It feels as though The Pensions Regulator news has been flowing thick and fast throughout the month of May, ending with splash which I think not many in the industry expected - but really, it’s just been too much.

Ever since the introduction of the regulator’s quicker, clearer and tougher mantra, the scrutiny it’s faced seems to have been turned up a notch; even the quickest of scrolls on the Pensions Age website makes it clear just how much tougher it has been for TPR.

The announcement that TPR CEO Lesley Titcomb will be leaving the regulator at the end of her tenure has disappointed, and has led many to conclude that the criticism dished out to be particularly unfair.

In particular, the Work and Pensions Committee went for the jugular, practically giving its leadership a vote of no confidence in its ability to effect change, saying it was “deeply concerned” and stating it would “further consider” TPR’s role in the ongoing defined benefit pensions white paper.

Well with that to look forward to, why wouldn’t you want to stick around? A moment that sticks in my mind was at a certain pensions seminar, in which a certain high-profile trustee, who took absolutely no blame for a certain high-profile pension case, pointed to the uselessness of the regulator and called for it to be axed.

Whatever your opinion on TPR, the public vilification of Titcomb in front of the select committee looks to be have been an over the top and misjudged reaction, a theatrical act even, to what happened at a time when she wasn’t even in charge.

TPR’s reaction after the Carillion disaster was to come out fighting, and it genuinely seems to have made an impression on the industry in doing so.

The industry seemed encouraged by TPR’s latest corporate plan. A few tweaks here and a lot more resources there and many feel we would have the supervisory body needed to govern this industry; even the Pensions Protection Fund were singing TPR’s praises.

Alas, this still wasn’t enough to impress the committee, who were disappointed that the “modest” key performance indicator targets for its regulation of defined benefit schemes - but it can only shoot with so many bows.

With new master trust authorisation underway, as well as taking on the regulation of the pooled local government pension schemes, there is a lot on its plate. The ‘quicker, clearer and tougher’ mantra is reaching Theresa May levels of roboticness, and, just as we all now have “Brexit means Brexit” permenantley resonating around our eardrums, TPR’s message is becoming equally as jaded.

The encouragement for the regulator’s more recent work came as a breath of fresh air in what has been a rough ride, and as many have pointed out before me, the relentless pressure of leading TPR is the opposite of shining endorsement for a role that will be vacant come next February.

It has been genuinely warming to hear what high esteem Titcomb is held in since her decision to leave was announced. It will be interesting to see just how the industry and the committee appraoch TPR, with Titcomb’s departure pending. The important thing now is to ensure a pragmatic approach moving forward. If the blame game is still being played when all is said and done, then we must look beyond the role of The Pensions Regulator. One thing's for sure, it will be quicker, clearer and tougher.

Share Story: