Labour chancellors always seem to act as if pension savings belong to them. Whenever they run short of cash, they come after our retirement pots. Former Labour chancellor Gordon Brown was the master. His 1997 pensions stealth tax raid is still notorious. It left millions of pensioners poorer by killing off private sector final salary schemes. Public sector pensions were untouched of course.

Rachel Reeves is picking up where he left off, slapping inheritance tax on unused defined contribution pensions, the type used across the private sector. She’s also planning to scale back salary sacrifice schemes from 2029. Reeves has another trick up her sleeve, and this one could expose our pension pots to a new world of risk.

The chancellor is pushing pension funds to invest more of their members’ savings in private markets and British companies. The policy builds on the Mansion House Accords, signed last year by major pension providers including Aviva, Legal & General and M&G. They agreed to put at least 10% of workplace pension default funds into private market assets by 2030, with at least half invested in the UK.

Business leaders want Reeves to go further, with up to 25% of pensions invested in British companies. They argue this could unlock up to £95billion for domestic businesses and infrastructure. There’s some logic to the argument. But there’s also a dangerous principle at stake.

Pension tax relief costs the Treasury billions every year. Ministers naturally want some of that money flowing back into the UK economy rather than overseas stock markets.

But the timing is dreadful. Forcing pension savers deeper into private markets right now looks extremely risky. Private equity, private credit and venture capital are difficult to value and often highly volatile. Losses can stay hidden for years before suddenly surfacing. That’s especially worrying at a moment when the artificial intelligence bubble looks close to bursting and the global private credit market is in deep trouble too.

The Government insists it isn’t forcing anyone to invest. Yet the Pensions Schemes Bill now passing through Parliament allows ministers to force pension schemes to invest a minimum percentage of savers’ money in infrastructure and private markets.

Insurers and pension providers are urging ministers to scrap the clause. They warn that giving politicians the power to dictate where pension money is invested risks turning retirement savings into a funding source for political projects.

Potty-mouthed pensions minister Torsten Bell swears the powers will only be used as a backstop if voluntary agreements fail. I’m not sure I’d trust him. Bell has spent years arguing for higher taxes and a bigger role for the state. The idea that men like him might gain control over how pension funds are invested doesn’t bear thinking about.

Pension funds exist to generate solid long term returns for their members, not to bankroll government priorities. The industry only signed up to Mansion House because it feared the alternative would be compulsion. Those fears now look justified. The new powers could be used to dragoon pension schemes into backing infrastructure projects, private equity deals or even struggling areas of the stock market.

If savers believe their money is being directed for political reasons rather than financial ones, confidence in the whole system could suffer lasting damage. Rachel Reeves may believe she’s unlocking billions for British growth. The danger is that she’ll ravage our pensions in the process.