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'.
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
Telegraph
7 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.
North Wales Chronicle
8 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
State pension age review needed to ensure system ‘affordable'
The Government review is due to report in March 2029 and Ms Reeves said it was 'right' to look at the age at which people can receive the state pension as life expectancy increases. The state pension age is currently 66, rising to 67 by 2028 and the Government is legally required to periodically review the age. The Chancellor told reporters: 'We have just commissioned a review of pensions adequacy, so whether people are saving enough for retirement, and also the state pension age. 'As life expectancy increases it is right to look at the state pension age to ensure that the state pension is sustainable and affordable for generations to come. 'That's why we have asked a very experienced set of experts to look at all the evidence.' The review was announced by the Department for Work and Pensions on Monday and will involve an independent report, led by Dr Suzy Morrissey, on specified factors relevant to the Review of State Pension Age along with the Government Actuary's Department's examination of the latest life expectancy projections data. Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'There will be many factors that need to be assessed during this review of the state pension age. 'One of the most important will be healthy life expectancy which according to the latest data hovers in the early 60s. 'This means the reality is that many people will face real difficulties in continuing to work until their mid-to-late 60s and could face a sizeable income gap while they wait to receive their state pension.' Rachel Vahey, head of public policy at AJ Bell, said: 'An ageing population places an increasing burden on taxpayers, with state pension costs rising and fewer working-age taxpayers to cover the cost. 'Future governments will hope that an improved economy and growing tax receipts will help alleviate some of the pressure. But that can't be guaranteed and there needs to a be a credible plan for maintaining affordability.'
Daily Mirror
8 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
DWP issues new update for benefit claimants owed £1,000s in compensation
The payments are being issued to people who received certain disability benefits such as Employment and Support Allowance, who lost disability premiums after they were moved to Universal Credit The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has issued an update for disability benefit claimants who could be owed thousands of pounds in compensation. The payments are being issued to people who received certain disability benefits such as Employment and Support Allowance, who lost disability premiums after they were moved to Universal Credit before January 2019. As a result, some people lost out on severe disability premium (SDP) and enhanced disability premium (EDP). Law firm Leigh Day challenged this loss of income in court and argued that some people saw their payments drop by up to £180 a month. The DWP agreed to compensate for the loss of income, which Leigh Day estimates could be worth in excess of £5,000 per person. However, the DWP has now confirmed around 13,000 cases are yet to be processed and cleared. In its annual report published earlier this month, it said: "Unfortunately, some underpayments may be owed to customers who no longer have an active ESA claim and restrictions in data make it difficult to identify, assess and correct these errors." The DWP said it expects the remaining cases will be resolved by September. It is estimated that 57,000 people were affected by the issue and the total cost of the repayment exercise is expected to be £452million. Leigh Day secured a settlement for 275 claimants following its High Court challenge and these people were awarded between £200 and £3,000 in a damages. A DWP spokesperson told the Independent: 'We are fully committed to identifying claimants that are owed arrears and providing the financial support to which they are entitled as quickly as possible, with the majority of these cases having already been resolved. "We are clear that errors like this one should not happen and have already taken action to avoid future errors.' In a statement issued earlier this year, Leigh Day solicitor Ryan Bradshaw said: 'I am glad to have settled this claim on behalf of my clients. However, there are thousands of others who have been similarly affected who have not been in a position to bring a claim like this. 'They too will have experienced the loss of £180 a month after they were moved from legacy benefits on to universal credit in the years before January 2019. They too will have suffered unnecessary stress.' It comes as the DWP is finishing moving everyone on legacy benefits to Universal Credit. The benefits being replaced by Universal Credit are: Housing Benefit, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Child Tax Credit, Working Tax Credit and Income Support.
