"Ambitious Enough? The future of workplace pensions"

On Tuesday morning there was a TUC seminar on workplace pensions Chaired by Assistant General Secretary, Kay Carberry. Keynote speaker was Minister for Pensions, Steve Webb MP.

In his speech he promoted his vision of "Defined Ambition" pensions.  He thinks that Defined Benefit (DB) schemes are finished outside the public sector but wants something better than Defined Contribution (DC). Problem with DB is cost to employer and volatility, while problem with DC is uncertainty and protection against inflation.  He wants something that is not as good as before (DB) but better than the minimum (DC).

He suggested that employers may pay an insurance company (as a company perk) to protect the value of a DC scheme so that on retirement you would get at least your contributions back. He also said that what employers want with pensions is a level playing field and they don't want to pay more than competitors.

My question to him was that are we just trying to reinvent the wheel? If workers need certainty and inflation protection then the answer can only be DB. A reformed DB, where you look for example at employer caps in contribution (I forgot to mention smoothing). In Japan nearly 100% of pension provision is still DB, while in South Korea which has amongst the worlds longest life expectancy they are still opening new DB schemes. If companies want a level playing field then introduce compulsion.

He replied that he did not know why DB was still so prevalent in Japan. He thought it may be related to inflation? He also said it would be inconceivable to get political consensus in the UK  to agree to DB pension compulsion in the UK.

Which I would agree with. It will be impossible to get consensus from right wing Tories. That is why the next Labour Government with a decent Parliamentary majority should just do it, because it is the right (or rather left)  thing to do.

You can check out my twitter comments on the rest of the seminar here 5 February 2013.  There were some really fascinating contributions from other panel members: Doug Taylor from "Which?"; Professor Orla Gough from Westminster Business School and Craig Berry from the TUC.

I had another chance at a question towards the end of the seminar, where I asked the panel that there is a lot of interest currently in "Predistribution" and the concept of a living wage, since the taxpayer should not be spending money subsiding bad employers who pay poverty wages. So should we in the pensions world be also talking about a "living pension" and not allowing bad employers who don't provide one to subsidised by taxpayers as well?

Not sure if I got a full response from Panel. Craig Betty was supportive but  DWP civil servant, Mike le Brun, who took Steve Webb's place on the panel said that individuals will have to take more responsibility for their own pensions. In DB they were passive but in DC they must be active.

Which would seem to contradict his Minister comments about the problem with DC being that individual workers cannot understand the uncertainty and the inflation risk.

If the best brains in the Treasury and the City of London cannot accurately predict return and risk then what chance does Joe Public have with their DC pensions?

TUC Pension Trustee Conference 2012: Making Pensions Work For People

Picture is of Pension minister, Steve Webb MP, address the opening of the 2012 TUC Trustee conference at Congress House.

Steve spoke about his recent discussion paper on "Reinvigorating Workplace Pensions" which I will post upon another time.

He thought that auto enrolment had been a success so far with far less "opt outs" than feared (Great news).

He wants reform to allow people who build up small "pension pots" with a number of different employers to have the "pots follow the member" and consolidate into big fat pots (Good idea).

The new state pension scheme must be above the means tested income support level or people will not have the confidence to save for their pensions in case it is all eaten up by reductions in benefit (yep).

He tried to explain what his big pension idea "defined ambition" will mean in practise. While he would prefer pensions to be guaranteed and salary related, what can be done if employers don't want to offer such schemes? (you can force them Steve thought I).

In Q&A my question was about his comments in Pensions press in June this year, that accounting standards in defined benefit schemes were "a complete nightmare" and "killer" for pension schemes. While he also promised to "not stand idly by" and do something. Yet today schemes such as the Pension Trust are still using these completely artificial standards, to justify kicking employers out of schemes and forcing the closure of decent pensions for no good reason. These so called pension "deficits" do not exist.

Steve answered by saying that he wouldn't quite agree that the deficits did not exist, he had not forgotten his words but he cannot say anymore at the moment except that he hasn't forgotten what he has said. He also said that he had met with a number of big charities recently to talk about their difficulties with the Pension Trust.

Well, wait and see I think. I am told that it is Vince Cable as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who is responsible for addressing such accountancy standards ("Mark to Market" and "Smoothing").  I don't know and frankly don't care who does what as long as something is done. Perfectly good pension schemes are going to wall every week in this country, while those responsible appear to wring their hands as ordinary workers are being cheated out of a decent retirement!

You can check my twitter posts of the whole conference here  It was probably one of the best TUC ones I have attended. I will try and post more during the next few days. Its a busy time for pensions.