View more on these topics

Occupational hazards

Terence O&#39Halloran&#39s hard-hitting letter in Money Marketing requires a robust response.

I fully agree with him that the misselling of occupational final-salary schemes was worse than endowments or split-capital trusts.

With the latter, investors may have been told that the products were low-risk but with employer pensions, the members were told that the schemes were no risk.

Pointing a finger of blame at the FSA (which was acting on behalf of the Treasury) was designed to make the very point which O&#39Halloran refers to about the use of the word guarantee being worse in this case than for other situations. That is precisely why I believe it is essential to compensate those who lost their pensions.

The compensation should be funded by taxpayers, not the financial services industry. Both the Treasury and the DWP told members that their schemes were safe, even after they were advised by the Institute of Actuaries to warn members of the risks on pension scheme wind-up.

If financial services comp-anies must compensate for failing to provide adequate risk warnings, then the Govern-ment must do likewise.

As a society, we have asked and encouraged people to behave responsibly. They have done all that was asked, yet the system failed them. How can we turn our backs on those who have lost out when trusting the Government and the pension industry?

If they had been warned, they could have protected themselves but they were denied the opportunity of doing so. Furthermore, as a society, there is a benefit in restoring confidence in pensions. If those who trusted the system are left high and dry, how can we expect anyone to have confidence in future? The cost of such redress is not even that high. Taxpayers spend £14bn a year on tax relief for pensions so an amount of around £75m to rectify this injustice is tiny in comparison.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that I have never asked for, nor been paid a penny for any of the work I have done for this cause. I have helped MPs, unions and members willingly because I believe it is the right thing to do.

I believe that someone has to stand up and help and I have worked on an independent, non-party political basis trying to harness cross-party support for good people who have been wronged.

Dr Ros Altmann

Independent consultant,

London N3

Recommended

Kreis raises funding for three more Tomahawk pubs

Kreis Consulting&#39s second round of funding for Tomahawk Pubs will enable it, with gearing, to buy and refurbish another three pubs.Kreis says this brings to at least five the number of Tomahawk Pubs.

Hambro&#39s McClashan predicts 50% return for new Japan fund

JO Hambro fund manager Scott McGlashan believes the boutique&#39s new Japan fund will return around 50 per cent over the next three years. McGlashan believes the fund, which launched at the end of April, can take advantage of Japan&#39s economic rec-overy, which he says should continue over the longer term as domestic demand grows stronger. […]

Sandler to be IFS president

Ron Sandler has been nominated by the Institute of Fin-ancial Services as its next president. Sandler will take on the post from October. He is well known for his Treasury-commissioned review of the UK long-term savings industry and the revival of Lloyd&#39s of London when he was its chief executive. Sandler was also formerly chief […]

GMAC-RFC launches new non-conforming mortgage range

GMAC-RFC has announced new rates for non-conforming mortgages, starting at 5.24 per cent. The range of discounted and fixed rates are available on a status or self cert basis and were designed after research found that borrowers have a wide range of varying levels of adverse credit. GMAC-RFC head of marketing services Jeff Knight says: […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment