Tom Kean's recent article raises the question of why the Government
continues with such a Draconian approach to the pension review.
Quite simply, since Mick Newmarch departed from the Pru, our industry has
offered no constructive argument to the Government.
Both my present and previous MPs have informed me that they have received
very little feedback from members of our industry.
It is pointless complaining to the trade press or each other if we do not
make out genuine concerns known to Parliament.
Those who run the banks, insurance companies and networks do not have to
pay any of the costs of the pension review, which is why their silence on
the subject has been deafening.
Only IFAs directly bear the cost through fines and spiralling PI fees and
We still have no genuine answers from the Govern ment as to:
Why they allowed their own employees (trustees of local government,
police, National Health Service, miners' schemes) to transfer ex-members
out at actuar ially reduced levels compared with the high levels they
demanded for reinstatement of the same people?
Yes, our industry can be blamed for being naive enough to accept trustees'
figures but were we the real culprits?
Even if we ignore the above point, why have they created the most
expensive, time-consuming job-creating jamboree to try to work out what
pensions might be in the future?
Could they not have accepted Legal & General's suggestion simply to
arrange compensation if the member's fund showed a shortfall at retirement?
Why has no action been taken against the company pension schemes that
blatantly discriminated against early leavers?
They were simply told to improve their procedures in future but have any
of these early leavers even been compensated?