LIZ KENDALL: 'There's a real risk tomorrow's pensioners are set to be poorer than today's'
Everybody should be able to look forward to retirement with hope, not fear.
This should be the moment when, after all your hard work, you have the time and financial security to do all things you love.
Perhaps it is spending more time with the grandkids, doing some voluntary work, taking up a new hobby or finally going on that holiday of a lifetime. I hope that is the case for Mirror readers who are now claiming their pensions.
But the truth is, that is not the reality facing many people. Unless we act, there is a real risk that tomorrow's pensioners are set to be poorer than today's.
Put simply, too many people are not saving enough for retirement. And often it is through no fault of their own.
Take women for example. A man currently approaching retirement may expect a private pension income of just over £200 per week, while a woman may expect just over £100 per week – almost 50% less, before the State Pension.
Or it could be someone who is not earning enough to be able to put money into a pension pot – with only one in four low earners in the private sector saving into a pension.
Over 3 million self-employed people are also not saving into a pension. Almost half of the working age population – some 18m people – are not saving anything towards their retirement. And the simple and stark fact is that those who do, are not saving enough.
Twenty years ago the last Labour government introduced reforms which required firms to automatically enrol staff onto a pension scheme.
It was one of the most successful, if unsung, policies in recent times, with eligible employees in workplace pensions rising from 55% to 88%.
Now we need to finish the job. And that means getting today's generation of workers to start saving into a pension. That's why today I am reviving the Pensions Commission.
The Commission will ensure we have a pension system fit for the next generation of retirees. One that works harder for savers and ensures future pensioners can look forward to a secure, fruitful retirement. One of hope, not fear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Unite union probe finds alleged £70m black hole from hotel project
A report released today claims Unite was overcharged £30m on the building of its hotel and conference centre in Birmingham - with boss Sharon Graham vowing to "get our money back" One of Britain's biggest trade unions Unite is sitting on a £70m loss from building a hotel and conference centre in Birmingham, according to a report out today. An independent investigation by the union has established that its former general secretary Len McCluskey was 'good friends' with directors of the main contractor which was given the job without a competitive tendering process.. The contractor, Liverpool-headquartered Flanagan Group, gave the left-wing firebrand Mr McCluskey Champions League final tickets and flew him there by private jet, according to a report published today. Unite has identified what it claims is £30m in overcharging on the hotel project. Britain's second biggest union says it spent at least £110m on a project that has been valued at just £37.5m. Flanagan Group told the Mirror that nobody was available for comment on today's report. Mr McCluskey's lawyers told the BBC that he paid for his own travel in full and that, to his recollection, he always paid the cost of his football tickets. Unite's current General Secretary Sharon Graham commissioned the investigations - dubbed Project Clean-Up - after she took over from Mr McCluskey in 2021. In April 2022, South Wales Police raided the Unite offices of a senior official, as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged 'criminal offences of bribery, fraud, money-laundering and tax evasion'. That official has left the union following a disciplinary process. Ms Graham said: 'When I was elected, I pledged to uncover the truth about allegations of historical corruption, particularly in relation to the Birmingham Hotel and Conference Centre. Today I have delivered on that promise. Getting to the truth has been ugly, with those with much to lose and different agendas using abhorrent tactics, in order to frustrate and divert the process. These tactics did not work. 'Regardless of where the ongoing police inquiries lead, the independent investigations are clear: money left our union when it should not have. And other money that should have come into the union did not. I make our members this promise: I will do everything in my power to get our money back. 'Creating transparency through the publication of this report is only the start. We need to ensure that this can never happen again. Looking to the future, Unite is in a very strong financial position. Our substantial resource going forward will be focused on the frontline, the workplace, strike pay, opening offices, and defending workers.' Unite has more than 1.2m members and says it is in a 'very healthy financial position' with liquid assets of over £160m and a balance sheet of around £400m. But an independent inquiry it commissioned from Martin Bowdery KC found that the union had been overcharged at least £30m by the main contractor on Birmingham. This alleged overcharging included 'numerous unexplained bills', with the union claiming that holes in blockwork walls should have cost £91,000 when in fact Unite says it was charged £1.3m. It accused Mr McCluskey of signing the contracts with the Flanagan Group and claimed he 'overruled Unite staff who raised questions, and overruled Unite's lawyers who advised against the contracts'. Mr McCluskey has said decisions were made by a former finance director who died in 2020 and that the high costs of the project were justified by the use of union labour. The Flanagan Group has said that it was "proud" of its work on the scheme and blamed "radical changes to design and working practices" for rising costs. The Serious Fraud Office is investigating the hotel project but a spokesperson said: 'In line with long established practice to avoid prejudice to law enforcement activity, we can neither confirm nor deny any investigation into this matter."
