What Rachel Reeves' pensions revamp means for your retirement pot - and will you really see £6,000 more?
Government proposals over changes to how pensions are run were released on Thursday, with headlines around £6,000 boosts to workers and £25bn megafunds painting a positive picture for the future.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the 'reforms mean better returns for workers' and pointed out extra investment for businesses in the UK could push economic growth. But it's all rather abstract for workers - especially on the back of a recent study looking at whether pension contributions were subject to tax - who might simply want to know: what's happening to my pension now?
What's happening and what may change?
Currently, many pension providers are in operation across the UK, large and small. The plan is to combine many of them into 'megafunds', with your employer-defined contribution (DC) pensions - those are workplace pensions you automatically pay into from your salary, before tax - being pooled with others to create giant funds worth at least £25bn. Local government pension schemes will be consolidated too, from 86 authorities down to six groups.
The plan is for this to happen over the next five years, with any funds which don't achieve that figure being given extra time if they can provide the pathway for how they'll get there.
Industry body the Society of Pension Professionals has given its approval to the scheme, as have many of the UK's largest existing pensions companies, with deputy prime minister Angela Rayner saying the money in these pension pools will drive 'growth and opportunities in communities across the country for years to come'.
'The Pension Schemes Bill hopes to achieve this revolution through a combination of consolidation of workplace schemes in the private sector and across local authority schemes into 'megafunds', with voluntary agreements by those schemes to boost their allocation to UK-based investments, with a significant emphasis on private equity and 'productive' assets,' pensions expert Alice Guy told The Independent.
'The UK pension system is incredibly fragmented with thousands of small schemes, which adds complexity and costs for pension providers.
'Having fewer, bigger schemes should make it easier for regulators to keep an eye on performance and underlying fees,' Ms Guy added. 'Practically speaking, most of this will happen behind the scenes - your money is protected and ringfenced. Most pension schemes are broadly similar, so there won't be much obvious impact on pension savers.'
Pooling pension money into megafunds is likely to mean that your pension provider may change or merge with others, but this could yet be years down the line.
£6,000 each? Sort of
So, this six grand benefit.
The government report cited the example of an average pension pot, with its value under current conditions and then adding in changes through lowered fees and costs and an expected two per cent uplift from the benefits of new investment options.
As a result of those changes, they estimate a £5,900 positive change to the average pension pot.
Ms Guy explained: 'The estimated £5,900 saving is based on providers passing on cost savings to pension savers. An average 22-year-old earner is expected to save £2,500 on pension fees over their working life and enjoy a £3,300 investment boost due to better investment performance. Ministers hope that bigger funds will have more resources to invest in a wider range of assets, including private equity.'
So, you're not exactly going to see an extra chunk of cash in your bank account, or indeed appear in your pension fund. But that's the expected benefit per person after the reforms.
This is a many-year approach, of course, and actual pension value will depend not just on how much you earn and the fees you pay, but also on the market value of those investments at the time of your retirement.
Reason for caution
Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, points out a few notes to be aware of, including no guarantee of any long-term benefit at all.
Most of all, for some there will be the danger of chasing government policy plans over investor benefit.
'Many of the claims about the benefits of these reforms to pension savers and retirees need to be taken with a fistful of salt,' Mr Selby said. 'While there may be some efficiency benefits to consolidation, these are difficult to quantify with certainty and reducing competition in the market may stifle incentives to deliver innovation.
'In addition, private equity investing is notoriously high cost and high risk, meaning it is entirely possible people will end up worse off if those investments fail to perform over the long term.
'There is a clear danger that conflating government policy goals – namely driving higher levels of investment in the UK and ultimately economic growth – with those of savers and retirees means the latter will be risked in pursuit of the former.
'It is vital the needs of pension scheme members remain the priority, rather than the needs of a government focused primarily on its growth agenda and ultimately to bolster its chances of re-election.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
There's much more to Zia Yusuf's dramatic resignation from Reform than a row over the burqa
Zia Yusuf 's departure had more to do with his failure to persuade donors to part with cash than a row over Reform's attitude to the burqa, insiders have told The Independent. But more than that, it was the now- former chairman 's inability to work with people and get on with them that was at the heart of his sudden announcement on Thursday, it has been claimed. It came after he described Reform's new MP Sarah Pochin as 'dumb' after she asked a question about banning the burqa during Prime Minister's Questions. But in reality, there were many more problems building. The Independent has contacted Mr Yusuf for his version of events and has not received a response. But his critics have not waited long to get their joy over his departure out and give their account of why he was ousted. 'The trouble is that while Zia was a very hard worker, he was a bit of a kn**,' said one associate of Nigel Farage. 'He just could not get on with people or work with people. But the much bigger problem was that donors did not want to hand over their money to the party after they spoke to him.' Mr Yusuf had, along with former Tory donor Nick Candy, been responsible for pitching to wealthy potential backers to fund Reform's push for power. 'There's a lot of money there to be released, but Zia wasn't getting it.' Even with the party's charge in the polls and a growing lead over Labour, with the Tories collapsing for various reasons, many donors were still sitting on their hands and not won over by the Yusuf/Candy charm offensive. Although in Mr Yusuf's case it was 'more of a lack of charm and pretty offensive', an insider claimed. For Mr Farage to fulfil his dream of getting to 10 Downing Street by 2029, reform needs cash to fund its push for power. But even the Tories - in complete crisis under Kemi Badenoch's leadership and with dwindling support - have been beating Reform with donations. But it was not just the failure to win the hearts and minds of millionaires and billionaires that was troubling senior figures in Reform. Several party figures have claimed that the 'writing was on the wall for Zia since March' when the fallout with Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe almost derailed their local election campaign. Mr Lowe blames Farage equally for what happened and has confirmed that he will not be seeking to rejoin Reform, after he was ousted over claims he harassed two women and Mr Yusuf reported him to the police for allegedly threatening him with violence. Police later dropped the case, and no charges were brought against Mr Lowe. This had already been a problem with him previously throwing members out en masse in various new branches for minor infractions of party (or his) rules or not taking instructions from the centre. Supporters of Mr Yusuf, who included Nigel Farage until this week, at least publicly, pointed out he was there to professionalise the party and to ensure that the problem of rogue candidates with appalling views that had dogged Ukip and the Brexit Party did not continue to be a problem for Reform. It is also true that he had been subject to an incredible amount of abuse from former and current supporters of Reform, much of it Islamophobic. The final meltdown over Ms Pochin's question to Sir Keir Starmer on banning the burqa is thought to have been the last straw for Mr Yusuf, dealing with what is increasingly becoming an anti-Muslim party in its membership, if not leadership. Mr Lowe was not the only previously loyal foot soldier ousted. Some, such as ex-deputy leader Ben Habib and former London mayoral candidate Howard Cox, are highly unlikely to come back. Others. including former director of communications, Gawain Towler, will be welcomed back. Mr Towler, an effective communicator and long-term part of the Farage cause, was sacked by Mr Yusuf when the Reform leader was out of the country. He was also banned from Reform HQ despite being a loyal party member. Apparently, that ban has now been lifted and Mr Towler is expected to return, possibly on the board representing members. Perhaps the biggest issue for those now feeling they can vent their anger about him was Mr Yusuf's inability to build loyalty with party staff and volunteers. One insider noted: 'Perhaps now we can have a culture where we can learn from our mistakes.' Another joked: 'Champagne corks were popping in misery at the announcement.' Mr Yusuf had some powerful opponents within the party lined up against him as well, even with Farage's continued public support. This included Raheem Kassam, a former Farage aide now a key figure in the MAGA movement in the US, who is very close to the Donald Trump camp. Mr Kassam told The Independent back in March that Mr Yusuf would be forced out. Yesterday, he said: 'I said months ago something like this would happen because in such a new party with many competing personalities and priorities, being chairman or even leader is an almost thankless and gargantuan task. Pressure getting the better of Zia Yusuf should make people even more appreciative of Nigel Farage's personal indefatigability.' Another long-term ally and fellow 'Brexit bad boy', the businessman Arron Banks, was not a fan either. Mr Banks, who came to prominence as founder of the pro-Brexit site was already moving in on the Reform DOGE project which Mr Yusuf had wanted for himself and is now one of the frontrunners to be the next chairman. He posted on X/ Twitter: 'Astonishing that everyone thinks they are responsible for the meteoric Reform rise, as the old saying goes, success has many fathers and failure an orphan. Zia worked very hard but struggled with relationships and people. The corks will be popping in party HQ this evening. Reform will power on.' The issue now is who should replace Mr Yusuf. One Farage ally said: 'It needs to be a diplomat, not somebody like Zia who wanted to be front and centre all the time. It needs to be someone who can talk to the members, persuade people to give money to the cause and work behind the scenes. You need a backroom man and you can't have two Caesars.' The feeling, though, is that it also needs to be someone with their own funds and good business connections. Another supporter said: 'Nigel needs someone who can give money but also raise money. That's going to be the most important job going forward if Reform is to succeed.'
