View more on these topics

Steve Webb: Why auto-enrolment for care costs is just too risky

Steve-Webb-in-2014-700.jpgThe proposal would jeopardise the huge progress that has been made so far on the pension front

A minister recently told me that “nudging” people into saving for a pension through auto-enrolment has been so successful everyone in government now wants to use the same process to promote their favoured cause.

Based on a leaked letter from the health secretary to the prime minister, it looks as though funding social care costs could be the next policy area to get the auto-enrolment treatment.

Is this, as ministers believe, a painless way to get extra money into social care? Or could it risk jeopardising the success of auto-enrolment altogether?

Yvonne Goodwin: Where clients get caught out with care home funding

The details are sketchy but the suggestion seems to be that, alongside being enrolled into a workplace pension, employees would also be defaulted into contributing to a personal fund for future social care costs.

As with pension auto-enrolment, there would be an opt-out, but those contributing would otherwise build up a fund which would mean they had something set aside if they faced big care costs in later life.

Removing the lottery
If the scheme worked, it could remove the lottery which means that tens of thousands of people each year end up having to sell their family home to meet high care bills.

The plan seems to be that funds built up in this way would be used to buy “care insurance” later in life.

The big advantage of this approach is that it would allow people to pool the risks of what the Dilnot report described as “catastrophic” care costs.

The issue with care costs is that some of us will have zero bills, many will have relatively modest bills, but a minority of us will end up paying tens of thousands or more because of a prolonged stay in residential care or with extensive care in our own home. Few of us can simply save enough to cover the maximum costs we might face, so an insurance approach would help make sure no one had to bear these costs on their own.

While I do agree an insurance approach to social care is the right one, I have serious concerns about the idea of using auto-enrolment to enable people to build a care fund in this way.

Knock-on effect
One of my biggest concerns is the potential knock-on effect on auto-enrolment for pensions.

It is widely accepted that, although auto-enrolment has been a success, it remains a job half done.

There are big issues relating to the coverage of the scheme, including the lack of anything similar for five million self-employed workers, and a continuing concern about the inadequacy of the statutory minimum contribution rate.

Even with the April step-up in contributions, people will still only be required to put in 8 per cent of a band of “qualifying earnings” – a figure most would accept is far short of what is needed.

Paul Lewis: Care Isa is not the answer to long-term care crisis

The government has, quite rightly, announced plans to extend the scope of the scheme, bringing in workers from age 18 and abolishing the concept of qualifying earnings, but even these relatively modest changes are not slated to come into effect until the mid-2020s.

Even after these changes have been made, mechanisms will be needed to get contribution rates up beyond 8 per cent, such as a process of automatic escalation, whereby pay rises trigger increased contribution rates.

A step too far
Against this backdrop, putting in place a second auto-enrolment system focused on care would be very risky.

An obvious concern is that opt-out rates – which have remained mercifully low so far – would start to soar. It is hard enough to expect someone in their 20s or 30s to think ahead to life in their late 60s, but getting them to think about their care needs in their 80s may be a step too far.

This would jeopardise the huge progress that has been made so far on the pension front.

There is also an issue of complexity. Would employers now have to choose both a workplace pension provider and a workplace care fund provider?

Assuming workplace pension providers offered the care product as a bolt-on, would employees be able to opt out of one and not the other? How easy would that be to communicate to workers?

A far simpler approach would be to redouble efforts to ensure more people had meaningful pension pots at retirement, and then enable them to use part of their pots to buy care insurance if they wished, probably with tax breaks for those who chose to do so.

This would avoid the need for double auto-enrolment with all the risk and complexity that this would entail.

Steve Webb is director of policy at Royal London



Just raises £300m with new bond issue

Pensions provider Just has raised an additional £375m in capital through a bond issue and equity placing. The bonds, which are issued by listed holding company Just Group plc, have a first call date in April 2024. They have an annual interest rate of 9.375 per cent, payable semi-annually in arrears, and meet the requirements […]

Five minutes with…Barnett Waddingham Sipp specialist James Jones-Tinsley

With Sipps sales continuing their upward trajectory, Money Marketing talks to Barnett Waddingham self-invested pensions technical specialist James Jones-Tinsley about making pensions tax simple and the role of advice ahead of the Money Marketing Interactive conference. What do you think is behind the increasing complexity of pensions taxation? Continuous tinkering of the pension rules by […]


FCA under fire for failing to track consumer outcomes

The National Audit Office has criticised the FCA and three other regulators for failing to prove how they are responding to consumer problems and not offering enough protection to those in need. In a report today the NAO found that the regulators understand the significant difficulties facing consumers in the financial services and utilities markets, […]

Bank’s “fee for no service” advice compensation costs pass half a billion

Leading Australian bank Westpac has today added another AUD$260m (£140m) to its coffers for compensating customers who received poor financial advice. The sum comes from the bank’s first-half cash earnings for the 2018/19 financial year (July 2018-June 2019). These extra funds push the total remediation bill to around AUD$650m (£350m) for the embattled bank, which […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. “If the scheme worked, it could remove the lottery which means that tens of thousands of people each year end up having to sell their family home to meet high care bills.”

    And having to sell your old home when you move into a new one has suddenly become a problem how?

    There is already protection against having to sell the home when one spouse has gone into care and the other hasn’t.

    Very few self-funders survive in a care home long enough to exhaust their funds and get moved into Overmydeadbody Grove by the council. Contrary to the Dilnot report, “catastrophes” are extremely rare for those who have the money to afford their care costs. Mostly it’s a made-up problem invented by journalists trying to get the taxpayer to subsidise their inheritance.

    There is of course an *actual* care crisis going on for those who don’t have the money to meet their care costs and have to be paid for by the state. But that isn’t the issue being discussed in the article, which focuses on those who – one way or the other – save up the capital to pay for their end-of-life accommodation (usually via house equity).

    The trouble with the care crisis is that there are two care crises, the real one (councils don’t have the money to care for those who don’t have any money to an acceptable standard) and the made-up one (if you move into a new home you have to sell your old one, unless you can afford to maintain two properties). The two are conflated and talked about as if they are the same crisis. No solution to the first problem can be discussed in public unless it also solves the second. Hence unworkable circle-squaring gibberish like the Dilnot recommendations.

    Webb is quite correct. An auto-enrolment tax to pay for care costs would be a non-starter. Everyone with any sense would opt out. And large numbers would opt out of their pension while they’re at it, assuming that it’s also something they’re paying for the Government’s benefit and not theirs.

    Most people view retirement as something to look forward to, people do not look forward to going into a care home.

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