I am pleased because it is what we wanted – removal of the dratted overseas investment amber flag and removal of the unintended consequence of multiple MoneyHelper appointments, so it’s a big win for common sense. It didn’t need to take this long to remove the conditions that pleased absolutely no one, but better late than never. Shame about incentives, but you can’t win them all!

As usual, the devil is in the detail and a couple of innocuous words are likely to cause confusion and result in some new unintended consequences. That’s why we have a consultation rather than an amendment of course.

My biggest takeaway from the condoc is the broadening of trusted schemes under Condition 1 beyond the current closed club of public service schemes, authorised master trusts and authorised CDC schemes to include “reputable schemes”. I suspect we all know what “reputable” means, but would you feel confident if your judgment relied on getting it right every time? Unfortunately trying to define it could result in endless arguments, but PSIG will again guide on good practice in setting up and maintaining a “green list” to help consistently in this space.

I’m disappointed to see such focus on the speed of transfers. I really hate the old trope that the industry is deliberately delaying transfers so as not to lose control of the (member’s) money, especially when we don’t see the irony that receiving schemes might want fast transfers for the same reason! I fully agree that the majority of transfers should be faster than they are currently and said so in PASA’s DB to DC transfers guide aimed at faster, safer transfers, but please don’t blame genuine efforts to prevent members losing their life savings. There are several reasons for delays, including checking member understanding and the safety of the proposed transfer, the lack of standard transfer information across the industry and unnecessary MoneyHelper appointments, but the most pernicious cause of all is lack of resources, poor data and insufficient investment for years. Underinvestment in administration is a deliberate choice by schemes, although their administrators are not brave enough to say so.

I am aware of the siren song for 10-day transfers. The consultation nudges this along with its emphasis on “unnecessary friction”, on moving the money quickly and on simple judgment than on member safety. I am concerned that we still do not recognise the need for trustee protection in the transfer space. Relying on “reputable” for a receiving scheme under Condition 1 seems to imply there will be no further need to check for other risk factors like cold-calling, pressure to transfer, coaching of victims by enablers. This would make transfers faster, but not safer. In fact the emphasis on the receiving scheme’s reputation might mean we forget that it's not the schemes that do the scamming, but the enablers around those schemes. Many of those enablers are devious and we’ve seen many examples of members being told to falsify statements – the scheme is ok, but how it is used is the problem. This also applies to SSASs which get a prominent shout out.

I strongly believe that ceding schemes ought to use judgment to decide as long as they do their homework first – this is their job, but sadly there is still no interest in creating a safe harbour for trustees who carry out good due diligence and decide whether or not to transfer. Bringing in the need for speed in regulations, will embolden claims management companies in future. So, if we are really serious about stopping scammers, protecting members and making transfers easy, we need to address the elephant in the room – the safety net. All schemes should have discretion to make reasonable decisions based on relevant information and there should be compensation for members who are deceived into a scam arrangement. Claims should only be against the scammers or trustees who don’t care.

Margaret Snowdon, Chair – PSIG