View more on these topics

Treasury warns providers over ‘copycat’ guidance schemes

Treasury economic secretary Andrea Leadsom has warned insurers against setting up “copycat” guidance services after the Government announced delivery of the service would be handed to independent organisations.

The Treasury’s original consultation, published in March, asked whether providers could be given a role in the new guidance service without risking its impartiality.

Yesterday, the Government confirmed the guidance will not be delivered by providers, though the ABI is pressing policymakers to keep the issue under review.

Speaking to Money Marketing, Leadsom says providers should not consider setting up their own guidance schemes.

She says: “We will be very keen to ensure that the guidance under the guarantee is very clearly branded and becomes a trusted name.

“What we do not want is copycat schemes pushing people down one road or other – we certainly do not wish to see that. This is very clearly designed to be impartial and helpful to people making plans for their retirement, so just like in any other walk of life what you don’t want is poor imitations or vested interests jumping in there and trying to get in between the impartial guidance and the retiring person.”

Despite this and opposition in consultation responses to provider involvement, Leadsom refuses to rule out a role for the industry in future

“At the moment we do not intend to allow product providers to be part of guidance,” she says. “You never rule anything out for the future but the very clear feedback from consultation was people felt the guidance needed to be delivered by impartial organisations and having insurers in the mix would not provide a credible impartial service.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. What about giving them a £100 voucher to see a financial adviser for 45 minutes.
    Job done right then and if they want full advice then they are in the right place.
    Oh that’s far to sensible really however. . Doh.

  2. In absence of a qualified and regulated adviser, I would rather listen to someone from a product provider who understands and administers retirement products rather than an unregulated and most probably unqualified guide!

    Why are the drivers of this concept running in all directions in order to avoid using the skillset which is readily available? It can’t be because of cost, as there is a cost whichever way…Ah! wait a minute, appear to give the guidance for free but charge the cost of it to the industry…Yes, very good that…And they call us opaque!

  3. Quanfgocrats appointed by the treasury are no more Independent than providers.
    They are having a laugh.
    Tell the truth and set it up as a govt department and fund it through taxation, not a levy on providers or advisers.
    Even those of us who have done level 4 and are progressing to lvl 6 might as well stop giving regulated advice.
    Some of us said RDR was stupid and this is getting even more stupid.

  4. Paul the issue will be that the public (based on our beloved Chancellors lovely speaches) will expect to be told what they should do – when its explained that in order to get a personal recommendation they will need to undergo a full review and pay £000’s there will rightly (IMO) be an uproar.

    “The chancellor said I would get free, face to face, impartial advice – then free, impartial advice – then free, impartial guidance”

    “But all I heard was free and advice – now you expect me to pay!?”

    The publics expectations have not been managed well.

  5. So right Matthew, I hope.
    But we all know when a politician is lying it is when his lips are moving.
    The Georgie boy, is a very rich lad and knows nothing of ordinary folk.
    I do not think the take up of this non advice, from non qualified people, not often face to face and probably not impartial, will be great because its a farce.

Leave a comment