Where am I? 
Home Pensions - Retail Personal Accounts
Categories: Personal Accounts
Tags:Angela eagle| Conservatives| Nigel aston| Nest
The Conservatives voted against a batch of regulations governing auto-enrolment in a House of Commons committee yesterday.
The opposition party lost the vote but made an attempt to block the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) Regulation 2010 which set out the framework for auto-enrolment.
Pensions minister Angela Eagle says the Tories had "thrown their toys out of the pram".
She says: "I am astonished that the Tories have thrown their toys out of the pram just when the prize of pension saving for millions of people on low and medium earnings is in sight. This is breathtaking irresponsibility.
"The Tories are being disingenuous and hypocritical by talking in favour of the consensus but voting against giving millions of people access to a workplace pension."
However, Conservative pensions spokesman Nigel Waterson told IFAonline's sister title, Professional Pensions, his toys were "still firmly in the pram".
However, he says his party is "frustrated and angry" with the government after discovering the NEST administration contract had been signed ahead of the general election.
The contract went to Indian firm Tata Consultancy Services last week, despite government promises no long-term contacts would be signed before the next administration takes office.
Waterson says the government was displaying a "cavalier attitude" to the pension reform package and the two-stage contract would be reviewed should the party take office.
"We will not be constrained in our review of NEST by any contracts signed in the dying days of this government," Waterson says.
Work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper claims the vote was a "shocking attack on pension provision in work".
"These reforms, supported by the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce amongst others, will give millions of working people vital pension support for the first time - the most radical reforms for working people since the introduction of the national minimum wage.
"Now we know the Tories want to kick people in the teeth and take that pension promise away," Cooper says.
| Comment | Conservatives furious over NEST admin deal |
Related articles
From IFAonline
Categories
Tags
Comments
Why it has "gone overseas"
In response to Terry's comment - this has gone overseas because no UK Company can afford to spend the time and resources on this disastrous legislation. The admin involved in trying to collect varying amounts from people paid weekly, receiving commissions, opting out etc will ensure that TATA or whoever else is likely to be losing money on this for a minimum of 30 years, during which time the legislation will be changed again. All UK providers walked away from the talks because they relaised Stakeholder doesn't pay and the cost of this is supposed to be even lower, with extra complexity. How many small employers will actually comply or even be aware of their need to do so? If they had simply made it compulsory for employers to pay into Stakeholders, instead of this convoluted nonsense, along with changing means testing, we might have got somewhere.
Posted by: David Prior
More Labour Spin
I love the comment referring to the Tories action being to "deny the prize of pension saving for millions of people on low and medium earnings is in sight. This is breathtaking irresponsibility." Let's remember that these personal accounts will not deliver pound for pond benefits for the lower income families due to the impossibly complex seise of means tested benefits introduced by this Government. Let's also remember what Blaire Brown et al have done to decimate UK pensions since day one. And as for simplification, well look at it now, it's a joke!
Posted by: Chris
Broken promises, lies and illegal wars
How anyone can be stupid enough to ever again vote for Labout ever again I do not know............... The ironic thing is that if they actually did thngs the promised, then I could consider them, but how many tiems do you have to be lied to before you learn. I am so glad I made one of the hardest decisions of my life to resign from the TA in 2000, simply because I did not trust this lot one bit and an oath is an oath as far as the Military is concerned and the oath is supposed to be to Queen and country and legl orders, NOT illegal, doubtful or dubious ones which every Tom, Dick and Harry now knows even Lord Faulkner thought was dodgy until the decision was practiucally forced upon him. If you can't trust them to wage a legal war, then hwo can you trust thjem with anything slightly less important like NEST....
Posted by: Phil Casle
Who is making money out of this
It seems reckless to me that a Government that knows we have an election very soon and they could lose power would sign 10 year contract in such circumstances. I can only conclude someone is going to make a lot of money out of this (back-handers srping to mind) or that this is bing done to stuck up any new Government. Either way it looks totally irresponsible and hardly acting in the best interests of the UK tax payer. Why did they not get all party support before doing this. Will those who signed the deal pay compensation to the UK tax payer if it goes wrong as they should in my view.
Posted by: Michael Fallas
Related articles
Most Read
Audio / Visual
With the industry's biggest fund managers, IFAonline welcomes you to the media centre.
Ensure you never miss another story by following IFAonline regularly updated news feed on Twitter.
Events
Poll
|
|
Related Information
Job search
Adviser Careers will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.advisercareers.com now
In Focus
The “Structured Products” industry has come a long way over the last few years and in my opinion has evolved, and not devolved itself, alongside the more traditional investment markets.
Viewpoints
With the debate surrounding funding long term care in the run up to the last general election, few areas have been as topical or well publicized.
sponsored by
broken promises
I do not think the issue here is trying to block Nest, I think it is more to do with this Government continuing to break promises to their employers(the public in case they have forgotten).The other issue here is that I do not believe that there is no UK company who cannot service Nest satisfactorily(bearing in mind the UK is supposed to be the best financial centre in the world) and some of the best talent.Why oh why does it have to go to a foreign company again. This government seems to be intent in ensuring that all our assets are sold or outsourced abroad.
Posted by: terry