MPs should ignore their whips and reinstate the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill amendment
The Government’s Pension Wise service is a wonderful organisation. Or, at least, it is seen as such by the vast majority of those who use it.
Indeed, according to a recent Money Marketing article, 88 per cent of people who used Pension Wise said they had a fairly or very helpful experience.
More than two-thirds said it made them “think through their options more thoroughly” and over half (55 per cent) said it made them “consider the longer term more than they would have done otherwise”.
The person who cited these figures (approvingly, I imagine) is Tom Selby, a highly regarded former journalist at Money Marketing and now senior analyst at AJ Bell.
Given his generally enthusiastic reference to this poll in that column, you would imagine Selby would be in favour of people being automatically enrolled into guidance if they wanted to take benefits under pension freedoms or transfer benefits.
So you would also expect him to be disappointed by the news last week that an amendment to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill that would have seen this happen has been removed.
Now, instead of being automatically enrolled into guidance, providers must ask customers if they have received “appropriate” pensions advice or “appropriate” independent financial advice.
If the customer says they have not had either, the provider will have to recommend they do so and ask them if they want to wait until they have done so before accessing their pot or transferring, or if they want to go ahead without it.
But Selby was among the first to come out in support of the change: “The original ‘auto-guidance’ amendment was a bit of a dog’s breakfast,” he told Money Marketing.
“Automatically enrolling members into guidance for each transfer or every time they took money from their own pension pot – when they have already decided what they want to do – would have caused massive delays and huge complaints.”
Reading the pages of the financial trade press over the past few months, you would have seen Selby has spent much of his time arguing strenuously against the idea.
Of course, it would be completely unfair of me to suggest there was any ulterior motive in Selby’s lobbying for such a proposal to be dumped by the Government – for example, the fact that providers might dislike the idea of people being asked to stop and think for a minute before taking their cash lump sums and funnelling it straight into investment schemes provided by companies like, ahem, AJ Bell.
No, God forbid. This was all about the impracticality of such a proposal from “unelected” politicians and other assorted toffs and miscreants in the Lords.
In his December column, Selby pointed to the potential for “outrage” from hordes of angry savers forced to cool their heels for a few weeks before being able to access their cash.
This image of crowds of enraged customers seems at odds with the experience of those who, like myself, have recently applied for mortgages or increases in their existing home loans.
As we know, new rules mean lenders demand a mass of additional, seemingly intrusive, information from prospective borrowers before deciding whether to dole out money to them.
And then there is the long wait. In my case, an increase in an existing mortgage from 8 per cent to 14 per cent loan-to-value, from a lender that also happened to be my bank and therefore already had access to all my financial information, took more than two months to complete.
My experience was not atypical. Yet there is no evidence that a near-totality of would-be mortgage borrowers are behaving in anything other than an entirely phlegmatic, if occasionally exasperated, manner at having to wait a few weeks longer before they can access their loans.
The idea, therefore, that savers who have been calmly sticking money into their pension pots for decades would suddenly turn into screaming banner-waving protestors because they had been booked a guidance appointment a month down the line, seems far-fetched – if not completely absurd.
As the redoubtable pensions campaigner Ros Altmann pointed out last week, we all know Pension Wise has performed excellently where it has been used. It has prevented people from falling prey to misselling and other scams.
What is more, consumers who access their pots early without taking advice typically follow the “path of least resistance”, accepting drawdown from their current provider without shopping around.
Pension Wise is a service that genuinely works for consumers – unlike other regulatory structures I can think of. MPs should ignore their whips and reinstate this amendment into the final bill. Their constituents deserve no less.
Nic Cicutti can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org