Download the correspondence between TPR and the Work and Pensions Committee and you find yourself with something called .
It’s a spelling which suggests something a little irregular , a suggestion confirmed by the contents of the file
The “dispute” is caused by the disparity between the Office of National Statistics and the Pension Regulator/PPF’s analysis of the current state of DB finances. This matter is getting very little coverage , other than from the FT, but it is of more than technical significance.
Link to a very technical letter where the Pensions Regulator attempts to explain to MPs how it calculated estimated pension liabilties fell by 50% (£369bn) between 2021-23.
Recommend reading with a coffee/teahttps://t.co/vi1vc93u5x
— Josephine Cumbo (@JosephineCumbo) March 14, 2024
The matter is of sufficient concern for Sir Stephen Timms, Chair of the Parliamentary Work and Pensions Committee to persist.
His question is whether TPR’s figures are fit for purpose. As they are behind the new DWP Funding Regulations Impact Assessment and the new DB options consultation, Parliament is concerned that policy is being created using irregular data.
Later in the week, the ONS are due to publish their latest research, which will cover June and September 2023 – the latter is the date at which most of TPR’s analysis was done.
This blog will be keeping you posted.
“Desputed” – disputed
The file can be downloaded from WPC’s website using this link.
It’s a warning to us all – filing matters too!
This blog is not holding itself out to be “typo-free” , nor pointing a finger to any finger.
Without spell-check, Twitter has ongoing “liabilties”!
As in all things – a sense of proportion and humour is required! My thanks to the tolerance of those who read this blog for my many errors!