Labour revives Pensions Commission amid fears workers are saving too little
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said 45% of working-age adults were putting nothing into their pensions.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said she was turning to the Pensions Commission, which last met in 2006, to 'tackle the barriers that stop too many saving in the first place'.
Liz Kendall's decision to revive the Pensions Commission has been broadly welcomed by the pensions industry (Gareth Fuller/PA)
The previous commission recommended automatically enrolling people in workplace pensions, which has seen the number of eligible employees saving rise from 55% in 2012 to 88%.
DWP analysis suggested 15 million people were undersaving for retirement, with the self-employed, low paid and some ethnic minorities particularly affected.
Around three million self-employed people are said to be saving nothing for their retirement, while only a quarter of people on low pay in the private sector and the same proportion from Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds are saving.
Women face a significant gender pensions gap, with those approaching retirement in line to receive barely half the income that men can expect.
Pensions minister Torsten Bell said: 'The original Pensions Commission helped get pension saving up and pensioner poverty down.
'But if we carry on as we are, tomorrow's retirees risk being poorer than today's. So we are reviving the Pensions Commission to finish the job and give today's workers secure retirements to look forward to.'
The commission will be led by Baroness Jeannie Drake, a member of the previous commission, and report in 2027 with proposals that stretch beyond the next election.
Ms Kendall's decision to revive the Pensions Commission has been broadly welcomed by the pensions industry.
Kate Smith, head of pensions at Aegon, urged the commission to make 'bold, brave and possibly unpalatable recommendations', including 'significant increases' to auto-enrolment contributions after 2029.
She also called on the commission to look at wider issues, saying: 'Sources of inequality and affordability are often linked to the way the labour market works, the housing market and societal norms, such as women taking on most of the caring responsibilities.
'These are not issues that can be addressed by pensions policy alone.'
AgeUK's Caroline Abrahams said the commission needed to address the state pension, which provides the bulk of retirement income for most pensioners.
She said: 'If we're to avoid future generations of pensioners experiencing financial hardship, we need reforms that enable more people to build a decent standard of living, and we need them sooner rather than later to maximise the numbers who can be helped.'
Ministers hope the Pensions Commission will build a consensus around changes, as its predecessor did, working with businesses and trade unions.
Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the Confederation of British Industry, said the 'only route' to higher living standards in retirement was through 'higher growth, productivity and better savings'.
She added: 'Taking the time to review the best pathway to achieve this, whilst pursuing broader measures to support growth, will be needed to make it affordable for employers and workers and crucial to the aim of rising living standards, now and in retirement.'
Paul Nowak, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said: 'Far too many people won't have enough pension for a decent retirement, and too many – especially women, BME (black and minority ethnic) and disabled workers and the self-employed – are shut out of the workplace pension system altogether.
'That's why this Pensions Commission – which will bring together unions, employers and independent experts – is a vital step forward.'
But shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused Labour of pushing the issue 'into the long grass'.
The MP said: 'The reality is they have piled up burdens on employers and workers, and that is why they have launched a pensions commission which will take years to report back and will only look at changes beyond the end of this decade.
'Conservatives in government introduced automatic enrolment which has revolutionised our pensions landscape. We should be building on that success, but now businesses and savers cannot afford to put more into pension pots thanks to Labour's reckless policies.
