But what is the most disappointing aspect of the report? It is the fact that Turner has managed to narrow his options to the areas of pensions which have broadly been tried and tested in the past and have patently not worked.If this was not the case, then the industry would not be facing the problems it is today. This was Turner’s golden opportunity to do something radical to shake up the pension industry in the UK and he missed it. Turner not only missed this opportunity but missed the point altogether. The real issue is, if left unadvised, British people do not like to save for anything that is longer away than next year’s holiday and if they can borrow the money to be able to fund it, then they will. The savings gap which currently exists in the UK is a result of the fact that we simply do not have enough distributors. If we look back 15 years to 1990, we had considerably more RIs than we have today. We are now down to about a quarter of the amount. When this is put against the hugely increased need and aging population in the UK, it is easy to see how the savings gap has widened over time. This, added to the Government and Turner’s sole concern for cost, make it easy to see how there has been a serious failure to recognise just how important pensions are and while they may state that pensions are important, it cannot be the case as they are saying that they want the consumer to buy a pension unassisted. By reducing the space available for advice through a series of misplaced regulations, the Government has managed to reduce the amount of pension sales, thus creating its own mess. But instead of solving this mess itself, it expects employers to sort out the mess through compulsory funding of a state-managed scheme. But there is some good news. If as an employer, people are going to be forced into funding a pension for somebody else, then the employer might as well have their own company pension and at least they will get some credit for their contribution. It is not just the drop in sales and concern over cost which has led to the situation that the pension industry finds itself in today. The Government’s approach to property and buy to let is leading many consumers into a dangerous area, thinking that buy to let will be their pension. Whether they are thinking along the right lines depends very much on whether they can get the capital invested v the rent collected yield to be worthwhile. In order to do this, people often buy properties in the less expen-sive neighbourhoods but you just have to look around any UK town to see that these properties will eventually devalue to nothing. The chances are that the people who depend on property for their pension will outlive the property and therefore the pension will die first. Finally, an aside from Lord Turner and his report. Since this New Labour Government came into power in 1997, we have seen the number of public sector employees increase by around 500,000. Not only this but we have also seen the Government back down to the unions so that public sector employees can retire at 60. At the same time, the people who pay for public sector workers to have this privilege – the taxpayers – will have to wait until they reach 66, 67 or 68 by 2050. Why did Lord Turner not do something radical and recommend that all final-salary schemes which are not privately funded are wound up within the next few years? The amount of tax saved could then be put towards providing a flat-rate pension for all, which would be based on residency. An end to public sector final-salary pensions and inflation-proofed pensions funded out of the pockets of the remainder of UK taxpayers. These same conditions should be imposed upon MPs and the shareholders of life companies who sell defined-contribution pensions should question the directors and staff who believe so much in the products they sell that they have set up a different scheme for themselves, which is final salary and funded by their clients of course. You never know.