The former Pensions Minister has suggested the Government doesn’t understand what Financial Planners do and claimed they lack a strong body to represent them.

Baroness Ros Altmann, who left her Ministerial role in the Summer when Theresa May became Prime Minister, told Financial Planning Today that Government officials have failed to grasp the difference between IFAs and planners.

She also told a recent event that there had been “a reluctance to mandate financial advice because there’s a lack of faith in financial advisers”.

She told FP Today: “I certainly don’t think that the Government realises the difference between an IFA and Financial Planners – there is a real lack of understanding among officials about what the adviser profession does.

“There are no easy ways to overcome the lack of understanding – there is no strong industry body to represent Financial Planners. Stories about how you have helped people are hard to get across.”

The CISI and Personal Finance Society, which represent thousands of Financial Planners, both disputed the suggestion about lacking a strong body. See more below.

In terms of what needs to happen in order to change the Government and politicians’ views on IFAs and Financial Planning, Baroness Altmann said: “It is worth building on the new £500 advice allowance to promote the value of financial advice and professional Financial Planning – talking about how this can help people and reduce later life poverty for example.

“It is important that all industry practitioners help their MPs understand what they do and if there are issues that they feel are not working as they should, then they should bring these to their MPs attention. If they see clients experiencing problems, it will be worth flagging these up to MPs.”

 Campbell Edgar, CFPTM Chartered FCSI, the CISI head of Financial Planning, concurred about the Government’s perception.

He said: “We agree, as it stands, that the Government is still in a muddle about the difference between IFAs and Financial Planners.”

But he disagreed with Baroness Altmann’s other statement, saying: “At the CISI we would dispute that there is no strong industry body to represent financial planners.

“A hallmark of the CISI is its professional forums, one of which is the Institute of Financial Planning Forum which was formed when IFP merged with CISI last year. Its mission is to promote the profession of Financial Planning for the benefit of the consumer.

“As such it is not so much an industry body involved with distributing financial products, as a professional body which does market the profession in a number of ways.

While the CISI is a professional body, rather than an industry it does take its “public awareness responsibility seriously”, Mr Campbell said, adding it works with Government rather than MPs, but is “committed to expanding the public debate further”.

The CISI highlighted Financial Planning Week - planned for May - targeted at bringing accessible Financial Planning to the general public.

Mr Campbell pointed out there had been a huge spike in consumer response following this year’s campaign and said: “Financial planning is out there.”

The CISI gets involved with Government and FCA on consultations on behalf of the IFP Forum. Mr Campbell said: “Much of this work might be unseen, but that does not mean it does not happen, and it has an effect on government policy and practice.”

The PFS also disputed the claim that planners lack a strong body.

In fact, chief executive Keith Richards recently told members that it is becoming increasingly influential in shaping Government policy, explaining that it holds frequent meetings with the Treasury and FCA.

He described how keen Government Ministers had been to listen to the organisation’s messages and said the PFS is not afraid to speak out on regulation where poor consumer outcomes loom.

Last month, the PFS met the Treasury six times, the FCA four times and the DWP once, he revealed.

Highlighting the growing influence of the PFS, he mentioned that one week after its response to the secondary annuities consultation, the Government announced it would bin the idea. The Treasury listened to concerns that risks of consumer detriment were too high, he said.

Mr Richards said: “We are becoming very quickly the default organisation to engage and participate in future Government policy decisions.

“We do have visibility and a voice and we will tackle things like the cost of regulation.”