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Kemi Badenoch's 'panic button' reshuffle with return of top Tory to frontline
Former Cabinet Minister James Cleverly returns to frontline politics as Tory leader Kemi Badenoch shakes-up her top team in a desperate attempt to revive her party's gloomy fortunes Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has been accused of hitting the "panic button" with a reshuffle of her top team. The Conservative chief, who has been struggling to revive her party's gloomy fortunes, brought gaffe-prone Sir James Cleverly back into the fold. The former Foreign Secretary, who stood against Ms Badenoch in last year's Tory leadership contest, will now be Shadow Housing Secretary. His return to frontline politics means he will now face Deputy PM Angela Rayner, who is also Housing Secretary, in the Commons. In 2023, The Mirror reported the ex-Cabinet minister joked about giving his wife a date-rape drug - just hours after announcing a crackdown on the growing epidemic of drinks spiking. The top Tory told female guests at a No10 reception that 'a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night' was 'not really illegal if it's only a little bit'. A spokesman for the ex-Home Secretary said at the time: "In what was always understood as a private conversation, James, the Home Secretary tackling spiking, made what was clearly meant to be an ironic joke - for which he apologises." In the autumn of 2022 Sir James suggested getting rid of ex-PM Liz Truss would be a "disastrously bad idea". She announced her resignation seven days later. The following year the ex-minister- a key face in recent Tory governments - also said he could not remember if he ever described the Conservatives' flagship Rwanda deportation scheme as "batsh**". And the same year it was claimed he described a Labour MP's constituency as a "sh**hole". A source close to the then-Home Secretary denied the claim at the time. They added: "James made a comment. He called Alex Cunningham a sh** MP. He apologises for unparliamentary language. As was made would never criticise Stockton." Among other appointments on Tuesday the Tory MP Kevin Hollinrake, who held the housing brief, became chairman of the Conservative Party. Ex-chairman Nigel Huddleston was appointed Shadow Culture Secretary. A Labour source told The Mirror: 'After initially claiming her Shadow Cabinet would be in place until the next election, Kemi Badenoch has already hit the panic button." The Tory leader can shuffle as many deckchairs as she likes, but it'll still be the same old faces that were responsible for 14 years of failure. They crashed the economy and ran public services into the ground.' The Lib Dems added: 'Kemi Badenoch has appointed the very man who said that replacing Liz Truss as Prime Minister would be a terrible idea. It's like appointing an iceberg apologist to a role steering the Titanic. "The public won't forgive this group of failed former Conservative ministers for the damage they did to our economy and NHS." On Tuesday the Tory MP Ed Argar also quit as Shadow Health Secretary, citing a "health scare". Ms Badenoch said she was "saddened" that Mr Argar feels "unable to continue" in his position, but agreed "that you must put your health first". In a letter to the party leader dated July 9, Mr Argar said: "I had a health scare earlier this summer and remain grateful to the doctors and hospital staff who looked after me." He added: "I have been well looked after, but have also listened to what the doctors said to me, and have listened to my family, and have concluded that lightening my front-bench workload over the coming months, in order to complete my recovery and fully restore my health in that period, is the sensible approach." Mr Argar was replaced by Stuart Andrew, who previously held the culture brief.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain's pensions nightmare is putting the economy on the road to ruin
So the Government has announced another pensions commission. It's 20 years since the last one, and a lot has changed since then. But don't worry. As on much else, nothing of significance is going to happen in this parliament. The commission won't report for 18 months, and Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, has already ruled out any increase in mandated pension contributions for at least the duration of the current parliament. And please don't mention the triple lock, which, whatever the Commission says, is non-negotiable. Or for that matter, the age of entitlement to the state pension, which is the subject of another review that won't report until safely beyond the next election. The commitment on contributions will come as a relief to employers already clobbered by increases in National Insurance and a much higher minimum wage. But it all makes you wonder why ministers want to be in government at all. After 14 long years in the political wilderness, Labour is back in office – yet it seems to have not a clue what to do with it. Like rabbits frozen in the headlights, ministers appear incapable of serious reform. Everything is either shelved altogether or, as in this case, played off into the long grass of interminable review and government introspection. Bell insists that the purpose of the commission is not to prevaricate but to build a political consensus on pensions reform so we