I was looking back to my first NAPF conference , almost 30 years ago and considering how it compared to the PLSA event this year. I suspect that in terms of scale and commerciality, today’s event easily exceeds its predecessors.

In terms of political importance,  the PLSA is no longer the voice of the pension funds and the weight of money they bring to the table. Instead it is a forum for “best practice” for trustees and funders of DC schemes and it is now dominated by insurers in a way that would have been both unthinkable and unfortunate by delegates 30 years ago.

I don’t think this a bad thing by the way. Some may call it little more than a trade show , but the sessions I attended yesterday were packed and people were engaging directly and through the conference app. Sessions were much more balanced than in recent years with the app’s questions being supplemented by audience participation.

But we have lacked the contention that comes with passionate exchange. I did a podcast with LCP yesterday morning and my performance was described as “passionate”. I really didn’t think I was, but these matters are relative. We are now used to a tone of debate which is so measured that a raised voice seemed out of keeping.

We are in the run up to the autumn budget. Pensions are directly in the firing line to fill a part of the £22bn hole in the public finances and yet there has been a taboo on discussion on taxation throughout. This I find really surprising. The threat of extending national insurance to pension contributions is real and if it happens, it will reduce the employer’s willingness to pay discretionary increases into DC plans above the AE minima. This will impact people’s pensions and will hurt the projected finances of the funders of the DC plans who PLSA now represents. But there is little or no debate on this matter.

Similarly the threats to the tax-advantages of the lump sum and inheritability of pension wealth have not been discussed. I have spoken to many pension managers about whether they are seeing an increase in claims on pensions and I am told that it’s all quiet on that front.

My wonder is whether it is sensible to keep these matters under the radar. If, as I am sure she will, Rachel Reeves makes announcements on pension taxation that damage saving , then I will expect the PLSA to speak out against them – that is what a trade body focussing on member outcomes should do. But by staying silent on these matters at this conference, it risks blunting its sword in the weeks of November following the budget.

Where I have seen contention, is in fringe events , including a lunch yesterday hosted by Schroders and supported by Ruston Smith and the PMI , where a mixture of delegates and non-delegates energetically debated the way that pensions were positioned relative to housing.

Here, without the PLSA’s moderation, the debate was contentious, the passion there for all to see. I suspect from the conversations I have had in the exhibition hall , that there are some very strong views being held by delegates that are not being expressed – because of the tone of the event, which has been so very quiet.

Quiet was not what I could call the Conference Dinner last night. It ended with a stand-up from Paul Sinha, “champion quizzer. comedian and broadcaster”. It was as outspoken as the conference has been understated, reminding us that the language of Liverpool and beyond is rather less restrained , that the issues of diversity that have been so well managed within the halls , are far from sorted in society.

The day has started with Iona Bain leading a panel of youngsters discussing what mattered to them. What clearly didn’t matter to most of them (who were either self-employed or had opted out of workplace pensions) was pensions.

Listening to this I tweeted

Am not getting this ‘pensions’ discussion at #plsaannual24 people should listen to @TERRYPULLINGER1 and buckle down for lifetime savings. Too many gimmicks – not enough long-term planning IMO

— Henry Tapper (@henryhtapper) October 16, 2024

Terry Pullinger , had he been in the room, might have reminded us, that the generation enjoying pensions today, are doing so because they joined pensions early in their careers and made sure they were either in a good quality scheme or funded their own.

To suppose that we can expect lifetime income in our later years without saving for it is frankly irresponsible, to stand by and let this be said without challenge is irresponsible too.

The panel told us that they had given up on the prospect of a pension (including a state pension) in their later age, I strongly disagree with such talk. The post war consensus which is getting on for a century old, has relied on a three pillar system of state, corporate and private saving and I can see no evidence that this is coming to an end.

The job of the PLSA is to inspire confidence in pensions and to tell Iona and her colleagues that their fate is in their hands. The absence of conviction on the importance of pensions is selling this conference short. Pensions are what keep older people going in later age and the PLSA must fight hard to keep corporate and private pensions in pride of place.

We need to get back to the spirit of 1990s , when pension funds had full confidence in their purpose. That flame should not be allowed to go out.