There are two big issues in private pensions under consideration. The first is the future and in particular the value for money we get from workplace pensions we pay into now and into future. Here we can include what we see on the pension dashboard and how we get our pensions paid (CDC being a major development, “flex and fix appearing to be the upcoming alternative).
You are worried that these are not taking precedence in the Lords which met to discuss DB and how they present the choices that trustees and employers have to the millions of us who still get paid defined benefit pensions. I can see your point, DB has dominated trustee meetings over DC and it’s easy to see the amendments discussed by Sharon Bowles, Ros Altmann, Bryn Davies and after being introduced yesterday – David Pitt-Watson as “more of the same”.
But the amendment that I helped on , on TAS 300 (V2) is anything but “more of the same”! It is the first chance we have had to discuss the relative merits of DB scheme running on , invested for surplus. The alternative, the de-risking of our once great DB system , is at last being debated as perhaps as much a failure to DB as “lifestyle” has become to DC.
I will be able to report on what happened yesterday afternoon and evening better later today. As I write I have not had time to find out how how the discussion went in every detail.
But the meat of this debate was about the use of DB surplus and in particular the need for DB schemes to run on to make use of the surplus 75% of DB schemes are currently in.
The debate happened following a development in DB pensions. Stagecoach and Aberdeen broke the mould on DB de-risking and have taken on a new approach to the investment of tens of thousands of bus-drivers pensions, is a big move forward and the discussion of TAS 300 in the upper house is another.
If we get a positive move on DB, it will feed through to DC pensions too. It will lead to a third force (CDC) getting a boost.
Bryn Davies
Bryn brought important thoughts on terminology and on this
Altmann brought (amendment 33 and 33a ) a requirement on actuaries bringing options to the notice of trustees and members. This is at 18.05 and onwards.
It is a robust debate that follows and I strongly recommend you listen through to 18.45.
Most of the work on this amendment has been done by William McGrath and lately by John Hamilton and his advisers . They get name checked so does the recent transfer of Stagecoach’s scheme to Aberdeen’s sponsorship.
Bryn Davies pushes back on the use of legislation to direct actuaries to do certain things. He points out that the FRC and IFOA both have responsibility for actuarial behaviour.
Maybe he is right but the moral weight of the debate seems to have been with Altmann. The Minister (for pensions in the upper house sides with Bryn Davies), Baroness Sherlock OBE is that lady.
The amendment is not going to be taken forward but the debate has happened. Baroness Altmann has withdrawn the amendment “with great regret”. She cites the pressure that John Hamilton was put on not to keep his pension running and this is on the record.
Amendment 10 is held.
Others brought requests that surplus is used to ensure that members with no increases since 1997 and before get back payment and forward increases.
BP’s case was mentioned despite the amendments on pension increases being withdrawn.
