Download Free Automatic Enrolment In Workplace Pensions And The National Employment Savings Trust Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Automatic Enrolment In Workplace Pensions And The National Employment Savings Trust and write the review.

The Government established NEST as a low-cost pension scheme to help deliver the auto-enrolment programme and to address a market failure in the pensions industry which meant that many employers and employees were unable to access low-cost, good quality pension provision. However, the Committee believes that certain restrictions placed on NEST will create complexity for employers and will disadvantage some employees. The Committee's report recommends that, if state aid rules allow, the Government should remove the following restrictions: the cap on the annual contributions an individual can make to a NEST scheme; and the ban on individuals transferring existing pension pots into NEST. The Committee further urges the Government to proceed with its plans for State Pension reform, introducing a flat-rate State Pension and reducing the level of means-testing without delay. The report also highlights the difficulties and complexity employers and employees currently face in comparing the fees and charges applied by pension providers and recommends that, from 2013 onwards, if some auto-enrolment schemes still have hidden charges, or charges that represent poor value for money, the Government should use its powers to intervene. Auto-enrolment will impose new costs and may be particularly challenging for small employers however the Committee considers that the Government has taken appropriate steps to minimise the impact on businesses through its gradual and flexible approach ("staging and phasing") to implementation. Exempting small employers would create significant complexity, as well as excluding many employees from the benefits of workplace pension saving
Current policy is that new duties will be staged in between 2012 and 2016, requiring all employers to designate a pension scheme into which all of their employees, aged between 22 and state pension age, should be automatically enrolled, so long as they are earning above an annual earnings threshold (the Pensions Act 2008 sets this at £5,035, equivalent to £5,732 in today's terms). Upon automatic enrolment, a minimum of eight per cent of earnings within a band would be contributed to the pension, with at least three per cent coming from the employer. This policy is designed to maximise private pension saving by individuals without imposing compulsion. The right to opt out will remain. This review looks at the scope of automatic enrolment and whether a new national pension scheme (National Employment Savings Trust or NEST) needs to be put in place for it to work. One of the most significant recommendations that it makes is that people should only be automatically enrolled once they reach the income tax threshold (which will increase to £7.475 in 2011) but that contributions should be on earnings in excess of the National Insurance earnings threshold (£5,715 in today's prices). There should be no changes to age thresholds and automatic enrolment duties should apply to all employers, regardless of size, as now. Employers should be given three months before auto-enrolment to ease the burden on companies. If staff choose to enrol before the three month period then companies will have to make contributions
The introduction of auto-enrolment makes rigorous pension scheme governance essential. This Report calls on the Government to reassess the case for establishing one body with sole responsibility for regulating workplace pensions. There are concerns over current gaps in regulation and the potential for further gaps to arise as a result of now having three regulators, the Pensions Regulator; and the new Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, set up to replace the FSA. The Report argues that a single regulator is necessary to ensure that all members of workplace pension schemes are adequately and consistently protected. It also highlights that deferred-member charges and member-borne consultancy charges have the potential to cause serious consumer detriment. It recommends that both are banned by the Government, if significant progress is not made in the very near future by the industry towards ending them. There is particular concern about member-borne consultancy charges and those charges applied to deferred members - people who stop contributing to their pension scheme. The trend towards lower pension scheme charges is welcome. However, a good average is not sufficient and there is potential for consumer detriment in schemes that persist in retaining high charges. The Government should also regularly review its policy on capping charges for auto-enrolment schemes. Consumers are also continuing to lose out when they buy annuities because pension providers are not doing enough to ensure people are aware that they can shop around for the best annuity rate rather than being obliged to buy an annuity from their pension provider.
Since the introduction of automatic enrolment in October 2012, almost all larger employers have enrolled their workers in a workplace pension, thereby increasing the number of people saving for retirement. Employer compliance has been high and the proportion of people choosing to opt out from automatic enrolment has been lower than expected. The Department for Work & Pensions, the Pensions Regulator and the National Employment Savings Trust and other pension providers are now facing the more difficult task of supporting 1.8 million small employers through automatic enrolment. They will need to monitor the experiences of small businesses-including 900,000 employers with only 1 or 2 employees-and minimise administrative burdens, while also ensuring that increased enrolment translates into adequate incomes in retirement. We will be returning to this subject, which is of vital importance to both employees themselves and to future governments as they plan for pensions, and we have asked the Department to update us on progress over the next 12 months
For auto-enrolment to continue to work successfully, NEST must be allowed to thrive. Employers want simplicity. They want to be able to choose one pension scheme to cover all their employees. The cap on annual contributions to NEST means that employers can't opt for NEST for their higher-earners or if they want to make more generous contributions. So some employers are dismissing the NEST option and choosing a private pension provider who can offer a scheme for all their employees. NEST is required to be a low-cost scheme and to offer good value. Other pension providers don't have this same obligation. There is therefore a risk that the restrictions will mean some employees are prevented from having access to the best value pension scheme available. The Government has already made clear that it will need to "fix" the issue of transfers in and out of NEST if it wishes to implement its "pot follows member" solution to the current problem of small pension pots. Amongst recommendations made in the report is that the Government should make it a priority to gain certainty on the conditions for the European Commission's approval of state aid for NEST, to ensure that this is no longer perceived to be an obstacle to removing the restrictions. Auto-enrolment begins for medium and small employers from 2014. They will begin preparations a year to 18 months before then. Now is the time for action to be taken, it cannot wait until 2017.
