-
- Snowdon
-
- Davies
-
- McPhail
-
- Arun
Last week we had the launch of the Pension Commission. At the Pension Playpen I was chatting with Steve Goddard and the crew before Jon turned up and – filling the space – Steve asked me if I was looking forward to the next 18 months of Commission . I said “no”. Bryn Davies questioned whether I’d lost it with a blog which hardly welcomed the second Pension Commission. The debate had started.
Of Course “PC2” as Andy Young calls it, is led by a Labour Baroness – Jeannie Drake. I jibed that Bryn , a fellow Labour peer, would side with a fellow Labour peer – that was cheap. Nick Pearce is doing good work at the University of Bath, Ian Cheshire is a former chairman of Barclays.
More seriously, my answer to Bryn was that I was not pleased with the launch if what we got was the “La La savings” commission as our pensions minister referred to such things. I was in the Edinburgh Hall when he made this comment. Pension Age reported last week
Bell had previously seemed to rule out the idea of a long-term savings commission as a way of building consensus, suggesting that those who think this is the best approach are “living in la la land” given shifts in the political landscape in Britain.
My view’s (was then and is now) that if the Pension Commission becomes a marketing opportunity for the insurance companies and other commercial savings companies, it is nothing but “La La distraction” from the Pension Schemes Act.
I would regret a distraction from the effort to get people investing over time in favour of sidecars to keep people off benefits.
I not want the Pension Commission to promote saving without a proper examination of what “need” means to house owners, renters, single retirees, those in family – and the importance of culture and religion in looking after older people.
Bryn Davies was clearly not impressed, we had a little conversation after and the result is next week’s Pension PlayPen, a debate about what the Pension should and shouldn’t be.
I have made my feelings clear enough on my blog . there is no need to bore you again!
The debate we have arranged is to discuss my contention that PC1 is a waste of time.
Here is the Terms of Reference laid down by the Government to me they are too vague (though Bryn tells me no more so than those of PC1 – the Turner Commission that reported 20 years ago).
You make up your mind!
Here are the details of the event next Tuesday;
Tuesday August 5th (next Tuesday)
Roundtable chaired by Bryn, Lord Davies of Brixton. Joined by Tom McPhail, Margaret Snowdon OBE and Arun Muralidhar.
I’ll be there and if we get any La La nonsense , I’ll be on to it like a pension minister.
Join the meeting here
Copy the link to your diary if you prefer
-
- Snowdon
-
- Davies
-
- McPhail
-
- Arun
Appendix of wit
Amused , as my friend up north comments
Our verdict on whether the Pension Commission’s worth it https://t.co/xObzEXlhlr The debate we have arranged is to discuss my contention that PC1 is a waste of time. Be there – 10.30 Tuesday next
— Henry Tapper (@henryhtapper) July 30, 2025
Yes it will be interesting to see how PC2 develops its thinking.
My suggested goal would be to ensure that the pension environment provides an adequate income in later life for all. Adequate income would be one that removes dependency on means tested benefits for all but those with extra needs.
The occupational pension system should be designed to provide that adequate income AT LOWEST COST to employees and employers. Only by targeting minimal costs for both the taxpayer and the working population and employers, both private and public sector, can the country expect to deal with the demographic issues of the next 50 years.
While minimising costs is certainly valuable, I believe we should also consider the broader picture of investment excellence and long-term outcomes.
The key metric that truly matters for pension savers is the net performance after all charges, particularly when measured against inflation. This real-terms growth is what ultimately determines whether individuals can maintain their standard of living in retirement.
I would suggest that the pension market requires a more nuanced, segmented approach to serve different groups effectively. Approximately 30% of the population are financially self-sufficient and require minimal intervention. Another 30% face such significant financial constraints that expecting them to save while struggling with basic necessities like food and housing seems unrealistic.
The opportunity lies with the middle segment – roughly 40% of the population – who could potentially be supported through targeted interventions, guidance, or where necessary, appropriate subsidies to help them achieve adequate retirement provision.
I do have concerns about the current tax treatment of pension savings, particularly where marginal rates can reach 83%. This level of taxation appears to create a significant disincentive for prudent long-term saving during working years, which seems counterproductive to the broader policy objectives of encouraging personal responsibility for retirement planning.
I believe a more balanced approach that rewards rather than penalises financial prudence would better serve both individual savers and the broader goal of reducing future reliance on state support.
There’ll be opportunities to discuss most things John but the agenda is with Bryn Davies.