the only one worried.
Pensions campaigner Baroness Ros Altmann warned the plans hand future ministers wide powers to steer billions into politically favoured assets, even if managers decide that’s not in members’ best interests. “There is no reason to believe the Government knows better than professional managers how to invest members’ money,” she said.
Pension savings belong to workers, not the Treasury. Yet Labour has already talked about unlocking up to £400billion for UK investment. That’s a vast sum, and once ministers have the power, the temptation to use it will grow. Private markets can offer higher returns, but they’re harder to value, less transparent and can turn quickly. Parts of the sector are already under strain, with firms stuck on assets they struggle to sell.
Reeves is taking money that’s not hers to spend. If trustees are pushed into political decisions rather than financial ones, the long term damage could be severe, and pensioners will pay the price. The House of Lords hasn’t given up, but if it fails, the fate of your pension could end up in the Chancellor’s hands.