'Under Labour, pensioners are regarded as cash cows. Which is why it has come as little surprise that Rachel Reeves is looking to raise taxes on pensioners to plug the black hole she has dug herself.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Older women urged to check for State Pension back payments worth over £8,300
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has said that between January 8, 2024 and March 31, 2025, a joint State Pensions corrections exercise with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), identified 12,379 State Pension underpayments to women whose National Insurance (NI) records are incorrect. In 2022, the DWP became aware of a number of State Pension cases where it appeared that historic periods of Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) were missing, leading to inaccurate State Pension payments. So far, around £104 million in arrears have been paid out, with an average payment of £8,377. Retirement expert Helen Morrissey is urging older people to complete the online form or contact the Pension Service if they think they have been affected after new research from the DWP showed the main reasons why those who have received a letter from HMRC asking them to check their State Pension - as it could be wrong - have failed to do so. HMRC has sent out more than 370,000 letters - mostly to women - urging them to check their State Pension payments as they may be lower than they are entitled to. However, the DWP research indicates that the majority of people contacted by letter did not go on to apply for HRP. Barriers included: Not understanding the letter Thinking the communication was a scam Reliance on digital methods to put in a claim HRP was a scheme designed to help protect parents' and carers' entitlement to the State Pension and was replaced by NI credits from April 6, 2010. HMRC is using NI records to identify as many people as possible who might have been entitled to HRP between 1978 and 2010 and have no HRP on their NI record. After May 2000, it became mandatory to include a NI number on claims so people claiming after this point will not have been affected. The head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'This research lays bare the complexities the government faces in resolving the long running issue of underpaid State Pensions. The State Pension system has become so confusing that even when the UK Government has communicated with those who may have a claim, the complexity and jargon has put many of them off. This means many thousands are getting less than they are entitled to. 'Issues identified by the government include the use of jargon. Many simply didn't understand what was being asked of them -that mistakes made decades ago had been identified and could be rectified. 'Terms such as Home Responsibilities Protection haven't been used for many years - it's understandable that people may have little recollection as to whether they claimed it or not. 'The reliance on online forms to claim refunds was also a significant barrier, with many not feeling internet savvy enough to navigate the system without help.' Ms Morrissey continued: 'Notably many people decided not to take action because they feared doing so might actually reduce their state pension or they were scared that they had been targeted by scammers. It's clear the government faces an uphill battle if it is to successfully reunite those affected with their extra pension payments. 'The introduction of the New State Pension system in 2016 was meant to simplify things - and it should, but again challenges remain for these younger groups. Those who opted out of Child Benefit because of the High-Income Child Benefit Charge will not have known that by doing so they risk missing out on National Insurance credits towards their State Pension.' The UK Government has put measures in place to deal with this, but Ms Morrissey warns it remains something that can 'trip people up and so awareness needs to be raised on an ongoing basis'. The retirement expert added: 'Encouraging people to check their State Pension record to see if there are any gaps is vital - if there are mistakes, then they have time to correct them. 'If the gap has occurred during a period of time when they qualified for a benefit, such as Child Benefit, then they can backdate a claim and get the gaps filled for free. There's also the option of paying for voluntary contributions to make sure you get the most from your state pension.' How to use the online HRP tool You may still be able to apply for HRP, for full tax years (6 April to 5 April) between 1978 and 2010, if any of the following were true: you were claiming Child Benefit for a child under 16 you were caring for a child with your partner who claimed Child Benefit instead of you you were getting Income Support because you were caring for someone who was sick or disabled you were caring for a sick or disabled person who was claiming certain benefits You can also apply if, for a full tax year between 2003 and 2010, you were either: Who qualified automatically for HRP The guidance on explains that most people got HRP automatically if they were: getting Child Benefit in their name for a child under the age of 16 and they had given the Child Benefit Office their National Insurance number getting Income Support and they did not need to register for work because they were caring for someone who was sick or disabled If your partner claimed Child Benefit instead of you If you reached State Pension age before April 6, 2008, you cannot transfer HRP. However, you may be able to transfer HRP from a partner you lived with if they claimed Child Benefit while you both cared for a child under 16 and they do not need the HRP. They can transfer the HRP to you for any 'qualifying years' they have on their National Insurance record between April 1978 and April 2010. This will be converted into National Insurance credits. Married women or widows You cannot get HRP for any complete tax year if you were a married woman or a widow and: you had chosen to pay reduced rate Class 1 National Insurance contributions as an employee (commonly known as the small stamp) you had chosen not to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions when self-employed If you were caring for a sick or disabled person You can only claim HRP for the years you spent caring for someone with a long-term illness or disability between April 6, 1978 and April 5, 2002. You must have spent at least 35 hours a week caring for them and they must have been getting one of the following benefits: Attendance Allowance Disability Living Allowance at the middle or highest rate for personal care Constant Attendance Allowance The benefit must have been paid for 48 weeks of each tax year on or after April 6, 1988 or every week of each tax year before April 6, 1988. You can still apply if you are over State Pension age. You will not usually be paid any increase in State Pension that may have been due for previous years. If you were getting Carer's Allowance You do not need to apply for HRP if you were getting Carer's Allowance. You'll automatically get National Insurance credits and would not usually have needed HRP. If you were a foster carer or caring for a friend or family member's child You have to apply for HRP if, for a full tax year between 2003 and 2010, you were either: a foster carer caring for a friend or family member's child ('kinship carer') in Scotland All of the following must also be true: you were not getting Child Benefit you were not in paid work you did not earn enough in a tax year for it to count towards the State Pension If you reached State Pension age on or after 6 April 2010 Any HRP you had for full tax years before April 6, 2010 was automatically converted into National Insurance credits, if you needed them, up to a maximum of 22 qualifying years. A full overview of HRP can be found on here.
