Women's Income Network believes the government should maintain universal child benefit and equal entitlement to the state pension (Political briefing, 27 October). Plans to withdraw child benefit from mothers in couple families with a higher-rate taxpayer undermines the principle of equal entitlement to pension accrual established in the Pensions Act 2007. The loss of the benefit will hit women with the double whammy of the loss of automatic basic and second state pension credits and place them at increased risk of poverty in old age. Women's greater longevity and lower lifetime earnings and pensions mean two-thirds of the poorest pensioners are women. Motherhood typically incurs a lifetime downward pull on women's pay and employment prospects. It is contrary to the principle of independent taxation for a woman, still likely to earn less than a man, to lose child benefit because of her partner's earnings. It prejudices stay-at-home mothers by withdrawing their only guaranteed income.

Women in better-off households can still be hit by relationship breakdown or loss of employment. It penalises women who are basic-rate taxpayers and counter-intuitively redistributes from the purse to the wallet. It undermines women's financial independence, increasing reliance on a partner's goodwill. Income can be unequally shared even in better-off families, but money given to direct to the mother is the statistically proven best way of targeting children. The universality of child benefit protects a woman and her children in time of crisis without the need for new claims and reflects society's support for the wellbeing of all children and families.

Alexandra Kemp West Norfolk Women and Carers' Pensions Network

Susan Himmelweit Professor of economics, Open University

Dr Deborah Price King's College London

Ruth Lister Emeritus professor of social policy, Loughborough University

Kate Green MP

Baroness Hollis

Jillian Foster UK Women's Budget Group

Sam Smethers Chief executive, Grandparents Plus

Frances O'Grady Deputy general secretary, TUC

Janet Veitch Fawcett Society

Professor Jill Rubery Professor of human resources, Manchester Business School

Women's Income Network believes the government should maintain universal child benefit and equal entitlement to the state pension (Political briefing, 27 October). Plans to withdraw child benefit from mothers in couple families with a higher-rate taxpayer undermines the principle of equal entitlement to pension accrual established in the Pensions Act 2007. The loss of the benefit will hit women with the double whammy of the loss of automatic basic and second state pension credits and place them at increased risk of poverty in old age. Women's greater longevity and lower lifetime earnings and pensions mean two-thirds of the poorest pensioners are women. Motherhood typically incurs a lifetime downward pull on women's pay and employment prospects. It is contrary to the principle of independent taxation for a woman, still likely to earn less than a man, to lose child benefit because of her partner's earnings. It prejudices stay-at-home mothers by withdrawing their only guaranteed income.

Women in better-off households can still be hit by relationship breakdown or loss of employment. It penalises women who are basic-rate taxpayers and counter-intuitively redistributes from the purse to the wallet. It undermines women's financial independence, increasing reliance on a partner's goodwill. Income can be unequally shared even in better-off families, but money given to direct to the mother is the statistically proven best way of targeting children. The universality of child benefit protects a woman and her children in time of crisis without the need for new claims and reflects society's support for the wellbeing of all children and families.

Alexandra Kemp West Norfolk Women and Carers' Pensions Network

Susan Himmelweit Professor of economics, Open University

Dr Deborah Price King's College London

Ruth Lister Emeritus professor of social policy, Loughborough University

Kate Green MP

Baroness Hollis

Jillian Foster UK Women's Budget Group

Sam Smethers Chief executive, Grandparents Plus

Frances O'Grady Deputy general secretary, TUC

Janet Veitch Fawcett Society

Professor Jill Rubery Professor of human resources, Manchester Business School

Government plans to force all businesses to enrol employees in pension scheme 'will hit small firms hardest'

Cash-strapped small businesses have reacted with dismay to new rules which will require them to automatically enroll staff into pension schemes and make payments rising to 3% of an employee's salary. Workers at small firms will see up to 4% of their pay put aside.

Pensions minister Steve Webb this week said the government will press ahead with a scheme drawn up by Labour, which it promised will "get Britain saving". From 2012, firms will have to offer a pension scheme to all their staff, even if the firm has as few as two employees.

Firms will be told to contribute a minimum of 1% of every worker's salary into a pension, rising to 3% by 2017. Workers will have to pay in a portion of their salary, phased in over five years, starting at 1% of pay and rising to 4% by 2017.

Every employer, large and small, will have to enrol new staff members into a pension scheme within three months of joining, although the rules will not apply to the self-employed. Most small firms are expected to pay in via a new government-run pension scheme called Nest (National Employment Savings Trust), which promises low costs and charges. Payments will be triggered when employees start earning more than £7,500 a year.

