Guy Opperman may not be a part of the Labour Government but he understands how governments work and why the protest from those arguing for fiduciary freedom will not be granted the amendment the House of Lords has sent downstairs
The following statement is from a friend who like Guy Opperman , knows Government well.
Guy Opperman is spot on right on this. Government will do what it wants. They may or may not make some tweaks.
The triumphalism of the fiduciary duty/trustee crowd doesn’t matter one jot. It could easily be counterproductive. Greater scrutiny of the merits and otherwise of fiduciary duty for starters. Or just skip that.
Nationalise AE making it what it is – funded social security. Freeing up all pension savings on top of that, but using the changes to cut tax and NI relief.
Well there’s a thought. I didn’t think the Pensions Minister held the “fiduciary duty/trustee crowd” in high regard at the Pensions UK conference earlier this month.
There was a lot of teeth-grinding following Guy Opperman’s realistic post. I include two examples. The first from Graham is just petulance and included as it represents the frustration who breathe the thin air at the fiduciary summit….
Tom’ s post suggests that the Labour Government may lose the whole Pension Schemes Bill in the ping pong of this amendment between Upper and Lower house of parliament.
I am surprised if this will happen, this Government has a big majority and the Pension Schemes Bill is one that is generally popular on all sides (putting “mandation” aside).
Guy Opperman offers little solace to Tom and to his private correspondents
To show that I’m not the only fan of Torsten and his bill and his support from the Chancellor…
This is a message from one of my friends
This is not a good time for industry special pleading, with the wider demographically driven outlook over the foreseeable next few decades.
It shows many things. The irrelevance of the Lords other than as a talking shop, often interesting, but essentially a retirement home. Where mysteriously people get paid to be residents.
The real problem is however not that they are ineffectual and waste resources but that we need a second chamber that does have the ability to have some effect.
The ABI, Pensions UK, IFS , PMI and endless pension professionals (including good friends) stand against mandation. I’m not interested in this high-minded principle. I’m interested in getting things done – something we do very little of.
The conversation between Tom and Guy is essentially correct. What it misses out is that the Government is now keen to prorogue parliament by early May. Which means there is a pile-up of government business that has to be got through first. The expected business in the House of Lords in the previous three weeks is almost all end-to-end ping-pong. This process is known as “wash-up” and usually the Government gets its way, given the large majority in the Commons. But not always and sometimes it is forced to compromise by dropping bits of Bills, or on occasion a whole Bill, simply due to pressure of time.
Plaid Cymru’s policy position on the House of Lords is one of principled opposition, advocating for its complete abolition and replacement with an elected second chamber.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) does not seek appointments to the House of Lords based on a long-standing policy of principled opposition to the second chamber. The party views the House of Lords as an archaic, undemocratic, and unaccountable institution.
Sinn Féin goes even further and operates a policy of abstentionism regarding the British Parliament, including the House of Lords and House of Commons, meaning they do not take their seats, swear an oath to the British monarch, or participate in proceedings. They view British political institutions as having no role in governing Ireland and refuse to recognise the parliament’s legitimacy.