Last year dear readers you will recall that I made a few not very serious pension predictions for the year to come. As this will be my last blog for 2010, I thought why not do it again so here goes:
1 The Parliamentary pension scheme for MPs will be scrapped in favour of auto enrolment into NEST.
2. NEST will be abolished 6 months later after MPs suddenly decide that it is really not that great an idea after all and can we please have our nice DB scheme back again.
To make up for the dearth of blogs over the past couple of weeks, here’s the second in two days!! Today boys and girls, we are going to talk annuities. The Government, in an effort not to let a day go by without some sort of pension announcement, are expected to call an end to the compulsory purchase of an annuity from pension savings by the age of 75. What’s all that about then I hear you ask.
Your favourite pension lawyer spent most of last week snowed in so has been a little remiss in posting but with the thaw comes the need to write so here goes.
This weeks bon mots concern the Government proposals to allow schemes to adopt the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in place of the Retail Price Index (RPI) when calculating the amount by which pensions should increase each year. Now I can already hear the yawns but bear with me because this actually is pretty important. First, some background.
TPR has issued its latest guidance on the very tricky subject of Employer Related Investments. Readers may know that for many years now there have been fairly strict limits on the amounts that a pension scheme can invest in the business of its sponsoring employers. In very simple terms, no more than 5% of the fund can be invested and there are complete bans on things like providing bank guarantees to the company.
Now that the dust has settled a bit on the excitement of the Auto Enrolment announcements of last week, I thought I might just sit down and try to understand a little bit more about what the proposals might actually mean in practice, particularly for small to medium sized businesses. I’m not addressing the really small employers here – those with just a few employees and who previously provided no pension provision. Yes, it’s true that they will for the first time have to look at this, but generally, they will probably just auto enrol into NEST and be done with it.
So, we pretty much now know that Auto Enrolment is going ahead as is NEST. A couple of concessions seem to have been made in that the minimum salary level for AE is rising to £7500 (which is about half the National Minimum Wage) and there will be a 3 month transitional period before AE needs to commence for new employees.
Well, the Gods have spoken and we have a slightly better idea (but not by much) on how the Spending Review will impact on pensions. The main point to arise so far concerns the not totally unexpected rise in State Pension Age to 66 by 2020.
This will have a far greater impact on women than men, in that female SPA will rise steeply from 60 to 65 from 2016 to 2018 and then both male and female SPA will rise to 66 by 2020. By the way, there is a highly amusing typo in the Spending Review document at page 69 where the Treasury officials seem unable to spell ‘equalisation’ correctly. Edukashun eh??
Well, what a day it’s been. First, the Government has just annouced the result of its review of the way pension contributions are to be taxed, especially in relation to high earners. The previous administration had proposed an impossibly complicated way of ‘bashing the rich’ which the Coalition immediately on entering office decided to scrap. After the appropriate period of *ahem* consultation they have just announced that the previous £255,000 annual limit on tax relieved contributions is to be reduced to £50,000
So, at long last we have Lord Hutton’s interim report on the future of Public Sector Pension Schemes (PSS). We are already hearing the entirely predictable howls from the Unions that they will fight any attempt to take away their cherished (and expensive) Final Salary benefits but maybe, just maybe, we need to have a little reality check here.
Bad news story of the week is the proposal leaked by the Daily Telegraph today (24 September) that the Pensions and PPF Ombudsman Service is to be merged with the Pension Regulator. As a consequence, the Pensions Advisory Service is to be abolished. This is a seriously bad idea for a number of reasons. Here are just a few.
1. tPR is very nearly unfit for purpose. It makes orders such as Financial Support Directions on Lehman Bros subsidiaries that cannot be enforced in all likelihood. It is seemingly unable to attract and recruit a new Chief Executive or Chairman. It is well past it’s ‘use by’ date and needs a radical rethink.
Jennie advises large multi-employer schemes as well as smaller single employer arrangements and has wide experience of both Defined Contribution and Defined Benefit schemes. Jennie qualified in 1986 originally as a criminal prosecutor. She sits as a Magistrate in her local justice area and is an Approved Chairman and Deputy Chair of the Bench Training and Development Committee. Jennie was formerly Legal Director of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. When her busy practice allows, Jennie likes to indulge her passion for travelling. To consult Jennie on any corporate Pensions matter, please call her on +44 (0)20 7749 2700 or send her an email by clicking below: Email Jennie