Whately, Westminster and the fight against mandation

Interviewee:

Helen Whately
Shadow Pensions Minister

In March, the Pension Schemes Bill faced the scrutiny in the House of Lords, and Always a Pensions Angle’s Nick Reeve and Thomas Parker were there to witness it. Whilst they were there, they also got the chance to sit down with the shadow Pensions Minister Helen Whately. Thomas Parker reflects on what the duo took away from the day

When walking into the Houses of Parliament on one sunny, Thursday afternoon in March, you’re reminded of the grandeur of the place, and one which has the power to in equal parts overwhelm and inspire.

It’s not the first time I had the great privilege to step through these hallowed halls, but each time I’m always struck by this sense – only matched by the contrasting nature of the magnificence its main attractions (Westminster Hall, the House of Commons and the House of Lords) and the rather intimate and “vintage” private meeting spaces.

During the short few hours Nick and I spent in the seat of British government, we ran through the full gamut of these environments.

Of course we weren’t there on a sightseeing visit, we were there because of pensions policy, a topic that even our most avid of our readers would admit is not the most cinematic of subjects, but it is one that – even at the time of writing – is going through a political tussle the like of which even Rocky Balboa would feel envious of.

On the day we were in attendance, the House of Lords voted to remove the most contentious part of the Pension Schemes Bill: mandation. Thus beginning the infamous political ping pong policy wonks like me love, but those having to implement a bill absolutely hate (the Commons have the power to reinstate policies back into a bill).

In fact, the only thing looked at with more disdain than the grand old tradition of ping pong – both houses compromising on something neither is particularly happy with – is the mandation policy in the Pension Schemes Bill.

It’s certainly an idea that the Conservative Party has railed against, and – based our conversation with the party’s shadow pensions minister Helen Whately – its opposition to the plan is not simply political game playing.

“Fundamentally, I think government should not be taking such an active role in directing where people’s savings should be invested,” she explained.

“People can decide for themselves where their savings are invested, or they may hand that responsibility over to the pension that they’re part of that will have a management team and trustees whose job it is to invest that in the scheme members’ best interests, and that’s what they’re there to do.

“The problem is, government may have different interests.”

That suspicion about those differing interests is, in part, what drives her party’s position. But Whately is equally clear that opposing mandation does not mean opposing domestic investment.

Her argument is simply that there’s a better way to get there. Rather than using the threat of compulsion to direct pension capital, she points to removing the barriers that currently discourage funds from investing in the UK in the first place.

It is a philosophy rooted in incentives rather than instruction – and one that, she argues, is far less likely to erode the trust that underpins the entire pension saving system.

Which brings us back to that Thursday afternoon in the Lords. By the time Nick and I made it into the Strangers’ Gallery, the mandation debate was already in its final stages.

What we can say with certainty is that the amendment to strip mandation from the bill passed – and with it, the parliamentary ping pong that Whately had anticipated was officially underway.

The Commons, where the government’s majority remains formidable, will have its say. But the direction of travel, at least for now, was unmistakable.

Listen to the full interview on Always a Pensions Angle podcast.