Personal PensionJun 23 2016

MPs tell pension providers to be transparent on fees

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
MPs tell pension providers to be transparent on fees

A Labour and Conservative MP yesterday (22 June) said they were willing to work together to make sure the pensions industry was more transparent.

Angela Rayner, Labour shadow minister for pensions, and Tom Tugendhat, Conservative member of parliament for Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling, spoke at a Transparency Task Force Symposium held in London yesterday (22 June).

Speaking at the event, Ms Rayner said that in pensions, she does not see the level of transparency there should be.

Ms Rayner said: “There are some fantastically brainy people trying to look after our interests but there are also some fantastically brainy people trying not to look after our interests and looking after their own interests.

“I see transparency as the key to ensuring that as consumers, as investors, as individual savers, we get the best possible outcome.

“It [transparency in financial services] crosses party political lines and it’s not about party political point scoring. That is why I’m really pleased Tom’s here and (...) and see him as an absolute ally within this process.”

Mr Tugendhat said he was a virulent supporter of the free market, of competition, and of opportunity.

He said: “What both of us would reject - and I’m certain of this - is distorted markets, is hidden fees and stealth taxation and sadly that is what brought me here today.”

He added that “not everyone in this game is a sinner” and made clear he believed a lot of people are doing the right thing and operating in a transparent manner.

Mr Tugendhat said: “I’m not out to cast an entire industry as wrong.

“What we have to do is get to a stage where we have consensus in the industry as to what charges mean (and) how they are levied.

“While some asset managers are doing that what we don’t have is those things lining up.

“If you don’t have that openness (...) you fail immediately because it means you can’t compare like for like.”

ruth.gillbe@ft.com