Member

This brings me to the core question that Amendment 174 is intended to surface. Why have these particular funds been chosen? Is it because of their size and scale? Is it because the Government believe they can be best used to drive investment in particular asset classes or policy priorities? Alternatively, is it because default savers are assumed to be sufficiently disengaged that the effects of mandation will—perish the thought—attract less resistance and less scrutiny? The Committee is entitled to a clear answer to that question. Either fiduciary duty is paramount or it is conditional; it cannot be both.