Daily Record
3 hours ago
- Daily Record
Former DWP employee urges all parents to claim Child Benefit to boost State Pension payments
Sandra Wrench shares three crucial reasons parents should not ignore Child Benefit. A former Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) employee with 42 years' experience dealing with State Pensions and benefits, is urging all parents to claim Child Benefit - even if they do not qualify for the payment element of the benefit delivered by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Sandra Wrench explains three key reasons for claiming Child Benefit, which include boosting National Insurance credits, National Insurance number allocation for your child, and topping up your State Pension. The ex-DWP employee told the Daily Record: 'With the introduction of the High Income Child Benefit Charge in January 2013, some parents whose earnings exceed the limit of £50-£60,000 have not bothered to submit a claim to Child Benefit after January 2013, as they are not entitled to the payment of Child Benefit. However, from April 2024 the earnings limit increased to £60,000 - £80,000.' Sandra continued: 'If your earnings exceed, it is essential that you still claim Child Benefit, but opt out of the payment. By opting out of the payment of Child Benefit, you do not then have any problem with HMRC chasing you for any overpayments. HMRC not only wants the Child Benefit repaid, but can also fine you. 'By opting out of the payment, this saves you having to complete any Tax Self Assessment, as regards child benefit.' To opt out of the payment of child benefit, there is a box on the Child benefit claim form in section 4 which you can tick. Key reasons to claim Child Benefit Sandra explained that there are three reasons for claiming Child Benefit, even if you opt out of the payment. National Insurance Credits You are entitled to NI (National Insurance) credits until the child reaches age 12. You get one credit for each week you have claimed child benefit, so 52 credits for a complete tax year gives you a qualifying year towards your State Pension. If you then have another child, your NI credits continue until the second child is 12. If your child was 12 in February, you would get NI Credits until the child was 12 in February. If you had not returned to work when your child was 12, so you had a part qualifying year from April to February, you could make it a qualifying year by paying Voluntary Class 3 contributions. So check your NI record on a regular basis, for any part qualifying years as well - you can do this on here or call HMRC NI helpline on 0300 200 3500. National Insurance Number Sandra explained: 'You need to make a claim to Child Benefit for your child to be automatically issued with a National Insurance Number (NINO) at age 16. If you do not register for Child Benefit, your child will not automatically receive a NINO at age 16, but will have to apply for a NINO. When you register a child with Child Benefit Centre, the child is allocated a NINO at that stage, which is then issued to the child at age 16. Specified Adult Child Care Credits If you return to work when your child is still under 12, and you pay NI contributions because you are working, you do not need the NI Child Benefit Credits. So if a family member, under State Pension Age (SPA), such as a grandmother or grandfather, is looking after the child under 12 while the parent is at work, the parent can pass the NI Child Benefit credits to that other family member. The credits can then be used by this other family member towards their own State Pension, if they have given up work. These NI Credits are then known as Specified Adult Child Care Credits, and you apply for them through HMRC. HMRC will not award the credits to this other family member without first checking that the parent has a qualifying year from working. You can only apply for these credits if the parent has claimed child benefit. Backdating Child Benefit Child Benefit can only be backdated three months, so you need to submit a claim to Child Benefit within three months of the birth of your child. NI Credits for Child Benefit If a claim for Child Benefit is made late, the claim can only be backdated three months, which means that NI Credits for Child Benefit can only be backdated three months as well. Sandra explained how this has resulted in some women losing out on the NI Credits for Child Benefit which would count towards their State Pension. This was reviewed by the UK Government in April 2023, and NI Credits can now be backdated to the birth of the child, so if you have missed out on these NI Credits, you will be able to claim these credits from April 2026. NINOs issued to 16 year olds, and change of address Sandra said: 'Please ensure you notify HMRC/ Child Benefit of any change of address as the NINO will be sent to your 16 year old at your last known address. 'With parents opting out of the payment of Child Benefit due to the High Income CB Charge, it is essential that parents notify the Child Benefit Centre of any change of address, so the NINO for their child is sent to the correct address. If a parent is not in receipt of Child Benefit, it becomes easy for a change of address to be overlooked and not notified to the relevant department. Child Benefit rates 2025/26 The new rates started on April 7: Eldest or only child - £26.05 a week Additional children - £17.25 a week per child Child Benefit is payable until the child is 16, or up to age 20 if the child is staying in approved education or training. Sandra warned: 'Do not confuse the actual payment of Child Benefit with NI Credits for Child Benefit - the payment of Child Benefit you get for the child up to the age of 16, the CB NI Credits are only available until the child reaches the age of 12. Full details on Child Benefit can be found on here. You can also contact the Child Benefit helpline is 0300 200 3100.
