It may be a matter of dispute whether most employees, other than those of his own companies, owe a debt of gratitude to the late Mr Robert Maxwell for pointing out the inadequacies of the law purporting to regulate pension funds but it is certain that the author of this work does not. He might reasonably have expected to produce an indictment of that law of such clarity, comprehensiveness and startling condemnation that his work would become the source of the alarm that resulted in the establishment of the Goode Committee. As it is, this book was published just after the Report of that Committee was presented and will, no doubt, be read by many who believe, whether genuinely or out of a sense of relief that its recommendations did not go further, that the necessary corrective measures have been taken. The fact that they can find in this book reference to every issue considered by that Committee is likely to confirm that belief. A second reading of the Goode Review is probably an unreasonable expectation but a closer reading of this book may well raise doubts as to whether “Goode” has not sought to shore up a structure of regulation which is fundamentally inadequate. All readers are advised, therefore, to keep this book handy on their shelves not only as a remarkably clear exposition of how the present pension system operates but because it may well be necessary to turn to it in the future when, again, it appears that its regulation is inadequate.

Regulation of pension schemes until the passage of the Goode Pensions Act, rests primarily on the law of trusts and the Actuary (whom Goode recommends should be appointed by the trustees). Both the author and the Goode Committee make it clear that little help can be expected from the contract of employment. The type of term that might be implied into that contract might, indeed, emphasize maintenance of trust. In that respect it could be useful in imposing some sort of fiduciary duty on the employer. The courts might be able to provide some substance for that over time but such a process is scarcely satisfactory. Nor, as both Goode and Nobles point out, could it touch the trustees. Neither of them seem to give much thought to the principal weakness of the contract of employment, which is, of course, that its express terms are drafted by the employer. The chance of some worker influence through trade unions at that stage is steadily receding. As a device for regulating pension provision, therefore, contract is a delusion.

Goode, therefore, pins its faith on a controlled form of trust. The author agrees that some form of fiduciary obligation must underlie the administration of pension schemes and that there is no point in replacing that provided by the law of trusts with one less effective. His