don't end up with things being reversed by the next government. It's also the case that the last pensions commission, chaired by Lord Turner, was by general agreement a rare success amid the general ruin of what today counts as public policy. The Government would dearly like to repeat the achievement. We'll ignore for now the fact that successive governments had in part created the problem Lord Turner was asked to address by undermining the pre-existing and remarkably effective system of final salary private pension provision. Gordon Brown's abolition of the tax credit on dividends, a measure that raised £5bn a year for the Exchequer and was slipped through with barely a murmur of dissent in his first Budget, was the final nail in its coffin. In any case, inadequate pension provision is again a burning issue. Many of us are not saving enough for a decent private pension, and nearly half of the working-age population is saving nothing at all. The main recommendation of the last pensions commission – auto-enrolment, where the employer is obliged to contribute to some form of pension unless the employee deliberately opts out – has been remarkably successful at improving things, but it didn't go far enough. This is in part because of the growth in self-employment and gig-economy jobs, where there is no full-time employer to match employee contributions and the incentives to save are therefore limited. Pension saving is particularly poor among low-wage and part-time workers, among those who dip in and out of employment, and among some ethnic minorities. By international standards, moreover, Britain has a generally low overall savings rate, a phenomenon that helps explain equally deficient levels of business and public sector investment in the wider economy. But that's not the main reason for wanting better private pension arrangements. The low savings rate disguises big differences where some save a lot, and can therefore look forward to a comfortable retirement of travel and indulgence, but others make little or no provision for their old age. Use of the triple lock to increase the relative value of the state pension has helped improve things a bit for those without private provision, but there is only so much the tax system will support, and we may already be close to the limit. Cue Labour's announcement that it is bringing forward the statutory review of the age of entitlement. This is already going up to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and then again to 68 between 2044 and 2046. But the further increase probably needs to happen sooner to mitigate the fiscal ruin Britain is falling into. A penny to a pound, Labour ducks that one too. In any event, the state pension alone doesn't buy you much of a life. The problem of both affordability and generosity in the state pension could theoretically be addressed by means-testing, allowing fewer to be paid more, but even if that were thought politically acceptable, by doing so the Government would only further undermine the incentives to save. This is what typically occurred in the old days before the advent of the triple lock. The state pension was so miserly that for those with no other source of income it had to be topped up with other entitlements under the so-called 'minimum income guarantee'. If you'd saved for a private pension you would lose those benefits, so for many it made no sense to do so. Today's more generous, flat-rate state pension has made the situation somewhat better than it was, partially removing the disincentives to save. Means-testing also tends to undermine wider support for the welfare state. Higher earners acquiesce to progressive taxation in part because they think they will get something back. The universal state pension is fundamental to this contract. If those paying the bulk of the tax get nothing out of it, then the system quickly loses legitimacy. There are some problems for which there are no solutions. How on earth you persuade the self-employed to save for a pension may be one of them. It may take some form of supercharged tax relief. But for the rest, the Australian model is plainly worth considering. In Australia, employers are obliged to contribute a minimum of 12pc of earnings to the employee's pension pot regardless of whether the employee is also paying in or not. This compares to just 3pc of qualifying earnings in the UK, with the employee obliged to pay a further minimum of 5pc. Although still well worth it for the employee, you'd be amazed at how many prefer to opt out and take the cash. The point is, however, that the amounts are too small to buy you much of a pension in retirement, and are nowhere near the level of contributions that used to go into defined benefit occupational pension schemes. If the relatively high level of compulsory contributions they have in Australia were introduced overnight to the UK, it would cripple many companies and lead to a big increase in unemployment. But if phased in, say in lieu of pay increases over a number of years, it might be made to work. After all, pension contributions are only a form of deferred pay. But first it would require something of a change in culture. Saving for tomorrow, rather than living for today in the expectation that the state will eventually provide, requires a big change in mentality. Persuading the voters, and their employers, won't be easy.