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Robert Jenrick is no kind of role model for Labour
Robert Jenrick isn't diagnosing disorder. He's manufacturing it (It's easy to dismiss Robert Jenrick's fare-dodging stunt. But he understands something Keir Starmer doesn't, 30 May). The issue isn't whether people are annoyed by fare-dodgers or spooked by barber shops that stay open late. It's why that resentment gets more political airtime than landlords hiking rents, billionaires dodging taxes, or private equity firms bleeding the NHS dry. What Jenrick is doing isn't tapping into some universal British frustration with rule-breaking. He's engaging in the oldest trick in the reactionary playbook. Inflate petty infractions into moral panics. Redirect public rage downward. Claim the mantle of common sense. It's the politics of distraction, dressed up as concern for order. When Freedland suggests Keir Starmer could learn from this, not the policies but the presentation, he endorses the very performance of power that makes people feel unheard. It's not that Starmer fails to appear tough enough on antisocial behaviour. It's that he fails to speak to the real antisocial behaviours that define life under late capitalism. Wage theft. Housing precarity. Digital surveillance. Austerity itself. Fare-dodging is often an act of desperation or defiance in a system designed to extract. 'Weird Turkish barber shops' is not a neutral observation. It is a dog-whistle wrapped in folksy suspicion. The real disorder is structural, not stylistic. Any politics that treats broken windows as more urgent than broken lives will only reinforce the rot. We don't need Labour to better mimic Tory talking points. We need courage. Courage to name the real villains. Courage to refuse the scapegoat circuit. Courage to believe the public can handle more than tabloid MarphenLondon Jonathan Freedland is correct when he says it is 'awkward to take lessons in politics from Robert Jenrick'. However, Jenrick glosses over his party's part in the causes and thus has no understanding of what brought us here. The society that my and my parents' generation knew had established, long-term employers, often with people working together on a large scale. We had mutuals, social societies, sports and social and working men's clubs. What we offer my children's generation is cellular working, the commodification of everything, self-absorption and social isolation. Margaret Thatcher started the decay of mutual support and shared interests, and it has worsened over the past 14 years, so it is no surprise that some see the expression of self‑interest in antisocial behaviour and low-level criminality. Andrew KyleEaling, London Jonathan Freedland suggests that Keir Starmer might copy the populist gestures of Robert Jenrick. But Starmer has already indulged in many of Freedland's 'nods to the right' with his gimmicky video showing the forcible deportation of asylum seekers, and then his Powellite 'island of strangers' speech. Better by far to 'nod to the left' by copying Bernie Sanders (Interview, 4 June), with his uncompromising opposition to all forms of bigotry while advocating traditional social-democratic politics of strong welfare and just redistribution. And nearer home, Starmer could listen to Gordon Brown (Opinion, 27 May) with his passionate commitment to ending child poverty, starting with the unhesitating end to the Tory two-child benefit Ben-Tovim University of Liverpool It is so distressing to find that I'm impressed by the actions of a politician whom I usually despise. Jonathan Freedland is correct, it's this kind of petty lawbreaking that infuriates those of us who think that as a society we all need to 'play by the rules'. But having Robert Jenrick (of all people) point this out? Talk about cognitive DownesBryneglwys, Denbighshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
The ‘Airbnb Bill' targeting second homeowners in this English region
North Cornwall MP Ben Maguire introduced the Short-term Lets (Planning Permission) Bill to parliament on Tuesday, aiming to regulate holiday lets and address council tax avoidance by second homeowners. The proposed ' Airbnb Bill' requires homeowners to obtain planning permission before converting residential properties into short-term holiday lets, closing a loophole that allows them to claim small business status and avoid council tax obligations. To qualify for business rates, a short-term let must be available to rent for at least 140 days and rented for a minimum of 70 days in the prior year. As of October 2023, Cornwall Council reported 13,140 second homes in the county and is now charging an additional 100 per cent council tax premium on second homes. Mr Maguire said the Bill aimed to restore fairness and give locals a better chance at owning homes.
