The overwhelming majority of UK employers believe they have a paternalistic duty to provide their staff with a decent pension, but are adamant that compulsion in the work place is the only way to avoid a meltdown in UK pension provision, according to a survey conducted by national pension adviser AWD Chase de Vere Consulting.
Almost seven out of ten employers (68 per cent) believe that making properly funded pensions compulsory in the workplace is the only way to avoid a meltdown in pension provision in the UK, and fewer than 2 per cent disagree. With the ongoing delays in the introduction of the government’s flagship National Employment Savings Trust policy, the newly renamed Personal Accounts, compulsion cannot come soon enough for most employers says AWD Chase de Vere Consulting.
Fortunately for UK plc a huge majority of employers still believe in pension provision in the workplace, with almost six out of ten (58 per cent) saying that they have a paternalistic duty to provide their staff with a decent pension scheme. Only 15 per cent of employers do not see workplace pension provision as a paternalistic duty.
Param Basi, Technical Director, AWD Chase de Vere Consulting says:
“With the UK facing a vast pension black hole the government needs to pull it’s finger out and back full pension compulsion in the workplace while there is still the appetite by employers to provide workplace pensions.
“Our survey shows that employers really want to provide pensions, but with competitive pressures mounting there is a real risk that many will pull back from pension provision without full compulsion. Making pensions compulsory in the workplace is the only way to create a level playing field between employers in the UK and to keep the cost of pension provision off the public purse.
“We’re now onto the third iteration of the government’s workplace pension policy, first it was called the National Pension Saving Scheme (NPSS), then Personal Accounts (PA) and now it’s to be known as the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST). Rather than constantly changing the name, implementation date and contribution rates, they really need to just get on with it before it’s too late.”