Fashion United
3 hours ago
- Fashion United
Trade union freedom is still a long way off in fashion: "It's essential that brands sit down with employees"
2023 and 2024 were years of protests for Bangladeshi garment workers. Tens of thousands of workers took to the streets, demanding, among other things, payment arrears and the lack of structural improvements: a living wage, meal allowances, raises for night shifts, and more lenient work duties for pregnant women. These protests were intended to be peaceful. According to agreements Bangladesh has had with the ILO since 1972, the workers were fully within their rights. However, employers and authorities silenced them with almost routine, degrading tactics such as violence, intimidation, and sometimes even imprisonment. Over one thousand trade unions have emerged in Bangladesh since the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory. However, in practice, employees who organise to defend their rights often find themselves powerless. Union busting Union busting, the systematic suppression of trade unions, is a social sustainability issue in Bangladesh, as well as in Myanmar, Cambodia, India, Egypt, Lesotho and other weakly regulated production countries. It violates two fundamental workers' rights: freedom of association (FoA) and the right to collective bargaining with employers. Union busting manifests itself, for example, in the form of violence, intimidation, harassment, dismissal or the arrest of union members and leaders. Also common is the 'separation' tactic. This is where employees active in the union are isolated from their colleagues and friends as punishment. They may also be strategically transferred to another department to weaken important social ties crucial for an effective union. These tactics are also used to deter non-members. For fear of reprisals, they are less likely to join an association. In this way, employers fuel a vicious cycle in which the union shrinks and loses its bargaining power. Recent cases The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) reported on recent union-busting cases. In Sri Lanka, an employee was forced to withdraw from her association, The Women's Centre. When she persisted, she was transferred to other production lines (separation). When she refused the request to switch from her camp to her employer's 'works council', she was dismissed. In Cambodia, union leader Soy Sros was arrested after speaking out on social media about planned redundancies of union members, including a pregnant woman. Brands such as Michael Kors and Tory Burch have luxury accessories made in the factory. Yellow unions A driving factor in the persistence of union busting is the rise of 'yellow' unions, which do not act in the interests of garment workers. They are not independent, like a 'red' union. Christie Miedema of the Clean Clothes Campaign explains: 'Yellow unions are usually set up by factory management or officials. Union leaders are often pressured to cooperate with management, in exchange for, for example, a promotion or pay rise.' At JAW Garment in Cambodia, for example, management tried to bribe union representatives with salaries of 600 dollars (three times the minimum wage) to quit their jobs, according to the BHRRC report. In some cases, management succeeds in this approach, and unions can change colour. They start out independent but become yellow through bribery. Yellow unions follow the same registration process as red unions, but are approved more quickly because they have the support of management or the authorities. An example is Dekko Designs in Bangladesh, which produces for brands including Asos and Bestseller. At the end of 2021, one-third of the workers registered for a red union. During that process, 19 employees lost their jobs and more were harassed, intimidated and burdened with extra work. When the Ministry of Labour visited for an audit – as a standard part of the procedure – workers who wanted to sign up were threatened. As a result, the inspection did not find enough members to officially recognise the union. Meanwhile, a yellow union in the factory, supported by the employer and the government, was registered without any problems. Inside a garment factory in Asia. Credits: Clean Clothes Campaign. Worker committees Sometimes factory management presents worker or participation committees as an alternative structure. Miedema emphasises that these are not trade unions and that they are very limited in their bargaining power and rights. Employers and brands often point to worker committees as proof that there is a representative body to represent the 'worker voice'. In practice, this is often not the case. Miedema also stresses that legally only employees are allowed to form a trade union. 'Management is not allowed to interfere with this at all, and certainly not allowed to set up alternative employee representative bodies. They must ensure that employees have the space and freedom to organise and stand up for their interests. This is also laid down in the relevant international conventions, ILO 87 (on freedom of association) and 98 (on collective bargaining)." Impact of fake unions According to Human Rights Watch, both yellow unions and committees are increasingly used in major RMG producing countries such as Bangladesh. Independent trade unions, in turn, suffer from this, says Miedema. 