Join our community of smart investors

A hornet's Nest

The new national workplace pension scheme, formerly known as the personal accounts scheme, is being rebranded as NEST.
January 11, 2010

The government's new national workplace pension scheme, formerly known as the personal accounts scheme, will be renamed and rebranded as the National Employment Savings Trust - Nest, in short.

Last week's announcement follows an indepth research programme to come up with a new brand name for the scheme that forms part of an ambitious pension reform programme. Nest will be run by the NEST Corporation, a not-for-profit trustee company.

The Pensions Act 2008 reformed workplace pension provision with the key aim of making saving for retirement the norm. As a result, from 2012 employers will be required to automatically enrol employees into a workplace pension and make a minimum contribution, currently standing at 3 per cent. Employers can choose Nest or another qualifying workplace pension scheme in which to auto enrol their employees. Employees will retain the right to opt out should they so wish.

Joanne Segars, chief executive of the National Association of Pensions Funds (NAPF), commented: "We all need a pensions nest egg to enjoy a comfortable retirement. This announcement brings us a step closer to the 2012 reforms when nearly all working people, especially those on low and moderate incomes, will be given this opportunity."

Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at Hargreaves Lansdown, also welcomed the new brand name, but said the fact that enrolment into Nest won't be fully up and running until 2017 was "a bit shoddy". He blamed this on a "political decision", saying that while politicians were justifying the delay by saying they want to limit the amount of pressure placed on businesses coming out of a recession, the delay was ultimately about limiting the amount of tax relief they have to hand out.

He added: "Definitions for Nest and for exempt schemes are clumsy and will encourage levelling down. There are also still problems with the differing regulatory and legislative regimes governing different types of existing pension. More simplification is needed yet."