But the Federation of Small Businesses says it is "extremely disappointed" businesses with fewer than 10 employees have not been exempted. "The proposed changes are still complicated." A spokesman adds that an unintended consequence of the new rules is that three months will become the de facto probation period rather than six months, with firms ditching employees at that stage rather than putting them into a pension scheme, only to unravel it a month or two later when the employee leaves.

Charles Coombes is co-founder of a small media production company in west London, which has two employees. He says: "We just can't afford this. We don't have the cashflow for it. Where do they think the money is going to come from? We don't have steady incomes in this sort of business, it comes in in lumpy amounts. I think many firms like ours might just break up and try to work on a self-employed basis to avoid these new rules."

Government officials say small firms will have additional time to adjust. Auto-enrolment will be forced on large firms in 2012, but small firms will not have to comply with the rules until August 2014. What's more, though firms will have to automatically enroll staff into a pension scheme, those members of staff will still be free to choose to opt out of the scheme.

So if a group of entrepreneurs create a firm, and make themselves employees of the firm, they can simply opt out of the pension arrangements. But the firm will nonetheless have legal duty to offer its employees a pension scheme.

Pension experts worry that employees may think the contribution rates, which by 2017 will reach 8%, (3% employer, 4% staff, 1% tax relief) will produce a decent income in retirement, when it may produce rather less. Tom McPhail of investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown says: "The key consumer perspective is that the 8% contribution isn't going to pay for a very generous retirement; also, it won't be fully up and running until 2017, so the sooner people start saving, the better."

The National Association of Pension Funds applauded the government's decision to press ahead with the reforms. Joanne Segars, its chief executive, says: "It is a relief that all employers will be brought into the 2012 programme, and that smaller outfits will not be exempt. The whole point of this reform is that pensions reach all workers, including those in small firms."

Government plans to force all businesses to enrol employees in pension scheme 'will hit small firms hardest'

Cash-strapped small businesses have reacted with dismay to new rules which will require them to automatically enroll staff into pension schemes and make payments rising to 3% of an employee's salary. Workers at small firms will see up to 4% of their pay put aside.

Pensions minister Steve Webb this week said the government will press ahead with a scheme drawn up by Labour, which it promised will "get Britain saving". From 2012, firms will have to offer a pension scheme to all their staff, even if the firm has as few as two employees.

Firms will be told to contribute a minimum of 1% of every worker's salary into a pension, rising to 3% by 2017. Workers will have to pay in a portion of their salary, phased in over five years, starting at 1% of pay and rising to 4% by 2017.

Every employer, large and small, will have to enrol new staff members into a pension scheme within three months of joining, although the rules will not apply to the self-employed. Most small firms are expected to pay in via a new government-run pension scheme called Nest (National Employment Savings Trust), which promises low costs and charges. Payments will be triggered when employees start earning more than £7,500 a year.

But the Federation of Small Businesses says it is "extremely disappointed" businesses with fewer than 10 employees have not been exempted. "The proposed changes are still complicated." A spokesman adds that an unintended consequence of the new rules is that three months will become the de facto probation period rather than six months, with firms ditching employees at that stage rather than putting them into a pension scheme, only to unravel it a month or two later when the employee leaves.

Charles Coombes is co-founder of a small media production company in west London, which has two employees. He says: "We just can't afford this. We don't have the cashflow for it. Where do they think the money is going to come from? We don't have steady incomes in this sort of business, it comes in in lumpy amounts. I think many firms like ours might just break up and try to work on a self-employed basis to avoid these new rules."

Government officials say small firms will have additional time to adjust. Auto-enrolment will be forced on large firms in 2012, but small firms will not have to comply with the rules until August 2014. What's more, though firms will have to automatically enroll staff into a pension scheme, those members of staff will still be free to choose to opt out of the scheme.

So if a group of entrepreneurs create a firm, and make themselves employees of the firm, they can simply opt out of the pension arrangements. But the firm will nonetheless have legal duty to offer its employees a pension scheme.

Pension experts worry that employees may think the contribution rates, which by 2017 will reach 8%, (3% employer, 4% staff, 1% tax relief) will produce a decent income in retirement, when it may produce rather less. Tom McPhail of investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown says: "The key consumer perspective is that the 8% contribution isn't going to pay for a very generous retirement; also, it won't be fully up and running until 2017, so the sooner people start saving, the better."

The National Association of Pension Funds applauded the government's decision to press ahead with the reforms. Joanne Segars, its chief executive, says: "It is a relief that all employers will be brought into the 2012 programme, and that smaller outfits will not be exempt. The whole point of this reform is that pensions reach all workers, including those in small firms."