View more on these topics

Govt advisers search for answers on auto-enrolment

There is still a lack of consensus around some of the key features of auto-enrolment, including who should be included in the scheme, according to the chairs of the group working on the Government’s review.

The Department for Work & Pensions published its terms of reference for the review in February. That document said the review would focus on the coverage of auto-enrolment, engagement, future contributions, simplifying the system, the charge cap, and also wider policy changes such as the new state pension, the Lifetime Isa and pension freedoms.

It also named the three industry experts who would lead an advisory group charged with giving advice to the DWP, which will inform a report expected to be laid before Parliament before the end of the year.

Speaking at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association conference in Manchester last week, the three chairs — Standard Life pensions strategy head Jamie Jenkins, The People’s Pension trustee director Ruston Smith and Pensions Policy Institute director Chris Curry — explained to delegates their thinking so far.

Auto-enrolment for the self-employed: The future or destined for failure?

Jenkins, who is responsible for reviewing the coverage of auto-enrolment, said the working group had asked if anyone should be excluded from auto-enrolment.

He said: “Generally speaking, the response has been that that would be a dangerous precedent. The response so far has been that people should not be excluded.”

Jenkins said the next question was whether more people should be included in auto-enrolment. Indeed, several providers — including Royal London and Aviva — have put forward suggestions for how self-employed workers could be included in a potential form of auto-enrolment.

However, he said: “There is little consensus as to who that should be. The self-employed are not a homogenous group of people. That does not lend itself to one solution and that has been quite clear in the feedback. Few people agree on how or which groups.”

Curry, who was tasked with looking into an evidence base for future contributions, said there was no consensus on the right level of contribution, when new levels should be implemented or who should bear the burden for a potential increase.

He said: “It will be difficult to come up with a single answer in the short term and it is right the review has decided that now is not the right time to decide what the rate should be in the future.”

Minimum total auto-enrolment contributions are set to increase from 2 per cent to 5 per cent in April 2018 and then to 8 per cent in April 2019.

Curry says: “What we don’t know is how individuals are going to react when contributions increase next April. Because it is coming in as a number of other things change, people may not be aware, and we know that inertia is very powerful so we may not see much change in behaviour. It is important we have facts on which to base the results.”

Paul Lewis: Why auto-enrolment will not mean auto-enrichment

Smith was charged with looking into ways of strengthening engagement with savers and workplace pensions. He says two themes to come out of the review so far are the language used around pensions and how annual statements sent to customers could be improved.

Smith says inertia plays a role in people staying enrolled in their workplace pension but advertising from the DWP and work from employers has also reinforced the message.

Pensions minister Guy Opperman was also speaking at the conference and said he hoped to deliver the initial report to Parliament in the week of 6 December.

Opperman said: “I am utterly passionate about auto-enrolment and committed to it. I want to make the case that it is good for employers as well as employees.

“Success won’t be achieved by getting auto-enrolment to work for all. We need the schemes to be well governed and efficient with transparent costs and charges.”


Pensions minister: ‘No doubt’ auto-enrolment will reach self-employed

Pensions minister Guy Opperman has sounded a bullish note that the Government will not back down on its commitment to extend auto-enrolment to the self-employed. Speaking at a session at the Conservative Party Conference supported by Old Mutual last night, Opperman praised auto-enrolment’s track record, and said that the Government was united on a desire […]

Robo firms struggle to enter auto-enrolment market

Online wealth managers have struggled to enter the UK auto-enrolment market because of high costs and legislation and are now looking elsewhere for opportunities. Moneyfarm chief financial officer Paolo Savini Nicci tells Money Marketing the firm has no plans to get involved in auto-enrolment, because of a “crowded” marketplace, relatively low account values and high costs. […]


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. Its easy Auto Enrolment should be abolished and funds returned,,, Why o Why are Product Providers and politicians being PAID to give their ideas on subsidising people to save, o yes because they are paid!! I say as an employer and an IFA pay people the correct wage /Fee/commission and let them decide what they want to do with their money, we have ISA’s & LISA, we do not need the nanpedanpy state pontificating on what’s best for us and then using Tax rebates as an incentive,,, and if you feel that’s is not correct, answer this why are those not paying tax, ie the very low paid not included!! surly its exactly those who will vastly require state aid into retirement

    • Spot on Robert.

      This woebegone scheme should be scrapped. It is nothing but Government shirking its responsibility. What we need is a decent state pension. Ours is about the lowest in the OECD as a percentage of average national earnings.

      The contributions to AE should go to a Sovereign Wealth fund (not the diddle that is NI. How it will be funded in addition should be discussed and worked out and the farce that we have at the moment should be consigned to the bin. (AE AND NI)

      • Re-: Sovereign Wealth Fund

        I wholeheartedly agree Harry, and a lot of us have been saying the same for years, and simplifying the tax regime we have at present.

        But we know things like VAT, NI, and the loads of little tax benefits and charges are at the end of the day “vote winners” a chance to hoodwink us the voter, by the chancellor to take from one hand give with the other only for it to revolve around and around not really moving in one direction or the other (bit like the front line in the 1st world war)

        At the end of the day the country needs XYZ so we need ABC in tax revenue. But then simple and common sense does not apply and are forgotten words it seems

        • Auto-enrolment has included around 9m new savers. When I started advising in 1983 I hoped we could encourage everyone to save for themselves for their future. It hasn’t been till 2013 that we have seen any improvement.

          I really don’t understand what IFAs can have against this democratisation of saving. It is almost as if you want a small part of the population as your clients and the rest to be reliant on state hand-outs!

          I am posting in protest!

  2. My concern is about extending coverage to the ultimate margin.

    There will those people for whom a PPP is not the answer.

    Firstly because they can not afford to save.

    Also for those saving very small amounts it will be impossible to reduce charges to a point which is viable for investors and providers.

Leave a comment