View more on these topics

FSA accused of ‘contempt for Parliament’ on RDR small pots debate

Lord David Lipsey has accused the FSA of showing “contempt for Parliament” after the regulator failed to brief the Labour peer ahead of a debate on small pension funds.

On Tuesday, Baroness Sally Greengross tabled a question for debate in the House of Lords on the action being taken by Government to ensure people with small pension pots can access “good advice”.

Lord Lipsey (pictured) said the FSA had not provided any information on the RDR or actions being taken to address the problem of an advice gap for people with limited funds ahead of the debate.

He said: “I did not get a briefing from the FSA, and that seems extraordinarily neglectful because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made clear, it is the FSA’s retail distribution review that is blamed by many for the advice gap that exists in this area.

“Surely this House had a right to hear the views of the FSA on this matter, its defence of the RDR and its approach to the problems that have been raised.

“I do not know whether this is FSA incompetence or FSA contempt for Parliament. Neither would surprise me and I hope that there is a more benign explanation, but it should know that this gap has been noticed.”

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Archy Kirkwood accused the FSA, the Treasury and the DWP of a “dereliction of duty” in failing to address the small pots issue.

He said: “I think there has been a bit of a dereliction of duty in terms of the way in which those three main policy departments are co-ordinating their work.

“The FSA, the Treasury and the DWP, from the respective positions, should have been across this problem with some positive responses before now.”

An FSA spokesman says: “We take our accountability to Parliament extremely seriously and are always willing to engage with MPs and Lords.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 10 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I think parliament have a case to answer leaving these questions to the last month of a 5 year plan.

  2. yawn…. welcome to the debate M’Lord…

  3. “This gap has been noticed!”

    It has been blatatly obvious to anyone with half a brain and the ability to comprehend that the RDR is a complete and utter disaster for those of modest means and there are a lot of people of modest means in our country who need advice and will have to choose not to take it because the costs are too high and will only increase, cross subsidy used to enable advisers to serve clients of modest means as the profits from dealing with more affluent clients could be used to give advice which may not be profitable to provide.

    The RDR will not produce better consumer outcomes for the mass market.

    The FSA has completely and utterly misinterpreted their so called “research” which they have used to support these changes.

    I don’t know about other advisers, but providing annuity advice for someone with say a pension pot of £20,000 (above the triviality level) is simply not economically viable, the hours taken to do fact finding, ATR assessment, needs analysis, cash flow forecasting, product research and implementation is quite simply too onerous and will leave many advisers in a quandary when their clients seek advice for retirement income.

    NOT OUR FAULT MY LORD, please ensure you understand this.

  4. The ignorance of these MP’s really makes my blood boil, how long has RDR been debated, how many IFA letters have been sent to MP’s, how many times has the FSA’s dereliction of duty been highlighted on the advice gap and cost to the public?

    Are they all just waking up for Christmas ?

  5. Alistair Paterson 29th November 2012 at 3:26 pm

    Welcome to the world of unelected quango gobbledygook. An utter shambles doesn’t even begin to adequately describe the untold harm being done to non London based small advisory firms. Commission served the entire non South East of the country perfectly for over 150 years. I would like to know which London based journo or MP got ripped off by an IFA about 20 years ago, as it’s been downhill for the rest of us ever since. Ho hum, back to my books for my final exam in 2 weeks time …

  6. Mi Lord

    The FSA has utter contempt of parliament, always has done, always will do.

  7. “Contempt for parliament from the FSA”

    Not nice is it? Imagine having to live with that every day of your working life M lud.

  8. An FSA spokesman says: “We take our accountability to Parliament extremely seriously and are always willing to engage with MPs and Lords.”

    Oh, really? That’s alright then. When did you do this exactly? Pathetic.

  9. @ DH 29 Nov 2012 3:19 pm

    “Are they all just waking up for Christmas?”

    We could have a No1 Hit with that!

    #IFADiversification

  10. As there exists no real punishment for contempt of parliament ( the last time the commons imposed a fine was in 1666), the only likely outcome would be a reprimand. In other words Turner or Wheatley or suchlike would appear before parliament say “sorry m’lud” (well we live in hope) Parliament would say “very well do not do it again” and the FSA would carry on as it has always done.
    We only live in a democracy on paper. We are as oppressed as any dictatorship and the British government is to blame.
    Vote UKIP

Leave a comment