'When factories or brands are confronted with questions and public attention about violations of trade union rights, they put forward these alternatives as 'legitimate' representatives. Independent unions then have to refute this, which costs a lot of time and money. Moreover, it can lead to confusion in the media.' The fake unions also create confusion within the factory, Miedema says. This makes it difficult for independent unions to recruit enough members; without mass, a union has no recognition and no bargaining power. Ongoing problem The obstacles to freedom of association and bargaining vary greatly from country to country, says Kate Jelly, labour rights researcher at BHRRC. 'In Cambodia, a factory can have dozens of unions, but few are independent due to employer tactics (union busting). China has no legal framework for establishing independent trade unions at all. In Myanmar, one emerged after the economic and political liberalisation of the early 2010s, but after the 2021 coup, its enforcement was halted and a harsh crackdown on unions and their leaders began. This resulted in an increase in labour and human rights violations.' Jelly notes that these problems are not new, but that the dominant fast-fashion model has triggered their presence – and restrictions on freedom of association in general. 'When independent unions achieve results for workers – in the form of higher wages and better working conditions – it costs employers money. Fundamental to the fast-fashion model is that buyers at the top of the supply chain constantly pressure their suppliers to produce as cheaply as possible. Independent unions pose a threat to that system.' Add to that the fact that the apparel industry is in dire straits, and it becomes more understandable why brands are not very active in pursuing improvement. Meanwhile, human rights organisations continue to document abuses through so-called trackers, in which the brands involved are also named and can respond with an official statement or compensation. Often, their response is lacking. One example: after the murder of union leader Shahidul Islam in Bangladesh in June 2023, the Clean Clothes Campaign set up a compensation fund and called on brands such as New Yorker and InWear to contribute. The counter stands at two percent. Workers in Bangladesh demanding from Adidas to pay wages owed. Credits: Clean Clothes Campaign Success stories Recent success stories show what unions can achieve when they are well organised. Take the case won by the Turkish union BİRTEK-SEN against manufacturer Baykan Denim. After employees lost their homes in the severe earthquakes of February 2023, they were dismissed without compensation. Affiliated brands such as Next, Gina Tricot and Urban Outfitters acknowledged the violation but went no further than advising the workers to pursue a costly lawsuit against Baykan Denim themselves. Under pressure from the Clean Clothes Campaign and one brand, Inditex, the factory relented and paid out 32,000 dollars in compensation almost three years after the disaster. At the Serbian sock factory Valy d.o.o., which supplies Primark, among others, the Sloga union achieved success in a case concerning underpaid overtime. After attempts at union busting, including a lawsuit against union leader Željko Veselinović, 98 workers were finally paid their back wages. Even greater is the impact of the global PayYourWorkers campaign, which has been endorsed by 285 trade unions and human rights organisations. The campaign asks brands to contribute half a percent of their order costs to a permanent fund for affected garment workers. Through joint pressure, 40 million dollars has already been raised for wage arrears and severance pay. The road to freedom of association What does the road to freedom of association for garment workers look like? Miedema: 'Clothing brands can ensure that all their suppliers publicly support the right to freedom of association and communicate this to their employees. They can indicate to suppliers how important they consider free trade unions and reliable audits. They can actively address reports and complaints about violations of this right at their suppliers. They can sit down with the unions to further elaborate on this, and they can publicly express their support for due diligence legislation in the Netherlands and at the European level.' The European CS3D, or 'anti-blind-eye law', after years of lobbying, creates opportunities for social sustainability in the textile supply chain, particularly with the option of suing a company in, for example, Bangladesh, in a country like the Netherlands. Earlier this year, the law was undermined by a new Omnibus proposal, which would exempt many large companies from their social sustainability obligations – a setback for human rights organisations. And yet, says Jelly, it offers prospects for the unions. 'Even with a weakened CSDDD, due diligence can initiate necessary conversations with workers and trade unions – they themselves are experts on human rights violation risks in the most vulnerable links of the textile supply chain.' Source list: This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
