By then, it’s expected that Torsten Bell (among others) will have joined the parliamentary Labour party and I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t influential in shaping the policies that arise from that review. A review is not a consultation and it will undoubtedly lead to consultations, there will need to be patience , especially among those who have most agitated for change. But change has been promised and we must hope that the new Government will deliver change by getting what they promised “done”.
Here is what Jonathan Stapleton, editor of Professional Pensions found of interest to pension experts in the Labour Party Manifesto
A very safe pension manifesto from the political party most likely (as things currently stand) to win the next election…
Key pension points:
Labour will:
· Act to increase investment from pension funds in UK markets
· Adopt reforms to ensure that workplace pension schemes take advantage of consolidation and scale, to deliver better returns for UK savers and greater productive investment for UK PLC.
· Undertake a review of the pensions landscape to consider what further steps are needed to improve pension outcomes and increase investment in UK markets.
· Review the “unfair” surplus arrangements of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme and transfer the Investment Reserve Fund back to members.
· Mandate UK-regulated financial institutions – including asset managers, pension funds, and insurers – to develop and implement credible transition plans that align with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
· Retain the triple lock for the state pension.
· Adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.
I had not been aware of the issue with the Mineworkers, I suspect it relates to the runaway success of its unconstrained investment strategy showing what can be achieved if a guarantee is in place that no member suffers if the strategy fails. I won’t pursue this thought, though the question of whether the surplus belongs to all of us, or the remaining mineworkers is presumably at issue.
I am intrigued by the final bullet. The wording is precise, it does not relate to the AE reforms but to the way that workplace pensions work. If the aim of these reforms is to increase the size of the pension pot, then no more need be done than increase pension contributions, but if “better outcomes” means something else (and I think it does) , then this could have profound impact on the way workplace pensions are paid.
There will be much speculation as to whether workplace pensions are mandated to include productive finance for unlisted companies either through private equity or venture capital. There will be speculation as to how investment in tech stocks and in particular to large green infrastructure projects (especially in the energy sector) can deliver to credible transition plans toward the Paris accord.
But this is just speculation. Labour does not have a credible pension team in the House of Commons, though it has some very credible pension experts in the House of Lords. It has in Stephen Timms, an independent chair of the WPC who could be redeployed to good effect either to chair the proposed “landscape review” and/or to implement it.
It remains one of the great mysteries how the late Conservative Government with such a mandate from the electorate managed to get so little done in five years while so much has got done in the wider world.
The biggest change I want to see is that the next Government finish what they start and that we do not reach the end of this decade with reams of consultations but nothing enacted or implemented.