New Boys Head Up National Employment Savings Trust

How the new Liberal Conservative Coalition will tackle the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) pension scheme remains to be seen. They have tasked a couple of true blues with managing Britain’s looming pension crisis: former Tory leader report to Iain Duncan Smith takes on the role of secretary of state for work and pensions and will head up the Department of Work and Pensions; beneath him is Chris Grayling as the junior work and pensions minister.

The secretary of state for work and pensions is a UK cabinet post, and the appointee takes on responsibility for managing the Department for Work and Pensions. The post was created in 2001 following a merger of the Department of Social Security and the Employment part of the Department for Education and Employment. The Ministry of Pensions itself was created in 1916 to manage the payment of war pensions to former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants. It has evolved to a far more wide ranging remit these days and in the current economic climate is going to have to make some drastic cuts.

Chris Grayling’s political clout has slipped somewhat since he expressed the view that homosexuals could legitimately be turned away by hoteliers. The comments were made when he was shadow home secretary. Meanwhile Iain Duncan Smith is resurging after being much maligned during his time as Tory leader. These two gentlemen have certainly taken roles that can make or break them. The National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) pension scheme has been criticized for its cost structure and for overspending on branding. Whether the Liberal Conservative Coalition will tinker with the scheme is unknown, but one would think that substantial changes are not unlikely.

Grayling’s views on hoteliers were, “I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.” This, however, was an expression of a former opinion and he pointed to the fact that he has actually voted for legislation that would not allow such discrimination.

Chris Grayling is the Member of Parliament for Surrey’s Epsom and Ewell and he has held this position since the General Election in 2001. Graying previously spent two years as work and pensions spokesman from 2007 to 2009 and between 2005 and 2007 was transport spokesman. Back in 2002 he was health spokesman. At the level of local politics he is a member of Epsom Rotary, Chairman of Epsom and District Victim Support, and President of the Ewell and Stoneleigh Chamber of Trade.

Iain Duncan Smith has been given a role that allows him to build on the work he has been doing in a think tank that he set up known as the Centre for Social Justice. The reports coming out of the group have portrayed Britain not as a country in crisis, but as a society in crisis, where the financial problems with the pensions structure are just the tip of the iceberg. IDS, as Duncan Smith is known, believes that families are the building blocks of a healthy society. We can expect him to come up with some policies to give tax advantages to families.

IDS is an anti-poverty crusader and through the Centre for Social Justice he recently published a call for benefits reform that allowed people to continue receiving benefits for a short time after they continued working. Unfortunately given the current economic conditions what IDS is going to have to do is cut spending rather than increase it. The best he can do is change some allocations, but it is unlikely to meet the ambitions of his think tank. One thing that he is sure to go after is the penalty that sees couples that live together have less benefit entitlements than those that live apart – If Iain Duncan Smith ends this situation then it may well be at the expense of single parents.

We certainly have an interesting team at the pensions department and this is likely to be a very closely scrutinized area of the new government. Iain Duncan Smith once told the Conservative back benchers to ‘unite or die’ one wonders whether he will tell the British people to ‘save or starve’. That isn’t too far from reality as a result of the massive deficit that is running up. The How the new Liberal Conservative Coalition will tackle the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) pension scheme remains to be seem. They have tasked a couple of true blues with managing Britain’s looming pension crisis: former Tory leader report to Iain Duncan Smith takes on the role of secretary of state for work and pensions and will head up the Department of Work and Pensions; beneath him is Chris Grayling as the junior work and pensions minister.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is a UK cabinet post, and the appointee takes on responsibility for managing the Department for Work and Pensions. The post was created in 2001 following a merger of the Department of Social Security and the Employment part of the Department for Education and Employment. The Ministry of Pensions itself was created in 1916 to manage the payment of war pensions to former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants. It has evolved to a far more wide ranging remit these days and in the current economic climate is going to have to make some drastic cuts.

Chris Grayling’s political clout has slipped somewhat since he expressed the view that homosexuals could legitimately be turned away by hoteliers. The comments were made when he was shadow home secretary. Meanwhile Iain Duncan Smith is resurging after being much maligned during his time as Tory leader. These two gentlemen have certainly taken roles that can make or break them. The National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) pension scheme has been criticized for its cost structure and for overspending on branding. Whether the Liberal Conservative Coalition will tinker with the scheme is unknown, but one would think that substantial changes are not unlikely.

Grayling’s views on hoteliers were, “I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.” This, however, was an expression of a former opinion and he pointed to the fact that he has actually voted for legislation that would not allow such discrimination.

Chris Grayling is the Member of Parliament for Surrey’s Epsom and Ewell and he has held this position since the General Election in 2001. Graying previously spent two years as work and pensions spokesman from 2007 to 2009 and between 2005 and 2007 was transport spokesman. Back in 2002 he was health spokesman. At the level of local politics he is a member of Epsom Rotary, Chairman of Epsom and District Victim Support, and President of the Ewell and Stoneleigh Chamber of Trade.

Iain Duncan Smith has been given a role that allows him to build on the work he has been doing in a think tank that he set up known as the Centre for Social Justice. The reports coming out of the group have portrayed Britain not as a country in crisis, but as a society in crisis, where the financial problems with the pensions structure are just the tip of the iceberg. IDS, as Duncan Smith is known, believes that families are the building blocks of a healthy society. We can expect him to come up with some policies to give tax advantages to families.

IDS is an anti-poverty crusader and through the Centre for Social Justice he recently published a call for benefits reform that allowed people to continue receiving benefits for a short time after they continued working. Unfortunately given the current economic conditions what IDS is going to have to do is cut spending rather than increase it. The best he can do is change some allocations, but it is unlikely to meet the ambitions of his think tank. One thing that he is sure to go after is the penalty that sees couples that live together have less benefit entitlements than those that live apart – If Iain Duncan Smith ends this situation then it may well be at the expense of single parents.

We certainly have an interesting team at the pensions department and this is likely to be a very closely scrutinized area of the new government. Iain Duncan Smith once told the Conservative back benchers to ‘unite or die’ one wonders whether he will tell the British people to ‘save or starve’. That isn’t too far from reality as a result of the massive deficit that is running up. The National Employment Savings Trust is a first step to try to force low income earners to save more, but it needs to be kept on track so that the compounding effect can start working.

Nest Pension Details

In March 2010 the UK government started providing further details about the planned National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) pension scheme, for workers with no pension cover. It was announced that there are plans to levy a two percent charge on contributions to pay for the start-up costs of the pension. This is for the repayment of a rumored 600 million pounds that the state is spending to set up the scheme. This is in addition to the 0.3 percent annual management fee, and could well turn out to be a barrier to attracting savers.

The National Employment Savings Trust is projected to eventually reach six million members after its launch in 2012, and it may get to as much as 150 billion pounds in asset size by 2050. But this two percent charge may put a dent in those projections if savy investors catch on to the fact that the government is looking to charge higher fees than a standard occupational pension scheme. Would you want to save above the eight percent minimum when you know how your fees are going to get eaten away by fees?

As long as the two percent contribution charge is in place the potential returns of investors will be eroded. Will the pension scheme outperform a no load index tracker? If not then its tax advantages alone will struggle to make the pension stack up against direct investment by individuals because the pension would be starting out at 98% of the index fund and the compounding effect of that missing 2% over a thirty year period is massive.

Stakeholder and occupational pension funds charge between 0.5 and 1.5%, but NEST still thinks it will come out as the cheapest option over the long term because it has a low annual management fee of 0.3%.But the thing to realize is that these fees are not as important as the fact that people have to start saving. The National Employment Savings Trust is necessary to avoid a future pensions crisis.

Whilst NEST has been set up to address the problem of low-income workers, this is not the only problem faced by the United Kingdom’s pension industry. Another big issue is the generous final-salary pensions that are given to public sector workers. Whilst the nation is running a significant budget deficit, the final-salary pensions are unfunded guarantees and officially the current liability of public sector pensions is a massive £770 billion. Unofficially it is though to be a trillion. Whichever of these numbers you think is right, it is certainly a big burden for future taxpayers.

Another problem is the good health of the nation. People are living for longer. This is something that really came home to roost in 2007, when the number of people of state pension age was more than those under 16 for the first time ever. By 2050 Britain is expected to have over a quarter of a million people that are more than 100 years old, versus just 12,000 today.

