The pension never belongs to the company per se - what you mean is that the pensioner has no legal automatic right to the money. What's the difference? The company cannot raid the pension pot like Maxwell did, and simply take the contributions made to it by pensioners for itself: what it can do is wind up the scheme by closing it to new entrants, or both new entrants and further contributions if it gets itself in a mess.
The problem that arises is that it has been a legal requirement since the mid-1990s to pay the existing pensioners in full before non-pensioners are paid a penny out from the scheme. Furthermore there is little obligation to fully fund the scheme when the value of their investments falls from companies who are either unable to do so or are wound up by choice - there are of course many other creditors to bust companies and the pension scheme is not first in line by any means at all.
Two problems have arisen:
(1) Contribution holidays - there is no way on earth that companies are not going to take contribution holidays when the scheme is overfunded. In the good years of the late 1990s, company contributions that would normally be made were halted to prevent the scheme being overfunded, which would result in their contributions being fully taxed. When the scheme value falls however these contributions would help the scheme maintain value, but of course in such times companies can't afford to top up additionally to pay back what they weren't required. There is good reason to have this rule to prevent corporation tax evasion, however it hits the pension scheme unfairly as a result. The answer is to fund it with a bond as M&S have recently announced - if it works is another matter!
(2) The schemes are underfunded by actuarial estimate, not in real money terms as the investments are on paper, and have not been liquidated. As the future is uncertain, these too may be incorrect and markets may shoot up and cover all potential liabilities in the end. A pension of £1,000 per year per the example in the programme is only an estimate now, not what will actually happen. The problem lies in that all estimates are based upon the best information we have now, but are never going to smooth over the peaks and troughs of the markets in which the assets of the scheme are invested.
They could also suggest that each company operating a final salary scheme produce a 6 monthly forecast for each member stating the likelyhood that the fund can meet its obligations. If you have a unit trust you get this information, so why not a pension forecast based on whats in the fund and whats likely to be paid out.
Look at the accounts for the scheme instead - they come out every year, unless you want the scheme to be massively burdened with actuarial and accountancy costs 6 times higher than at present.
There aslo should be a change in the law that allows companies to withold this information. Failure to disclose or pay a pension should be treated like any other breach of contact within employment law.
I agree entirely, so long as it doesn't bankrupt the company.
The law needs to changes to ensure that the companies take responsibility as M&S appear to have done with theirs.
Edit - the ridiculous situation whereby companies that take over another and shut down operations and pension scheme while still operating themselves is crazy. There has to be a law initiated to prevent them doing this and taking responsibility for the pensioners of the acquisition as well.