A petition that is urging the government not to drop its plans for the pensions dashboard has now been signed by more than 100,000 people.
Approximately 125,000 people have already signed the said petition. It criticises Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, following the reports that were released earlier this year that suggested that she had proposed to kill off the said project.
Guy Opperman, the pensions and financial inclusion minister, also had a very little contribution to stopping the rumours regarding the dashboard being dismissed after he did not contradict the reports during a meeting of the Work and Pensions Committee.
The petition claims that millions of pensioners will be at risk of losing out on some of their pots once the idea for the said dashboard is dropped.
The dashboard would organise a saver’s pensions all in one place, and dismiss the issue of people losing track of their savings as they shift jobs throughout their entire life.
The stats of the Department of Work and Pensions suggest that 50 million pots would likely be lost by 2050 without the pensions dashboard.
The petition states: “A huge petition signed by thousands of us will show the government we expect them to keep their promises and continue to roll out the pensions dashboard.”
Sigma, a design agency, produced a prototype for the UK pensions dashboard. Its commercial director, Shaun Gomm, stated: “The pension system in the UK remains one of the most complex to navigate in the world. Despite paying into our retirement fund for decades, millions of us have no idea how to track or properly manage our pensions; and we’re potentially losing out on thousands in misplaced pension pots. It is therefore vital that the promised pensions dashboard – a project born out of the need to simplify this process – is pushed forward.”
He added: “Both our ageing population and the incoming automatic workplace enrolment scheme mean it has never been more timely for the government to take action on pensions – so to scrap it at this crucial stage would be ill-advised and hugely detrimental, which is to say nothing of the substantial investment in time and money that many organisations have already committed to this project in good faith.”