The UK state sector needs to be review not only public sector employee pensions, but also the state pension. In particular the State Pension Age, the earliest age you can draw your State Pension, needs to be reviewed. It is not really a question of whether it will be revised upwards, but by how much. Whilst the traditional ages for the State Pension Age were 60 for women and 65 for men. The currently projected changes are as below:

  • Between 2010 and 2020 women’s retirement ages are increasing to 65
  • Between 2024 and 2026, retirement ages for men and women are increasing to 66
  • Between 2034 and 2036, retirement ages for men and women are increasing to 67
  • Between 2044 and 2046, retirement ages for men and women are increasing to 68

The State Pension is made up of both the Basic State Pension and the Additional Pension. The Basic State Pension is the flat-rate pension that is paid out to those that have paid enough National Insurance. The way it is calculated for those that reached State Pension Age on or after 6th April 2010 is that they get the full rate of the Basic State Pension if they have paid in for 30 years, and a proportionately lower percentage if they have paid in for less years i.e. someone you only paid National Insurance for 10 years would get one third of the Basic State Pension. For those that reached your SPA before 6th April 2010 the rates of payment are different. What happens to this basic pension, and the way it is calculated, remains to be seen.

Clearly NEST is just piece of the pension puzzle, and there is a lot of work to be done to avert a crisis. Getting old gracefully could be an increasingly elusive target if we do not start making some changes now.

What is PADA?

One of the keys to a good pension plan is that it is easy for the contributors to understand, but the new NEST pension risks being buried in a sea of government-coined acronyms: PADA is a NDPB responsible for working with The DWP to introduce the NEST! Let’s cut through all this and look at what these pensions mean for the average worker in plain English.

The Personal Accounts Delivery Authority (PADA) is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) which is accountable to Parliament and reports to the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on its progress in rolling out the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST).

NEST is the new name for what was previously referred to as Personal Accounts – a new pension scheme targeted at low and moderate income workers to be launched in 2011/2012. The impetus for the scheme is that the over 65s will have doubled in number by 2055, and based on current projections around seven million of them aren’t saving enough to have a pension that meets their demands. Following a 2005 report by the Pensions Commission, PADA was established specifically to introduce Personal Accounts. One of their first big announcements was to brand the accounts as NEST pensions, but what else have they been up to?

PADA is a transitory body to take us from a world with no decent trust-based occupational scheme for low income workers, to one where it becomes institutionalized. As well as communicating the nature of the scheme to employees and employers, PADA will supervise the handover to the Trust Corporation that will manage NEST pensions. Once the Trust Corporation is set up, PADA will become redundant.

Personal Accounts Delivery Authority Management Team

Tim Jones

Tim Jones is the Chief Executive Officer of PADA, and is an old hand in the financial services sector. His prior experience includes a position as Chief Executive of Retail Banking at Natwest, and Chief Executive with Mondex, Purseus Ltd and Simpay Limited. He has also held directorships with Investment Technology Group Inc.and Capital One Bank (Europe) PLC.

Pop Star Nick Carter (PADA's Carter Photo Unavailable)

Heading up the in-house legal team is ex- Freshfields man Nick Carter. With Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Nick gained experience outside of finance in the areas of intellectual property, IT litigation and transactions. Some of his clients at this time were in the public sector. Nick’s financial services experience includes a position as Chief Legal Counsel, International for Capital One Bank. This role included responsibility for internal audit, bank regulation, corporate affairs, enterprise risk management, and compliance. He also worked for PA Consulting just before joining PADA.

John Crilly

John Crilly is the experienced Financial Director at PADA One of the highlights of his career was joining Argonaut Games Ltd as a start-up and taking this fledgling technology company right through to a listing on the London Stock Exchange. John spent twenty years with Freeman’s PLC and Sears PLC working in Treasury and Corporate Finance.

Helen Dean

Helen Dean is on a secondment to PADA, and is a full-time civil servant with the Department for Work and Pensions. She heads up Policy and Product Development and draws on a strong track record in pensions policy, having previously been responsible for developing the initial policy on Personal Accounts. She also had a role in the introduction of the State Second Pension.

Mark Fawcett

Mark Fawcett has managed money for the last 21 years, thus not surprisingly he is PADA’s Investment Director. He has worked for Gartmore, Thames River Capital LLP, and American Express Asset Management International. He will play a critical role in managing not only the investment side, but also decumulation and volumes modeling.

Sam Hainsworth

Sam Hainsworth has been with PADA since it started up in 2007. As Chief of Staff she draws on experience gained at the Department for Work and Pensions where she she worked as part of the NEST pension policy division.

Simon Richards

The Business Delivery Director is Simon Richards. He has worked for many of the major financial services institutions in his time: Citibank, Price Waterhouse, and Goldman Sachs. He also took a step in an entrepreneurial direction when he founded Alpheus as an IT consultancy. He is a PADA board member.

Graham Vidler

Graham Vidler is the Director of Corporate Services at the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority. This means that he manages all the communications relating to the scheme and works closely with the DWP on stakeholder and media communications strategy. Graham has long been involved in pensions, and as a House of Commons researcher focused on pensions and social exclusion.

PADA’s management team is backed up by a heavyweight board:

  • Jeannie Drake, Acting Chair
  • Tim Jones, Chief Executive
  • Helen Dean, Policy and Product Development
  • Paul Hewitt, Non-Executive Director
  • Simon Richards, Business Delivery Director
  • Chris Willford, Non-Executive Director
  • Alison Wright, Non-Executive Director

What are NEST pensions?

The National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) is the name of a UK pension scheme that is scheduled to come into effect in October 2016. It was previously known as the Personal Accounts pension scheme, and is aimed at encouraging low to middle income workers to save for their retirement. Its target is to have two million employees making contributions by late 2016, with salaries of the contributors in the range of £15,000 to £30,000.

The UK government set up the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority (PADA) to oversee the introduction the NEST pension. Whilst PADA is responsible for designing and introducing the infrastructure for NEST, the running of the pension will be handed over to and run by a new trustee corporation called NEST Corporation. A board with independent trustees is expected to be set up to oversee NEST Corporation once the pension is introduced. The regulator is likely to be the Pensions Regulator or the Financial Services Authority.

NEST is just one of the schemes employers can use to fulfill new duties under the workplace pension reforms due to come into effect from 2012. One concern people have is that it will become the default choice, and employers will use it as an excuse to end more generous schemes.

The history of these reforms dates back to 2005 when the independent Pensions Commission published “A New Pension Settlement for the Twenty-First Century”, which recommended changes to reform the pension system. Following this a number of changes were made to the UK pension system via the Pensions Act 2007. This related to changes in the state pension system, and then in December 2006 a further paper was published that related to personal pensions. This resulted in the Pensions Act 2008.

The Pensions Act 2008 focused on ways to encourage individuals to save. One of the biggest changes is placing an obligation on employers to enroll their staff in a pension scheme, and make a contribution to it. The Pensions Act 2008 allowed for the creation of a new pension scheme as a suitable workplace scheme for low to middle income earners, and the remit of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority was broadened under the act to enable it to establish the infrastructure for the scheme. The Personal Accounts Delivery Authority must come up with the most suitable product for moderate income workers and determine the best strategy to communicate with them.

PADA is one of three bodies under the Enabling Retirement Savings Programme that has overall responsibility for delivering the workplace pension reforms in the Pensions Act 2008. The other bodies are the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Pensions Regulator.

A simple summary of NEST is that it is a personal pension administered by employers. It is planned that employees will be automatically enrolled into a NEST, unless they earn less that the primary tax threshold, or they already contribute to a pension that provides equal or superior benefits to NEST. The underlying investments to be offered are yet to be determined, but they likely to be low cost, with the government pushing for 0.3%. The pensions can be transferred when employers are changed, and accessed after the age of 55. At the time the pensions are accessed there will be an option to take a 25% lump sum tax free. The current plan is that employees will pay 4% of earnings, and employers 4% (1% of which will be via basic rate tax relief).

NEST is a much needed scheme in the UK as estimates suggest that over 10 million people either have inadequate or zero pension provision. The first stab at correcting the problem was the introduction of stakeholder pensions in 2001. Whilst these did a good job of lowering pension fund costs they did not manage to encourage most people to make contributions. It is planned that NEST contributions will not be compulsory, but employers will be responsible for encouraging employees to opt-in.

The National Employment Savings Trust can be compared to Australia’s superannuation scheme. In the mid-1980s Award Superannuation was introduced, where a 3% employer superannuation contribution to employees was made in lieu of a 3% wage increase, and then in 1992 the Superannuation Guarantee Charge was introduced which determined that compulsory employer contributions must be made, with voluntary employee contributions. Employers must pay a minimum of 9% percent of employee earnings under the scheme. One interesting point is that 75% of Australians have balanced superannuation funds which give them exposure to international stock markets. There are some differences to consider. One is the pressure on employers to make significant contributions, and the other is the fact that Australia had all this set up in 1992. One imagines that low to moderate income earners in Australia will be better off than their UK counterparts when it comes to retirement. The NEST can’t come soon enough.