There was an interesting article in Investment and Pensions Europe magazine the other day. Reporting on an OECD review of pensions in Ireland, the OECD recommended pensions compulsion. They indicated that their view of Auto-Enrolment was that it was second rate and more expensive.
My initial reaction was one of scorn. After all, aren't these OECD bods from Europe somewhere, clearly not British. But having set aside my Britannia prejudices, further thought on their comment suggests they may be right.
Let's deal with the easier one first. Yes, Auto-Enrolment is bound to be more expensive than mandatory plans. All the opting in and opting out results in complex administration and, I would suggest (well and truly wearing my Grumpy Old Pension Men hat), it produces a good income to a lot of providers and administrators. One compulsory system is definitely cheaper.
Now the more difficult argument. Compulsion or Auto-Enrolment? In the end, I think it is more to do with politics than pensions, as is often the case. Thatcher destroyed compulsion. Blair put Frank Field out to grass when Field 'thought the unthinkable' - and it proved to be just that!
Australia, New Zealand and Chile were the countries Field looked at. It works there. It could have worked here. But too late now I think. We have Auto-Enrolment for better or for worse. More expensive yes. But second rate? Not necessarily. We have to face up to extended longevity, to the fact that 'pensions' will never be top of a young persons shopping list and push on through. It has to work.
My initial reaction was one of scorn. After all, aren't these OECD bods from Europe somewhere, clearly not British. But having set aside my Britannia prejudices, further thought on their comment suggests they may be right.
Let's deal with the easier one first. Yes, Auto-Enrolment is bound to be more expensive than mandatory plans. All the opting in and opting out results in complex administration and, I would suggest (well and truly wearing my Grumpy Old Pension Men hat), it produces a good income to a lot of providers and administrators. One compulsory system is definitely cheaper.
Now the more difficult argument. Compulsion or Auto-Enrolment? In the end, I think it is more to do with politics than pensions, as is often the case. Thatcher destroyed compulsion. Blair put Frank Field out to grass when Field 'thought the unthinkable' - and it proved to be just that!
Australia, New Zealand and Chile were the countries Field looked at. It works there. It could have worked here. But too late now I think. We have Auto-Enrolment for better or for worse. More expensive yes. But second rate? Not necessarily. We have to face up to extended longevity, to the fact that 'pensions' will never be top of a young persons shopping list and push on through. It has to work.
