Pensions


The SPP supports the concept of targeted support for pensions and believes it could play a part in improving savings decisions and preferences, reducing fees and charges, and increasing consumer confidence.

However, our response seeks to highlight potential barriers to success and areas of concern, making various suggestions for improvement.

The Diversity, Equity & Inclusion paper seeks to shine a light on neurodiversity in the pensions industry and features two articles detailing the thoughts of both Lynn Wassell, Chief Executive of national neurodiversity charity, The Donaldson Trust and Niraj Shah, Investment Analyst at LCP and a member of the SPP.

This SPP paper identifies what the Pensions Commission, recently revived to consider the question of pensions adequacy, should consider and why.

This includes defining “adequate”; identifying the under pensioned; better understanding the trade-off between adequate living and adequate saving; and improving public trust in and awareness of state provision. The paper also explores how disenfranchised groups could be better supported and calls for a long-term plan for increasing auto-enrolment contribution rates.

The SPP very much supports the Bill and most of its broad aims from PPF levy flexibility and surplus release to the concept of default decumulation and improving Value for Money for DC schemes. However, we have made various suggestions as to how the Bill could be improved and we fundamentally oppose the the reserve power for government to mandate investment in private market assets.

This SPP Paper is a response to government plans to introduce a power in the Pension Schemes Bill that will allow them to dictate how pension funds invest by requiring a prescribed percentage of investment in UK productive assets.

Although there have been many developments in the risk transfer process in recent years, there’s more that could be done in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness.

With this in mind, the SPP has published an insightful paper on how best to shape the future of the risk transfer process - “Less friction, better transfers: creating a more agile risk transfer process.”

Whilst it is right for the Government to challenge the LGPS to assess its progress, the type and pace of changes being proposed run the risk of derailing some of the good work of the last decade, as well as impinging on administering authorities’ fiduciary duties. Within the LGPS it is not clear how these proposals will meet either of the Government’s objectives of improving pension outcomes for members or increasing investment in the UK.

As a result, the Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) urges policymakers to carefully reconsider both the nature and pace of some of these proposals.

This SPP report acknowledges the rationale for reducing pensions tax relief to make savings for the Treasury; highlights that the true cost of pensions tax relief is considerably smaller than headline figures; details some of the consequences of shifting to a single rate of pensions tax relief; and examines various alternatives.

Amongst other productive finance issues, this response highlights that the SPP agrees that scale can deliver improved investment but that there are risks, which must be guarded against; that legislative change is necessary to better facilitate consolidation and that for the LGPS, asset pooling has been successful but there is more to do. Read on for further information...