The Treasury Committee, the parliamentary group of MPs which monitors financial regulation, has urged the Government to launch an independent review of the Money Advice Service (MAS) to decide whether it should be scrapped.
The Committe wants an investigation by next summer into whether the MAS, the state-backed body which promotes good financial practice to consumers, should continue to exist as a statutory organisation. It follows an inquiry into the MAS conducted by a Treasury Sub-Committee.
The chairman of the Sub-Committee, George Mudie MP, said: "The Money Advice Service is not currently fit for purpose. It is far from clear that it has adopted the right strategy or even that it is performing the correct role
"In finalising this report, the committee considered carefully whether to recommend that the MAS be scrapped completely. Given that the Treasury had already announced its intention to conduct a review of the MAS, we were persuaded to grant a stay of execution.
"We have asked the Government to expedite this review as a matter of urgency. We have also recommended that it should be independent, rather than led by the Treasury.
"The review must assess whether the MAS should continue to exist and, if so, how it can overcome the serious problems laid bare in this report. Its findings should be available for scrutiny by the Treasury Committee and others by the summer of 2014. Only then can a credible, informed decision on the future of the MAS be made.
"We also expect the current management of the MAS to study our report and to tell us how they are going to act on the concerns we have identified. People up and down the country, particularly at this time, need access to high quality money and debt advice. If this is to continue to be facilitated by a public body, a radical overhaul is needed."
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}
The Committee recommended that the independent review should seek to answer the following questions:
· Should the Money Advice Service—or something like it—exist as a statutory organisation?
· If so, what should the role and strategy of such a body be? Should it be a co-ordinator, commissioner or direct provider of advice? What channels should it use?
· If not, should the FCA take responsibility for the objectives of the Service?
· Does the FCA need greater statutory powers to hold the Money Advice Service to account?
· What are the views of other bodies in this sector about the way in which the Money Advice Service is now engaging with them?
· To what extent does the work of the Money Advice Service unnecessarily duplicate existing provision? What should the role of the Service be in each of the areas in which it operates?
· Is the remuneration of the Service's senior staff set at an appropriate level?

The Committee report found that "very large amounts" were spent on marketing the service's early years, suggesting an intention to build a separate brand, and in particular to rebrand as the Money Advice Service when the moneymadeclear brand was already in use. It describes this as "misguided."
The Treasury Committee suggests that during times of economic challenge, such as now, the MAS should be focused on helping people in crisis and in debt.
It also recommends that the MAS should provide funding from its existing budget for the training of teachers to deliver financial education in schools.
The Committee expressed concern about the "excessive" remuneration of the previous chief executive and some senior staff.