Member

I draw the House’s attention to my Amendment 127 in this group. It would remove the provision that would allow assets to be defined as qualifying investments simply on the basis of their presence in the UK, or by reference to other factors loosely linking them to economic activity within the UK. I will not disguise the intention behind this amendment: it is about stripping back mandation. Mandating assets or geographies in this way is incompatible with fiduciary duty and with the consumer duty owed to pension savers, an argument that has been rehearsed before. It invites political interference in capital allocation, replacing investment judgment with regulatory instruction. It also risks damaging the UK’s reputation as a predictable and rules-based investment environment at precisely the moment when long-term capital is most sensitive to policy uncertainty. Mandation is not necessary to increase investment in the UK economy. Where it exists, it carries significant risks, even when framed as a reserve power. Those risks do not disappear simply because the power is unused; they are embedded the moment that it is legislated for.