All ill thought out.

How many clients actually 'benefitted' from the contribution history 'concession'? Most advisers worth their salt would organise contributions for high earners on a single or variable annual premium basis, which were excluded. If, however, the client was 'lucky' enough to use an adviser who sold massive monthly premiums (not for commission purposes of course) he benefits from the protection. What a farce.

Posted by: Neil Duthie

NOR ILL THOUGHT OUT - JUST NOT THOUGHT OUT

The people who have the ear of the politician who can change things are just downright thick! Just keep kicking the hands that feed them. Private sector profits propping up the overpaid public sector lazy so and so's for their wages and pensions. Keep this up much longer and most decent profit makers will leave the country.

Posted by: paolo standerwick

Stop messing with my study

I think someone in government just likes to annoy the IFA community. Tell them all to get qualified by 2012 then change the rules on pensions massively 3 times in less than a year. Im fed up of writing this article up for my diploma, im having to change it every couple of weeks and theres another month before its due in!

Posted by: Kev S

"Worth their salt!"

No, Neil Duthrie, most advisers worth their salt would not necessarily organise contributions for high earners on a single or variable annual premium basis simply because some high earners are also high spenders and need the discipline of monthly contributions. Most advisers worth their salt would have set up as large a monthly contribution as possible, with commission on a single costed basis!

Posted by: Chris Leach

Some credit where due

Whilst I can understand the earlier comments concerning "another rule change" and agree entirely with the ridiculous complexity of pensions legislation, this change is at least a sign that maybe the legislation makers have listened to a sound arguement that I have been making for years. Why does each change made have scheme specific protections. Early NRA's scheme borrowing in SIPPs, etc, all of these are barriers to the individual having free choice about where their pensions are invested. The removal of this specific protection might be a wake up call and focus any new legisaltion principally on the consumers best interests and not the tax take and political points scoring.

Posted by: Martin Tilley