View more on these topics

Inside Edge: Steve Bee

Simplifying pensions is turning into something of a nightmare. I suppose it was bound to, really, what with a proliferation of reviews all taking place at the same time and all aimed at “fixing” different bits of the problem – a bit like three or four different people working on the same Rubik&#39s cube at the same time. It is a recipe for disaster unless everyone is working to the same master plan and everything is very, very joined up.

Let us hope it is all as well orchestrated as we are told and that it becomes self-evidently so very soon. Or perhaps the master plan that all the reviews are working to could be published first so we can be reassured that it is not all being made up by people as they are going along. Then we can stop worrying about it.

But what if we end up with a pension system left in even more of a mess than we had before this particular attempt at simplification started?

That&#39s the point, really. Our pension system is as complex as it is because it has suffered from numerous attempts by Government guys over the years to try and simplify it and, to be honest, they haven&#39t done a very good job of it. If pensions weren&#39t such an important issue to all of us in this country, with hardly any state basic pension provision to fall back on, it would all be a bit of a laugh. But they are and it isn&#39t.

The British people have been good enough to amass more voluntary pension savings than the rest of continental Europe put together. They deserve a simple and fair pension system from their Government that meets the very real needs of today&#39s and tomorrow&#39s pensioners and is not based on the prescriptive nanny-state stuff that we have been daft enough to put up with up to now.

That is where I agree with Alan Pickering&#39s report.

Pensions need to be able to meet the needs of those who save in them. A good example of how this can be done is the pension scheme MPs have constructed for themselves. MPs have the very real problem that their average tenure in the House has reduced over the years, so it is very difficult for them to build-up sufficient pension entitlements to fairly reward them for all the effort they put in to the jobs they do for us.

The scheme they have at present is a 50ths final-salary scheme – much more generous than the 60ths schemes the lucky minority have in the real world but it has to be relatively generous because of the nature of their careers.

However, 50ths do not quite do the trick so they have improved it so that their pensions will now accrue on a 40ths basis – massively generous compared with normal people, but, to be fair, they do not have the job security the rest of us enjoy and, hey, their employer has got bottomless pockets, anyway, so what&#39s the diff?

Given that it would be very difficult in the circumstances for politicians to argue that they do not know a good pension scheme when they see one, we should be able to rest assured that they will eventually come up with a corker of a scheme for the rest of us. Or, at the very least, a simple and fair environment that will not act against us as we attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole they will not find themselves in. Anything else would be a bit off, really.

The needs of the British people are as straightforward and easy to understand as are the particular needs of MPs. We need better pensions, not worse ones. We need more chance of our employers providing schemes for us. We need more chance of those schemes being made better and better and we certainly do not want the schemes that have thrived for over four decades suddenly evaporating just when we really need them or the benefits they provide being dumbed-down in the name of simplification.

That is where I disagree with Alan Pickering&#39s report.

Steve Bee is head of pensions strategy at Scottish Life

Recommended

Pearl in financial strength tables

Pearl is the “financially weakest” company, last week&#39s Money Marketing survey shows. In relation to the comments made about Pearl, the following matters not included in the article are important.Pearl Assurance met all statutory solvency require-ments at December 31, 2001 based on the regulatory returns submitted. Comments from KPMG in relation to the Money Marketing […]

Moore&#39s code

It may sound surprising given the acres of space they have been filling in every publication touching on financial services but the Sandler and Pickering reviews are a long way from the being the biggest issues facing the financial services today.Oh sure, they have occupied two highly qualified and bright men and their highly qualified […]

Yet another review as MPs probe the pension crisis

The pension industry is to face yet another review as the Parliamentary work and pensions select committee has announced a wide-ranging inquiry into the “pensions crisis”.In the autumn, the all-party committee will examine what role the Government and the private sector has in increasing savings through pensions.The industry has questioned the need for another pension […]

Inter-Alliance software offered to the market

Inter-Alliance subsidiary Intelliflo is rolling out the national IFA&#39s desktop software solution to the IFA market.Three IFA firms have already signed up for the Intelligent Office software, that provides sales automation, fact-finds, needs analysis and reports as well as new business processing, automatic compliance and automated commission and fee management.A version for smaller IFAs will […]

The Day of (B)reckoning

A period of exceptional uncertainty started last Friday for the UK, including a fierce leadership battle in a deeply divided Conservative party, the timing of the trigger of the EU’s Article 50, as well as a potential referendum in Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Click here to read the full article

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment