View more on these topics

Nest drew £79m in DWP loans last year

Nest drew £78.9m in Department for Work and Pensions’ loans during 2010/11 as the Government-backed pension scheme geared up preparations for automatic enrolment in October 2012.

Nest Corporation’s annual report and accounts for 2010/11, published last week, reveal the scheme drew down net loan funding of £78.9m compared with £35.4m in 2009/10.

The accounts show that at March 31, 2011, the total amount owed by Nest to the DWP in loan repayments was £120m.

Nest expects to repay the loan within 20 years through its 1.8 per cent member contribution charge. The agreement will be reviewed in 2020. The loans are charged at the interest rate prevailing at the time the loan was taken out. At March 31, 2011 the average interest rate on loan funding was 7.3 per cent.

A Nest spokeswoman says: “The loan agreement provides funding for Nest for the next nine years, at which point the arrangements will be reviewed.

“Nest’s costs and revenues, and hence the amount and duration of the required funding, are to a large extent member volumes and are therefore not certain. On current assumptions, Nest is scheduled to pay its borrowing off within 20 years.”

Nest spent £30.8m during 2010/11, including £5m in interest payments on the DWP loan and £15.2m in staff costs. It also made advance payments totaling £27.6m to Tata Consultancy Services for the setting up of scheme administration services.

Nest chief executive Tim Jones says the uncertainty that surrounded the scheme following the 2010 general election disrupted preparations for auto-enrolment.

He says: “The period following the election was naturally one of some uncertainty, which generated an increase in staff turnover. This coincided with spending controls which were implemented to reduce public sector spending, including restrictions on recruitment and other types of spending such as the use of consultants.

“The resulting resourcing position for Nest affected the work programme and increased overall risk.

“With the conclusion of the review, we are past this period and we have agreed specific controls on spending for Nest which are consistent with the aims of the Government.”


Lansley airs concerns on NHS pension moves

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has attacked the Government’s public sector pension reform proposals in a letter to Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander. A private letter to Alexander, leaked to the Telegraph and reportedly sent to the Lib Dem MP two months ago, refers to a paper sent to the Cabinet outlining the Government’s plans. Under […]

DWP: Court ruling puts members’ pension protection rights “in doubt”

The Government says workers’ pension protection rights are “in doubt” after the Supreme Court ruled against the DWP in a case which will force it to write new legislation. The case arose following the wind-up of the Imperial Home Décor scheme, a defined benefit and defined contribution ‘hybrid’ pension scheme which qualified for help from […]


Why are not taken up rates so high?

Getting more customers to buy protection products seems to be a never-ending challenge. The public still generally believes the state will support them and until the Government openly says otherwise and we do more to promote what we do, many will prefer to pay for Sky TV and Buster’s pet insurance than for critical-illness cover. […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Julian Stevens 28th July 2011 at 2:41 pm

    It’s all a job-creation scam if you ask me. I suppose we should be grateful that the government didn’t empower the FSA to raise all this money by way of extra levies against the FS industry.

    Just what is NEST expected to accomplish that couldn’t be done better by the private sector? If the admin turns out to be a disaster, then what happens? Nobody but TATA tendered for the job, so there’s no where else it could be transferred to.

    It seems to me that NEST’s sole virtue is cheapness and nothing else at all. It isn’t great because the government designed it. It isn’t great because it’s going to be quasi-compulsory. It isn’t going to offer a great range of funds (quite the opposite). It isn’t welcomed by employers, particularly in these economically challenging times. And the provision of any advice will be subject to fees ~ no fee, no advice.

    Some employers may be persuaded to set up a private scheme instead, though with so many things still wrong with the current pensions framework, are they likely to do so with anything approaching good grace, let alone enthusiasm? I wonder.

    Still, I’m out of the corporate market these days and very glad to be.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm