A new TPR statutory objective supporting scheme funding that is compatible with sustainable growth for the sponsoring employer and fully consistent with 2004 funding legislation, is not just “window dressing” and should have a “noticeable and measureable difference” in how the regulator acts, according to National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) chairman Mark Hyde Harrison.

Speaking at a NAPF regulation conference, Hyde Harrison commented that people prior to the Budget stated that a new objective would not make any difference and would see it as “business as usual if a new objective was put in place”. He argued that these views were “misguided” however.

“The government does not give a new objective to a regulator for it to make no difference. The government gives an objective in legislation to regulators so that it will make a difference. A new objective will have a difference in DB funding and the wording in the 2013 Pensions Act regarding this new objective has to be correct,” he said.

Hyde Harrison added that there is a “slight fly in the ointment” however with regards to the government’s own concerns about growth.

“They have decided to give consideration to having a growth objective added to all non-financial regulators and that may include the TPR as well. Here we need to tread carefully. The growth objective is implicit in the new objective of the TPR in terms of the sustainable growth of the sponsoring employer. What we have to be careful of here is if the growth objective means that there is more of a push for investing in the UK and investing in policies that mean growth in the UK but not really looking at the benefits for the member or the strategies that the trustees have to follow.

“We hope that the new growth objective will be acknowledged by the new TPR objective and not create an additional burden for the regulator.”

Share Story: