The latest major U-turn saw the UK Government cancel plans to create a secondary annuity market. The volte-face comes on the back of reversals on introducing a flat rate of tax relief (which then Chancellor George Osborne was expected to introduce in his March Budget) and changes to the state pension age.

The decision to shelve the secondary annuity market — set to be introduced in April 2017 — dismantles one of Osborne’s flagship pension reforms that served as an extension of pension freedoms. The Government, which said it reached the decision “after an extensive programme of engagement with industry, financial regulators and consumer groups,” cited a lack of consumer protection as reason for ditching the plan that would have enabled pensioners to sell their annuities for cash.

“Over the past few months, following a wide range of discussions, it has become increasingly clear that creating the conditions to allow a vibrant and competitive market to emerge, with multiple buyers and sellers of annuities, could not be balanced with sufficient consumer protections,” a statement on the Treasury’s website said.
It added that, according to Government estimates, only 5% of people currently holding an annuity would have opted to cash them in.

But the Treasury statement citing consumer protection for pulling the plug begs the question of why the Government did not carry out a detailed study and “an extensive programme of engagement” with the industry before announcing plans to create the market last year? A lot of time and money could have been saved had the Government simply conducted a private consultation on the matter behind closed doors. It could have then concluded the market was not viable and nobody would have been none the wiser. But instead we have a dramatic last minute U-turn that renders all industry preparations for the market a complete waste of time.

The concerns flagged by the Treasury over the secondary annuity market came too late. Just as manufacturers need to test drive new products and subject them to thorough safety checks well in advance of them rolling off the production lines, the Treasury should have subjected its proposal to vigorous scrutiny at an earlier stage.
Osborne first mooted the idea of a secondary annuity market in March 2015 before the Government gave the go-ahead for the plan last December. So there was plenty of time for the Government to consult expert bodies on the issue before making its intentions public.

The industry appears split over whether the most recent pension U-turn is a good thing or not.

The decision will be welcomed by those fearing a secondary annuity market would have posed risks to savers who could have been targeted by unscrupulous scammers. There were concerns that regulating the secondary annuity market would have amounted to a difficult undertaking, with some even fearing the market could have given rise to the next mis-selling scandal. And others questioned whether pensioners selling their annuities would have got value for money from insurers.

But news of the U-turn will surely frustrate some providers who have spent time, money and resources readying their systems and preparing for the introduction of a market that was set to launch in just six months.

And some will no doubt claim that preventing those already with an annuity from accessing those pension freedoms enjoyed by others is unfair and goes against the grain of the reforms. Those advocates of the secondary annuity market could also point out that the ability to cash in an annuity would have particularly benefited those with small pension pots facing smaller retirement incomes. They will also argue that scrapping the plan is unfair on those who were forced to buy an annuity and are now trapped in products they do not want.

Whether the latest U-turn is viewed favourably or unfavourably, it will only further muddy the pension waters. Such a confusing, inconsistent and meandering approach cannot be in the best interests of savers who are already bewildered by the complexity of the pensions system and the constant changes to it.

The move to scrap the secondary annuity market may symbolically draw a line under the Osborne era as the Theresa May Government looks to put its own stamp on the pension reform agenda.
But this lies at the heart of the problem. If successive Governments are going to constantly redefine pension policy and tamper with or shelve those plans pursued by their predecessors (often at the last minute!) then the road to pension reform will forever be full of obstacles and forever necessitate sharp U-turns.

In order to truly safeguard consumer protection, political meddling in pensions must come to an end. For too long, pensions have been used as a political football. This is especially so in the run up to Budgets when Chancellors have felt under pressure to come up with vote-grabbing measures which are often rushed and ill-thought out.

If new Chancellor Philip Hammond is to truly draw a line under the Osborne era, he must reject this short-term opportunistic approach that has all too often characterised pension policy over the last few years. The issues at stake — i.e. people being able to have an acceptable lifestyle in retirement — demand a longer-term, pragmatic approach built on industry collaboration and consensus rather than political point-scoring. And only then will we be able to relegate these constant pension U-turns to the history books. быстрые займы на карту займ на карту онлайн без проверки кредитной историибыстрый займ до 100000где можно взять займ на карту