It’s encouraging to read that the Pensions Regulator is reorganising.

The Pensions Regulator makes strategic shift in its oversight of the workplace pensions market

But there are questions we should be asking about the “strategic shift” and these three come to mind

Chief Executive of TPR, Nausicaa Delfas, said:

“We have to make sure that workplace pensions work for savers. Our organisational changes are about bringing our talented and capable colleagues together to protect, enhance and innovate in savers’ interests.”

— Josephine Cumbo (@JosephineCumbo) February 22, 2024

My first question is “how is the consolidation process going?”.

Normally we expect around now to have the publication of data on DC schemes. TPR’s website tells us that it will appear in the summer “with enhanced data validation”.  I appreciate there are staff shortages due to industrial action and are aware that recent a data submission to the WPC went off half-cock. But these are minor matters, we could do with a general update on the direction of travel, not least because it impacts the big intervention – the proposed special £10,000 pa levy on small DC schemes which has been described as the “nuclear option”.

Q1 (1) We have seen one new scheme – Clara, consolidate one pension – Sears. This is so far “one in, one out” – what is happening on superfunds?

My second question is “what is wrong with cutting staff?”

The regulator said reducing headcount was ‘not the purpose of the changes’. ‘Whenever we have undergone change at TPR we have always strived to avoid redundancies at all costs.’

“Our goal with this organisational design is to better deploy, upskill & develop the people we have.”

— Josephine Cumbo (@JosephineCumbo) February 22, 2024

Natural wastage or “staff turnover” means that people that leave, do not need to be replaced. It is natural for a regulator looking to streamline its workload, to streamline its workforce. Nobody wants to be employed doing jobs that can better be done by computers and the manual labour of supervision really does need to reduce with consolidation.

A tighter, better skilled workforce leads to higher morale in the organisation. It is clear that change is necessary but must TPR always be in growth mode?

My third question is what is all this re-labelling about?

We are informed that

from April, will create three new regulatory functions which protect, enhance and innovate in savers’ interests:

• Regulatory Compliance – protecting pension savers’ interests through the effective and efficient delivery of regulatory compliance services, targeting schemes and employers.

• Market Oversight – enhancing the market through strategic engagement with schemes and others who influence pension savers’ outcomes, with a strong focus on delivering value for money and trusteeship.

• Strategy, Policy and Analysis – using insights from our regulatory approach and elsewhere to evolve the regulatory framework and support market innovation in savers’ interests.

These new labels appear to replace  Front Line, Policy analysis and strategy and “communications” respectively.

What would be good would be an organigram of what we have now and what is changing. I am sure there are plenty of quips about “deckchairs ” and “the titanic” going around TPR’s nearly new offices, they may not be made wider, but those of us interested in regulation , would like to know that this is does amount to a  “strategic shift” rather than a cosmetic makeover.

Optimism Remains

Despite my questions and those of others, this blog remains foursquare behind Nausicaa Delfas , Sarah Smart and their management team in their efforts to create a new mindset.

There have been several senior people leaving TPR lately and we are in the inter-regnum before the new team is in place. The darkest hour is just before dawn, we are approaching spring.

We are beginning to see fruits of the new approach mentioned in TPR’s statement on these changes, let’s hope the thaw continues!