Regulator accused of too much focus on smaller schemes

Speaking at the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) annual conference in Liverpool, a panel of high profile scheme managers and consultants told how they felt the regulator had taken too long to unleash its most potent powers.

Adam Walker, chairman of the NAPF Liverpool Group and partner at Barnett Waddingham, said: “Speaking as an adviser to small schemes, there has been little use of some of the major powers – such as financial support directives and contribution notices. But we have seen much more invasive attention for smaller firms involved in takeovers.

“Much of it is behind closed doors, so it is a problem which is not widely known.”

He said he would like to see increased use of the regulator’s powers to enforce the appointment of trustees when there was a clear conflict of interest on a trustee board.

Also speaking on the panel was Steven Robson, head of pensions at United Utilities, who said he felt the regulator often got caught up in the detail of its powers without looking at the bigger picture.

He cited the use of 10-year recovery plans as an example where the regulator was often not flexible enough to the detriment of schemes with large but manageable deficits.

Robson added: “The regulator should be a referee, but only when it is asked to be or when there is a problem. At the moment it’s just wants to referee all the time.”

Walker added he felt the regulator was often painted as the “villain” by the pensions industry because it did not have a specific objective of protecting the long-term future of pension schemes, only accrued rights.

But he also said he felt the regulator suffered from a lack of resource.

“The people I have met working for the regulator are very competent,” he added. “We have been very impressed with the way they go about things, but it is just clear they have too much work to do and end up running from one task to the next.”