Tories "amazed" at speed of Nest contract deal
Share
The Conservative Party has slammed the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority after it announced plans to sign the Nest administration contract before the general election, insisting its review of the scheme would not be constrained “in any way”.
Pada announced this morning that Tata Consultancy Services was the successful bidder for the National Employment Savings Trust scheme administration services and that it intends to sign a contract with TCS later this month, before the expected general election date in May.
Speaking to Money Marketing, Conservative Shadow pensions minister Nigel Waterson (pictured) says he is “amazed” that the contract will been signed so quickly and stressed that this would not inhibit any Tory review of the scheme should they gain power.
He says: “We are amazed that when the implementation date seems to be getting further away this contract is being signed in such a hurry. The original timetable was for this to happen in late June.
“But we wish to make it clear our review of Nest should we win the election will not be constrained in any way by any contract signed by this Government in its dying days.”
The contract is divided into two stages and runs for 10 years, with possible extensions for up to a further five years. The first stage will run to October 2010, allowing TCS to begin the activity required to set up and administer Nest.
Prior to the expiry of the first stage, a decision will be made on whether to proceed with the contract for the remainder of the contract term.
Pada revealed in December that Great-West Retirement Services had withdrawn from the administrator bidding process leaving just Tata in the running. The Liberal Democrats claimed Tata had Pada “over a barrel”.
Logica UK withdrew from the competitive dialogue process for the contract in November.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (12)
Rob N | 2 Mar 2010 1:43 pm
The contract will presumably contain large penalty clauses preventing the next (presumably Conservative) government from pulling NEST hence Waterson's concerns. Maybe TCS threatened to pull out if a contract was not offered before the GE?
Oh to be a fly on the wall...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike Jordan | 2 Mar 2010 1:50 pm
More taxpayers' money down the drain then, signed away but someone who'll not carry any financial liability for wasting our cash.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john | 2 Mar 2010 2:01 pm
Looks like PADA feathering their own NEST
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Blair Cann | 2 Mar 2010 2:13 pm
If the conservatives do win the election and subsequently cancel the contract why on earth should Tata get any compensation? They are aware of the circumstances and if they choose to take the risk after the conservatives have made it perfectly clear it is subject to review then the risk is theirs.
The conservatives should make it clear that they will not offer any compensation whatever happens. They have already made it clear their final decision will not be influenced by the parties hasty signing of a contract now; they need to go that one stage further to scotch this idiocy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew Pritchard | 2 Mar 2010 2:16 pm
One minute the Labour politicians are complaining about controlling expenditure then they are deliberately committing to huge costs just to 'spike the guns' of the next parliament.
Perhaps if MP's could be retrospectively punished for their errors and profligacy, then they may be more considerate towards taxpayer’s money. No time bar on MP's decisions!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian | 2 Mar 2010 2:57 pm
Its all part of Bully Browns scorched earth policy to leave the incoming administration with a poisoned chalice. When the spending cuts & higher taxes come to sort out his mess he will blame it all on the Tories.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Whipple | 2 Mar 2010 2:58 pm
Another large contract signed by a quango that has no accountability just the power to spend.
The speed must sound warning bells alone it was due this June.
One must wonder if all is above board as there is only this one "bidder" left.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IAIN | 2 Mar 2010 4:16 pm
Why don't we claim the back tax from Lord Ashcroft, that will be more than enought to cover the cost of the reckless quango
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 2 Mar 2010 7:00 pm
Why April if it was originally due to be June?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jon | 2 Mar 2010 7:33 pm
Wow, here I am wishing Capita would step up and run the administration. Never thought I'd say that! Then again i never thought we'd see an Indian car manufacturer running admin for a national pensions institution.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment