Last July on this blog page, I made a commitment to delivering a new regulatory approach for TPR that reflects the political and economic pressure that continues to shape the pensions world, and to ensure savers are better protected.
A few years ago we started to stamp our feet about master trusts. As automatic enrolment successfully swept through businesses and more and more people were being put into workplace pensions, master trust schemes grew in popularity.
Here at TPR, when we are regulating DB schemes, we have to pull off a complicated balancing act. Parliament has given us a mandate to protect pension savers and the PPF.
In assessing the events of 2017/18, I’m reminded not just of the work of industry and TPR colleagues but of the excellence and the dedication my colleagues at the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) provide.
For several months now, we have talked about our commitment to change as a regulator – to be clearer, quicker and tougher.
They hide in plain sight, looking respectable to the outside world but denying their workers their legal rights.
The Facebook data scandal has got a lot of people thinking for the first time about what we share with organisations and how it will be used.
In arguably the biggest change to pensions regulation since automatic enrolment was introduced six years ago, from October 2018 master trusts will have to apply to The Pensions Regulator (TPR) for authorisation to operate in the market.
You know you’re on the side of right when everyone agrees. It doesn’t happen often. But the government’s move for a swift ban on pension cold-calling is one of those times.