This book explores the historical position of pensions law in the UK and the recent influences which have led to the introduction of Auto-Enrolment and subsequent reforms. Alternative models, such as the US and Australia, are also considered as well as the function of law in bringing about political changes. The question of saving for retirement is of national and international importance and many governments are wrestling with the issue of how to deal with the pension funding crisis. Consequently political policy has, in many cases, combined with behavioural science to inform new laws which have acted to shift the burden from the state into the private sector. Around the world responsibility is being moved onto individuals and employers as the state retreats from provision of state support in retirement; this book offers a sophisticated analysis of the role of legal intervention to facilitate this shift. The book explores the work of behavioural economics, its global influence on understanding financial decision-making and its application to legislation which seeks to influence consumer outcomes. Drawing on qualitative empirical research to explore the experience of implementation of Auto-Enrolment, this timely work considers the interaction with the work of behavioural science to highlight the social costs of the new regulatory regime.
In Reinvigorating workplace pensions1 published last November, the Government set out to explore whether there was scope for a new category of defined ambition (DA) pensions that would complement the defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) structures that currently dominate the market. Automatic enrolment and the single-tier State Pension will provide a firm foundation for saving for retirement. But if the current forms of DC pension saving become the default alternative to traditional DB, the pension income of future generations from workplace pensions will be more uncertain than for past generations. Over the last 12 months the DA project - a joint project between DWP and the pensions industry - has been exploring options in a middle ground. The Government proposes that the regulation of workplace pension schemes should not focus on the detail of benefit design but on what is important to the member: ensuring that any promise or guarantee, whether from the sponsoring employer or scheme, provider is delivered. This Government proposes to make it easier for employers to sponsor new pension schemes where benefits accrue on a specified basis (e.g. related to salary); and also to allow additional flexibilities for future accruals only within existing DB schemes, including the possibility of allowing a statutory override to facilitate these changes. The new flexibility will remove constraints from the existing legislative framework while still giving employees the certainty of a pension scheme where the benefits are defined (such as in relation to their salary) with the security of the promise being sponsored by their employer
Access to Work (AtW) is an important element of specialist employment support for disabled people. It is unique in providing help to people already in, or about to start, mainstream work. It has the potential to be an extremely effective model, helping to address the substantial gap between the employment rate for disabled people and that of the rest of the population. Where it works well, it transforms the lives of disabled people, many of whom would be unable to work without it.There is strong evidence that AtW currently supports only a minority of disabled people whom it might benefit. There is a misperception that the sole purpose of AtW is to provide physical aids, equipment and transport for people with sensory impairments and physical disabilities; consequently relatively few people with other types of disability, and different support needs, currently use the programme. In scaling up the programme DWP needs to address this imbalance. Its priority should be supporting a much greater number of people with mental health problems, and intellectual, cognitive and developmental impairments, including learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. AtW's focus should remain on removing barriers to employment for the full range of disabled people who can benefit from it. DWP should make a strong and evidence-based case to HM Treasury for substantial additional funding for AtW and then aim to increase take-up through much more high profile marketing, and proactive promotion of AtW, including through Jobcentre Plus Work Coaches and contracted employment services providers.
In 2008, the Liaison Committee and the Government agreed a process for departmental select committees to undertake pre-appointment hearings in which they examine the suitability of the Government's preferred candidate for certain public posts. The purpose is to test the individual's independence and expertise, consider any potential conflicts of interest and explore how the individual intends to undertake the job, including his or her accountability to the Committee. Select committees do not have the power to veto appointments. However, the Minister is expected to consider relevant observations before proceeding with an appointment. The pre-appointment hearing for the posts of Pensions Ombudsman and Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman (held by the same individual) falls within the remit of the Work and Pensions Committee. On 15 October 2014 the Minister for Pensions informed us that Tony King, the current Pensions Ombudsman and Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman, would be stepping down in spring 2015.[4] He set out the recruitment exercise that would be followed to select the new Ombudsman and invited us to undertake pre-appointment scrutiny of the preferred candidate, in accordance with the agreed arrangements. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched the recruitment process on 29 November 2014. The Minister notified us of the name of the preferred candidate on 3 February 2015. In announcing the selection process, DWP also indicated that a recruitment exercise would be undertaken for the post of Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (and Deputy Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman). This is a part-time role and is not subject to a pre-appointment hearing.