How pensions got throttled

The need for a savings culture.

In mid-2011, Robert Chote, the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), declared the UK’s economic outlook to be “unsustainable”.  He was referring to the UK’s public sector debt, expected to rise indefinitely in the longer term.  The primary cause is our ageing population, driving sharp increases in the costs of health care, state pensions and long-term care, combined with a contracting tax base relative to total population size.

In addition, Britain is under a competitive assault from globalisation, particularly from countries with younger, more dynamic, populations.  Furthermore, some have little concern for the niceties of a true democracy (no need for planning permission for a new dam or railway in China); this gives them a competitive edge.  Without radical policy changes, we can expect our deteriorating public finances to lead the UK into a vicious circle of slower growth and higher interest rates.

This grim outlook could be accompanied by inter-generational strife.  Today’s Generation Y (broadly, those in their twenties and thirties) could be the first generation to experience a lower quality of life than that enjoyed by their parents.  Over the last five years, the UK’s standard of living has declined by 4.8 per cent and, given the outlook for national debt, there is the potential for considerable further decline.

Only now are politicians beginning to contemplate the pressures facing future governments, and how to avert what the data suggests is heading our way.  They are, however, seriously compromised by facing a 50 year problem alongside a five year electoral cycle.  The blue corner of the Coalition has, however, proffered a suggestion to head off the crisis-in-waiting, encompassed in its prevailing political ethos of “personal responsibility”.  This is thinly veiled code for “you’re on your own, folks”, essentially an attempt to catalyse a cultural shift away from being a nation of borrowers to one of savers, particularly (given our ageing population) retirement saving.

This is important to individuals.… and critical to the nation.  Savings fuel investment, which drives increased productivity and economic growth; without that, our quality of life will certainly deteriorate.  Unfortunately, this means engaging with an under-performing financial services industry which is widely, and justifiably, distrusted.  Indeed, some of it is dysfunctional.  In addition, successive governments (irrespective of political hue) have exhibited a lack a common purpose.  The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) wants people to save, whereas the Treasury favours consumption, not least to bolster VAT receipts.  This pushmi-pullyu position manifests itself as contradictory policies and ambiguous communication, which does nothing to stimulate a savings culture.

The industry knows that it has to radically change its behaviour, not least because some within it have finally realised that the pursuit of their own self-interest, at the expense of their customers, may ultimately prove to be the industry’s nemesis.  Furthermore, change would be more lasting if it were driven by the industry itself, rather than through state intervention.  But the industry is in the Last Chance Saloon of public opinion.  Many believe that there is no prospect of it challenging its own, deeply entrenched, vested interests.  Ordinarily this would not be of great import, but financial services are an exception.  Not only does the industry directly benefit from an annual subsidy of over £30 bn (via tax relief), but the Treasury fields the consequences of industry failure, via welfare payments, made manifest by an under-saving nation. 

Consequently, the industry is risking muscular state intervention to “shove” (not “nudge”) it into putting the customer at its centre.  Once the new National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) has “bedded down”, the Government could, for example, dramatically enhance NEST’s capabilities (including removing the contributions cap and the subscription charge), thereby exerting considerably more competitive pressure on the industry. 

In the meantime, the majority of the population lack the financial wherewithal (and, in many cases, the will) to make their own retirement saving arrangements.  Certainly, 90 per cent+ of the population has no need for complex, expensive savings products.  Mass mutualisation of their pension pots would be of great service to them.  A small number of large, collective, DC schemes would enable people to pool their longevity risk and harness enormous economies of scale to drive costs down.  Retirement incomes would then be larger, reducing pensioner poverty and the demand for state benefits, and the underlying pools of assets could, in effect, become akin to our sovereign wealth fund.

But, with the economy weak, the Government is not currently pushing to catalyse a savings culture.  There is a brief opportunity (between now and 2017, when NEST is reviewed) for the industry to resuscitate its reputation by exhibiting leadership (and discovering some humility).  It should implement a range of initiatives that put the customer at the centre of everything it does.  This would require the industry to confront its own short-termism, and start delivering value for money to its customers, whilst bearing in mind that customers want to feel in control of their savings.  It would also have to overcome its fear of simplification, standardisation and transparency, and discard the deleterious practices that are enshrined in the principal-agent problem.

A leap of faith is required by the industry, because whilst profits may diminish in the short term, the long-term outcome could be a rejuvenated reputation.…and business growth.  Finally, and crucially, trustees need to start behaving as the principals they really are, helping to drive the reshaping of the industry.  Indeed, trustees ought to be the catalysts for change.

Michael is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS).  He is the author of “Put the saver first” (CPS, July 2012).

Pensioners need to be prioritised. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.