There is nothing more important than good governance to ensure value-for-money workplace pensions. Without robust governance in the interest of savers, the success of auto-enrolment is not a sure thing.

But there’s a problem with the governance, in particular of contract-based workplace pension schemes. That problem is conflicts of interest.

Or, more specifically, the way conflicts of interest between shareholders and customers of pension providers play out in favour of the former.

Common to all markets are potential conflicts of interest between the prioritisation of returns to shareholders and treating customers fairly. In functional markets this potential conflict is unrealised because of the customer's possession of voice, choice and exit mechanisms.

Members of contract-based pension schemes lack these weapons in the battle for value for money.

Click here for the full post

Shadow pensions minister Gregg McClymont sets out why the Scottish government  "ducked the hard questions" in its research on the impact of a split on pensions provision, in this Industry View.