View more on these topics

Clamour grows for DWP to lower auto-enrol earnings trigger

A powerful coalition of trade unions, providers and directors are uniting to demand the auto-enrolment earnings trigger is lowered.

Last month, the Government launched a review of the auto-enrolment earnings trigger, raising the possibility of scrapping the link with the income tax threshold.

Income tax personal allowance has risen dramatically over this parliament from £6,475 in 2010 to £10,500 next April – it is £10,000 today.

The Department for Work and Pensions consultation set out four options for reform – freezing the earnings trigger at the current level of £10,000; raising the trigger by indexation (CPI or earnings); increasing the trigger to £10,500, in line with the income tax threshold; or using the Pensions Commission benchmark replacement rate to determine the trigger.

But experts warn the options do not go far enough and call for more radical action from policymakers.

The Institute of Directors wants to abolish all limits and the Trades Union Congress wants a level below the national insurance threshold. Meanwhile, Hargreaves Lansdown wants auto-enrolment to start at £7,800.

Pension providers Aegon and Standard Life favour freezing the threshold at £10,000, but the Confederation of British Industry says it should remain linked to income tax until 2018.

IoD senior adviser on financial services Malcolm Small says: “Our members regard the rules set around band earnings as way too complicated to understand.

“We would argue not to alter the levels but to abolish them so if I earn a £100 this week then 3 per cent goes into my pension – it should be automatic and needs radical simplification. We don’t want to debate the level but to get rid of it.”

Aegon regulatory strategy manager Kate Smith also calls for a simple solution but says the trigger should be frozen at £10,000. Standard Life head of pensions strategy Jamie Jenkins says freezing the threshold is a reasonable compromise.

TUC pensions policy officer Tim Sharp says: “The auto-enrolment thresholds were done for good reason but it was not envisaged that income tax thresholds would rise so fast.

“It is right to re-consider it but my concern is the four options for reform are not that radical. The Government should think wider than the options outlined.

“One in four women earn less than £10,000 so there is concern about gender inequality.”

Hargreaves Lansdown head of pensions research Tom McPhail says now is the moment to change thresholds.

He says: “With so much going on with pensions, it’s not surprising that the Government is losing track of some of its policies; it makes no sense for the DWP to carry on blindly increasing the thresholds when the rules of game have fundamentally changed.”

But CBI head of public services reform Jim Bligh says the level should remain linked to income tax and rise to £10,500 next April.

He says: “If we change the thresholds now then it will create significant administrative burdens for existing employers who have already gone through auto-enrolment.

“They will have to re-enrol people. It is also for employers getting ready for auto-enrolment now. There are 84 per cent of employers are preparing their systems for auto-enrolment so the last thing we want to do is change the rules at this stage. If anything changes we want it to happen in 2018 when it is fully rolled out but certainly not now.”



FCA: Industry does not understand capacity for loss

Many advisers do not understand what capacity for loss means and should rely on their own calculations rather than clients’ “emotional” responses, says the FCA. Speaking at an Open University Business School conference in London yesterday, FCA technical specialist Rory Percival said some advisers still confuse capacity for loss with risk profiling. He said: “One […]


Chris Sier: UK can learn from Netherlands on cost disclosure

This week the Financial Services Consumer Panel released a paper outlining key issues for long-term savers created by opacity in the true cost of investing in pensions. As auto-enrolment of workers into (predominantly) defined contribution pensions continues apace the impact of under-reported costs comes increasingly to the fore. Research has showed that over a savings […]

Flexible reversionary trusts and estate planning

The suitability of different estate planning solutions will depend on the individual’s own circumstances, needs and objectives. When considering the different solutions available there is a trade-off between inheritance tax (IHT) efficiency and access. Overall a flexible reversionary trust provides a greater level of flexibility than a discounted gift trust and can offer individuals a […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Talkn about vested interests./ Sure why not further reduce the take home pay of the least well off. Those who probably haven’t seen a pay rise for 6 years, whose weekly outgoings have risen inexorably and who all political [parties are striving to make a little better off – hence the rising tax threshold.

    What are these people on?

    What they should be campaigning for is to exempt all firms with 10 employees or less and to raise the minimum wage.

  2. Not sure why Mr Bligh thinks people will have to be re-enrolled?

  3. Christopher Petrie 19th November 2014 at 9:50 pm

    Not for the first time, I disagree with Harry K on this subject.

    Why should an employee who only has 8 other colleagues be deprived of a pension contribution from his employer? Workers in small businesses get old too.

    AE is an excellent way of society genuinely sharing the burden of its older population. Real money. Real savings. No ponzi scheme or broken promises.

    And open to everyone – properly egalitarian.

    It’s not perfect. But it’s the biggest improvement in pension provision I’ve ever seen…particularly for working class people…the ones most often forgotten.

  4. @Christopher Petrie

    There is nothing to stop an employer (Or indeed an employee) having a pension,. My issue is with compulsion on employers to become benefit agencies and the fact that AE is (to be very polite) a naff scheme with naff investment choices.

    Oddly I was speaking to a client yesterday who has a pretty decent PP of her won. She was asking about AE. I went “off piste2 and asked he what car she drove. Answer – a BMW.

    My response; OK so the pension you have now is a BMW – AE is a Daewoo – which would you prefer?

  5. IMHO the trigger now feels very high given that it was previously set in a time when the threshold it is linked to was so much lower – don’t forget however that many of those earning below this can still benefit from employer contributions.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm