This question was posted on yesterday’s blog on the Pensions Regulator’s account of 2025/6.
Derek Scott on a beach in Fife.
Derek Scott, a retired Trustee Chair and notable accountant had this in reply. I assume he talks of “value for money”; his comment is in reply to PensionsOldie’s comment on TPR’s increase fro £104.8m to £115.2m in 2025/6.
The question is whether TPR can mark itself BFM
This is the gap in TPR’s reporting, which feels in parts rather like marking their own homework.
Are we paying for better outcomes, or just more process and oversight capacity?
We should want to see:
• Measurable improvements in net investment returns after costs
• Reductions in poor-value schemes (not just consolidation activity)
• Evidence that master trust scale is translating into better outcomes (not just concentration)
• Quantified impacts of interventions (eg basis point measures of average improvements in member outcomes after interventions)TPR reporting leans heavily on:
• Activity metrics (engagements, connections, compliance rates)
• System metrics (dashboards, submissions)… but not on outcome metrics.
Putting the annual cost in context:
• Total spend: £115m
• Liabilities overseen: £1.7 trillion
• Members: ~22 million (TPR probably claim over 30 million, but there are duplications, part timers
and self-employed whom TPR don’t reach yet)That’s roughly:
• £5 per member per year
• ~0.007% of liabilities
I like to be fair and while most will throw brickbats, one of the shrewdies holds out hope for TPR in years to come!
It is a different TPR than we have seen and one that I hope will embrace innovation including Superfunds, CDC , the dashboard and small pot consolidation. I hope this time next year we will see defaults in DC schemes meaning from some point a saver gets the equivalent of a pension as a regular income till they dies.
As for Value For Money, I agree with Derek (in its current form). this is one idea that can be ditched. If it were pursued as Chris Sier wanted and Iain Clacher pursues. We could, (as Dereck points out), find ways for TPR to improve pensions for sponsors and for members but this version of measurement has little going and time and money could be spent on better things.
It is not that TPR haven’t got better things to do! Ill leave the final words with Dereck
So even a small improvement in outcomes (eg average charges, investment performance, governance) could more than justify the spend.
