Rachel Reeves’s plan to mandate how pension funds invest was always a mistake | Nils Pratley
A simple principle lies at the heart of pension investment: the pension manager must invest in the best interest of the client.UK ministers have often wished UK funds would show more home bias by channelling more pensioners’ cash towards domestic assets in the interests of economic growth, but the fundamental rule of the game has always been understood.You don’t mess with the fiduciary duty.Thus, when Rachel Reeves a year ago unveiled her Mansion House accord – a pledge by 17 of the biggest providers to earmark a slice of workplace pensions for UK private assets – it was made clear the arrangement was voluntary.What’s more, as the signatories emphasised, the commitment was “subject to fiduciary duty and the consumer duty” and “dependent on implementation by the government and regulators of critical enablers”.
Those essential qualifications, one could say, weakened the force of the accord, but what else could the chancellor do? On the plus side, she had secured a flag-waving announcement that demonstrated willingness on the part of the funds to try to meet the specific goal of allocating 10% of assets to private markets (think infrastructure, property, venture capital), of which half would be in the UK.All the big names – Aviva, Legal & General, M&G, Mercer, NatWest and more – were on board.Their progress towards the target could be measured.Life became messy, however, when Reeves raised the prospect of having powers to mandate the funds to follow through on their commitments.One can understand her motivation, of course.
If you think more UK investment by UK funds means faster UK growth, you want to be confident the cash will flow.Yet “backstop” powers always failed a test of logic: how can a pledge be both voluntary and enforceable?Most of the same big names spoke up against “mandation”.Scary visions were raised of the government, or a future one, forcing pension savings to be thrown into money-pits such as the HS2 railway.It didn’t matter how many times the pensions minister, Torsten Bell, said there was no intention to use the powers, the providers were adamant: their fiduciary duties came first.Quite right, too.
At that point, the government should have recognised it was in danger of burning goodwill, and given up on mandation,Instead, it ploughed on, introducing a clause into the pension schemes bill,The result was a round of ping pong with an admirably awkward House of Lords, a couple of concessions, and then bigger concessions this week to get the bill over the line,In short, a back-stop power will still exist – but only in heavily diluted form,The powers can’t be used before 2028.
They will disappear if not used by 2032, and by 2035 if they are.Critically, a “saver’s interest test” means the government would have to ask the financial regulator to assess any ministerial direction to mandate.Nor can ministers force money towards specific projects, meaning the HS2 nightmare is off the table.Reeves and Bell can console themselves that something that vaguely resembles the original mandation idea is on the statute book.And, maybe, as a result of the months of kerfuffle, a little more money will flow to UK assets than would otherwise have been the case.
In reality, the retreats and compromises have, thankfully, robbed mandation of its bite.After this bruising battle, it would be brave for a chancellor to go to the Financial Conduct Authority for an independent assessment of use of the powers.Such a move would invite quarrels over two of the providers’ underlying concerns – whether there are enough attractive investable projects and whether government encouragement towards one asset class inflates prices against the interest of savers.The pity is that the core of the pensions bill is excellent, including measures to force consolidation and efficiencies in the pension fund world – changes that have been talked about for 20 years.But to be seen to try to trample on fiduciary duty was a clear mistake.
A big climbdown looked inevitable, and has now happened,“I think if the government were to come along in a couple of years’ time with a Mansion House accord 2,0, we would be sceptical,” says one industry figure,The scepticism is understandable – and could have been avoided,
More private health records of UK Biobank volunteers appear on Chinese website
There have been further listings of confidential health records of UK volunteers on the Chinese website Alibaba since the breach reported last week, and the government is braced for further leaks, the science minister has said.Addressing a House of Lords debate on the attempted sale of data belonging to 500,000 UK Biobank volunteers, Patrick Vallance said the government had worked with Chinese officials to remove additional postings on the online marketplace.“New listings will emerge – there have been additional listings posted since the government were made aware of the issue last week – and we continue to work with the Chinese government to remove them quickly,” Lord Vallance said.The data is “de-identified”, meaning it does not include names, addresses or precise dates of birth. Vallance said there was a “low probability” of re-identification, but the breach should nonetheless serve as a “real wake-up call” for researchers
Meta found in breach of EU law for failing to keep children off platforms
The tech company Meta has been found to be in breach of EU law for failing to prevent children under 13 from using its Facebook and Instagram platforms.Issuing the preliminary findings of a nearly two-year investigation, the European Commission said on Wednesday that Meta did not have effective measures in place to stop under-13s accessing its services.The US tech company was unable to meet its own terms and conditions that set 13 as the minimum age to access Facebook and Instagram safely, the commission said.Following an initial assessment, Meta was found in breach of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires it to “diligently identify and mitigate the risks” of under-13s using its platforms.The commission said its preliminary findings “do not prejudge the final outcome of the investigation”
Meet the AI jailbreakers: ‘I see the worst things humanity has produced’
To test the safety and security of AI, hackers have to trick large language models into breaking their own rules. It requires ingenuity and manipulation – and can come at a deep emotional costA few months ago, Valen Tagliabue sat in his hotel room watching his chatbot, and felt euphoric. He had just manipulated it so skilfully, so subtly, that it began ignoring its own safety rules. It told him how to sequence new, potentially lethal pathogens and how to make them resistant to known drugs.Tagliabue had spent much of the previous two years testing and prodding large language models such as Claude and ChatGPT, always with the aim of making them say things they shouldn’t
‘Stole a charity’: Elon Musk accuses Sam Altman of betrayal in courtroom showdown
The trial pitting Elon Musk against Sam Altman and OpenAI began in dramatic fashion on Tuesday with opening arguments and the richest man in the world taking the stand to testify. Attorneys for the two tech moguls presented a California jury with two wildly different versions of the AI company’s history, while Musk accused his billionaire rival of endangering humanity through corporate deception.Musk’s suit argues that Altman, OpenAI and its president, Greg Brockman, broke a foundational agreement to better humanity when the non-profit pivoted towards a for-profit structure. In his opening statement, Musk’s attorney said Altman and Brockman “stole a charity”. Musk, who left OpenAI in 2018 after co-founding it with Altman and Brockman three years earlier, also alleges that his co-founders unjustly enriched themselves as the company raised billions of dollars and grew into the AI behemoth it is today
UK must seize initiative on AI or be left at its mercy, Liz Kendall says
Britain must seize the initiative on artificial intelligence or be left at the “mercy and whim” of a future shaped by the technology, Liz Kendall has said.The technology secretary said the country must have greater control over the industry as she highlighted big tech’s grip on its development, with 70% of the world’s AI computing power provided by US companies.In a speech on the UK’s ability to develop its own capabilities, Kendall said: “The choice isn’t between a world that has AI and one that does not. It is a choice between a world where we shape our AI future, based on our own interests and values, or where we are left at its mercy and whim.”Kendall highlighted the launch this month of a state AI investment fund as evidence of Labour’s support for domestic firms, and revealed the government was drawing up a plan to become more influential in designing and manufacturing the chips that power AI systems
Google reportedly signs classified AI deal with US Pentagon
Google has reportedly signed a deal with the US Pentagon to use its artificial intelligence models for classified work. The tech company joins a growing list of Silicon Valley firms inking agreements with the US military.The agreement allows the Pentagon to use Google’s AI for “any lawful government purpose”, the report from the Information added, putting it alongside OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI, which also have deals to supply AI models for classified use. Similar agreements, both at Google and other AI firms, have sparked significant disagreements with the Pentagon and major employee pushback.Classified networks are used to handle a wide range of sensitive work, including mission planning and weapons targeting
From the Pocket: The AFL’s deference to technology only creates more doubt and uncertainty
Ultramarathon swimmer sets record pace over 55km in crocodile-filled Australian river
Cardinals ‘heartbroken’ after former defensive end Josh Mauro dies at age of 35
West Ham urged to show ‘heart and soul’ over London 2029 World Athletics bid
‘It’s a gamechanger’: Lewis Hamilton’s groundbreaking Mission 44 recruits working in F1
‘Like cutting the head off a hydra’: how Mary Cain exposed Nike’s disgraced coaching team