I have heard people say that GPPs have been left alone by the Pension Scheme Bills and the Pension Investment Review. I have pointed out that this is not going to be the case and after the introduction of the contractual override  introduced by the Treasury.

Here is comment on Linked in by a former Treasury man

My comment is in  the position of Government (HMT and DWP) on “equivalence”

Ordinary people don’t know they are in a GPP or a master trust as their workplace pensions (they’ll know about net pay v RAS next year – if they’re caught in the “net pay anomaly”). We need to get rid of all anomalies between these types of DC when used in the workplace and if we can get “equivalence” both accumulation and decumulation defaults, it will make “saving for and spending” DC pots a lot easier.

We are going to get a lot of from pension professionals, the changes in this Bill are likely to cause consternation because there has been so little consultation.

Of course pension freedoms did not have consultation and the irony is obvious.

It is of course the result of the confidence of a Government that is confident – many will say arrogant. But experience over the past 20 years is that consultations lead nowhere. The endless consultation on pot follows member and variants has led nowhere. Consolidation is going to happen by confronting the fragmentation of legacy DC books and not one pot at a time. The idea of big £25bn + schemes is that they will take on the bulk of legacy over time.

The ideas of targeted support , targeted guidance and defaults lead us inevitably back to the success story of the last 15 years – auto-enrolment. Many people, perhaps the majority will find themselves decumulating their pots without taking a decision other than perhaps to take cash and to let the partner get rights on his/her death.

Again there is no consultation here but do you remember much consultation on the bringing in of auto-enrolment for accumulation? Not since Turner do we have an author of new ideas based on nudge, not – that is – until Torsten Bell.

Of course Bell is as much a minister in the Treasury as in the DWP. He is as close to the FCA as the Pension Regulator and his view of pensions is neither  occupational or contract based, it is based on value for money not just in saving as is spending.

Torsten Bell has done zero fraternising with the pension industry, he is showing all the signs of doing the big beautiful job and pushing off. Bigger jobs look likely.

Do you think he could have waited to ask us our conditions?