On member protection and new powers for the Pensions Regulator, the ACA response says ‘we do not believe that there is any significant evidence that members need additional protection or that substantial new powers are needed for the Pensions Regulator. Whilst several recent high-profile cases have raised the question of whether members have adequate protection, the outcome of these cases has seen members generally receiving (or expecting to receive) benefits above PPF minimum levels, which should be regarded as a qualified success for the current regulatory regime.’

‘We also do not believe that recent events have demonstrated any significant failings on the part of the Pensions Regulator. In fact, it is arguable that the failures seen in recent cases such as BHS have been failures of corporate governance rather than of pension regulation. It might be helpful for the Government to consider how all regulators can use their existing powers to influence good corporate governance in relation to decisions and advice affecting workplace pension provision, and to encourage closer working practices between different regulators.

Commenting on the response, ACA Chairman, Bob Scott said “We note that the Pensions Regulator already has significant powers, some of which it has used only sparingly and others of which it has never used at all. It might be worth considering whether the process that the Pensions Regulator has to go through before deciding whether or not to use its powers is overly laborious and whether it could be made easier for it to embark on regulatory intervention using its existing powers.”

Full Content: Actuarial Post

Remember to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter for more news or subscribe to our service to get unlimited access.