Rachel Reeves has been told to keep her hands off people’s retirement funds by the boss of Britain’s biggest pension firm. Andy Briggs, CEO of the Phoenix Group , said the Chancellor must reassure the public that she will not “chop and change” pension rules.
He said: “Therefore, we should be looking to stop it being an area of speculation of regular changes all the time. You need people to feel confident that if they save their hard-earned money, they’re going to be rewarded for doing so.”
Mr Briggs said savers prematurely withdrew money ahead of last year’s Autumn Budget over fears that Ms Reeves would reduce the tax-free threshold, leaving them worse off. Currently, pension savers can withdraw up to 25% tax-free from the age of 55, up to a maximum of £268,275.
The industry chief said a repeat of last year must be avoided amid swirling speculation around the Chancellor’s plans to plug a fiscal black hole estimated at £50 million.
He said: “We need to avoid a huge amount of speculation that leads customers to making what turn out to be sub-optimal decisions.”
Mr Briggs said Ms Reeves risks “undermining consumer confidence” with any potential changes to pension rules in her second Budget later this year.
He said: “Pensions are a very long-term business and if you leave consumers with a sense that it can chop and change on a regular basis, then you will undermine consumer confidence – people will save a lot less and have a poorer retirement.”
This comes after a newly published report said the Chancellor risks creating a political “Omnishambles” if she reduces pension tax relief in her fiscal statement.
Pension consultancy firm LCP cautioned that, despite the tax raid looking like an attractive revenue source, it may put additional pressure on employers who are already facing mounting challenges.
Steve Webb, co-author of the report and partner at LCP, said: “Raiding pension tax relief may look superficially attractive for a cash-strapped Chancellor.
“But lying beneath the surface are multiple traps for the unwary, meaning that reforms might raise far less than expected, break manifesto promises to workers or put additional burdens on employers who are already under pressure.”