| The Pensions Regulator |
|
This Chapter at a Glance: The Pensions Regulators: • 2010 ~ 2013, Mr. Bill Galvin(Layperson ~ no legal qualifications); • 2015 ~ 2017 , Incumbent, Ms. Lesley Titcomb (Accountant ~ no legal qualifications); • TPR ~ 2015~2016 The Rude Awakening ~ BHS; • Not for Larnin' ~ 2017 ; • TPR ~ The Enforcer Cometh… • 2015 ~ 2019 TPR ~ Titcomb goeth …Sacked… |
| The Pensions Regulator ~ 2010 ~ 2013 |
|
When the Bugler unfortunately became involved in the pensions ‘industry’ in 2007, and whilst seeking regulatory assistance in 2008, initial contact was made with the Pensions Regulator, an organisation which had been reformed, yet again, in 2005. This organisation, similar to the Pensions Ombudsman, is ‘sponsored’ by the Department of Works and Pensions and though both organisations claim that they are quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) the Taxpayers and the pension Scheme members know for certain that its 500 employees spend £80 mil annually in taking the Taxpayers shilling… In 2008, three years after its reformation and a rebranding exercise, it could be assumed that some life had been injected into this tax consuming corpse but a more moribund disinterested organisation it was hard to conceive. Though by later comparison with the odious Information Commissioner’s Office, it was difficult to choose which of these three quangos was the more managerially terminally ill. It seemed difficult if well-nigh impossible to discover what exactly the Pensions Regulator did and what the Taxpayer allegedly paid the CEO and his Board to do, for if it was not to regulate the state of probity in national pension schemes, what was their, and his function, for existence? If one read the 'contents on the jar' the TPR had apparently been set up to proactively ‘police’ the administration of the nation’s pension schemes worth billions of ££’s. The jar states that this ‘organisation’ is the Regulator of work-based pension schemes in the UK, the objectives of which are; to protect members’ benefits; to reduce the risk of calls on the pensioners lift raft the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) – when a company runs off with the pensions contributions; to promote, and to improve understanding of the good administration of work-based pension schemes; and, currently, to maximise employer compliance with automatic enrolment duties(where every worker must be in a pension Scheme) and one must assume, in the process, unwavering and complete compliance with Statutory pension law? Even to a casual caller the staff sounded completely bored and disinterested, a disinterest extending to any caller who might have the temerity to ask what exactly it was that they did if it was not to react to a report of massive and culpable maladministration in the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority Pension Scheme and the London Fire and Civil Defence Pension Scheme? It was, as ever, the usual dismissive ‘you might try the Pensions Ombudsman’ when persistence was not rewarded. In the revolutionary pension period which has followed, encapsulated by Hutton, there was quite a massive change in government policy which the PR had neither anticipated or planned for, which quite frankly left this dilapidated and expiring ‘organisation’ floundering in a bog of its own apathy where it still finds itself today as it attempts to catch up in sleepy hollow.
His enthronement was hailed under the banner of ‘Prepare now for the Pensions Revolution’. Well how about for starters if he woke up his staff and encouraged them to engage in that process which all of the rest of us recognise? It is called work. When subsequently exposed to the increasing and publicly appalling rituals of accountability and transparency in this pension noddy land the best the PR could only come up with the bright (novel?) idea of re-branding itself and in the process renaming itself to The Pensions Regulator(TPR). But had they not just completed this ‘exercise’ a mere 3 years before? Perhaps the old Taxpayers might be misled into believing that this was a new organisation with a new bubbling effervescence of eagerness to get to grips with an ‘industry’ which was looking after itself as usual to the specific exclusion of the very Members of the Schemes who were actually, in conjunction with the Taxpayers, funding this annual expenditure of £80 mil by means of a levy on the pension scheme Members and who the PR were institutionally set on excluding from their daily ‘work’ of pension/benefit protection. Mr. Bill Galvin departed in 2013 to academia but we are all still holding our breath in expectation of his great revolution to come…was he the man who gave the world the ‘T’ in ‘T’he Pensions Regulator? When the former CEO of TPR departed for the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) in 2013, it took the watchdog over 18 months to find a replacement and so once more the cycle recommenced in its search for self-fulfilment and its fitness for purpose for which they had been, and continue to be, handsomely rewarded.
Ms.Titcomb who commenced her financial regulatory career on secondment at the now extinct Securities and Investments Board, later rebranded as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in 1997, which had its regulatory functions reapportioned by the government following the world financial meltdown, with the FCA emerging as a consequence, with it is claimed, the architect as Ms.Titcomb. The only question to be raised was she in post before the ‘meltdown’? Soon the challenges will come and for the present it seems unfortunate mixed messages are already emerging in Ms.Titcomb’s first public statements. Ms. Titcomb comes from a different world where profit is king to a world in which she must assume the mantle of financial conservationist and protectionism from the scammers and sharks of the very world she has just come from, in the ‘city’. Now she must commence her regulatory functions in the pensions world with one hopes her focus simply on those she will be required to protect from such financial predators,scammers, and pension scheme management incompetents. In paraphrasing Plato, pension Schemes and Scheme Members exist to serve themselves at the end of a hard working life with the ambition of a fruitful time of enjoyment of all those manner of entitlements that they have done without, or experienced in economical exposure, in order to husband their savings in the form of pension for this better day called retirement. They have done so to serve themselves and most certainly not the scammers, sharks, city financial opportunists, the pension market place, nor for that matter the State. Perhaps she might adopt the Credo that her immediate boss Baroness Altmann CBE has stated in her maiden speech to the House of Lords on the 18th June 2015 which is that this new government has given a clear commitment of pension protection to the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus who, year in and year out, pay their pension contributions into this or that Scheme fund, and have the rightful expectation that this lifetime of invested financial effort is rigorously protected by substantial laws that actually have teeth and that the enforcement authorities, including TPR, will take prompt punitive action when, not if, it all goes wrong. Regulator Titcomb agrees in one hopes a thrust which becomes her policy by this supporting comment … “Once the scam has happened and the assets have perhaps left the country or been invested in something unsuitable then that's it; it's very difficult to get anything back for the members at that point…" . Of course there is the foolish temptation, which is to be expected, with all these new ‘freedoms’ and ‘choices’, to draw out a pension pot and have a fun for the life that remains, and as such the Nanny State will see it as its moral compass and duty to protect the proles from themselves. The Nanny State should have a care because this is not their role. It ought remind itself, frequently, by the sweat of the whose brow was the pension pot put there in the first place? As we have seen recently 60k pensioners(a miniscule number) have chosen to pull the pot and run for their own sensible personal reasons and it is simply breath taking arrogance for any government to suggest that it ‘trusts’ these workers to do the right thing. How dare they? It is their money in the first place and the government, quite rightly, having removed unnatural barriers to access and having proffered cautionary advice on the implications and consequences which they might consider before drawing down their pension pots their responsibility end |
with the Regulator proposing alternative lodgments where they might choose to place their pulled pot. If those Scheme/Fund members then take democratic choices for themselves and trusting in their own judgement that they are doing the right thing for them and for their personal circumstances then as a consequence the responsibility must naturally rest with them and not the State. The State can and should only do so much but within the guidelines which already exist and which the new Regulator must surely be aware of for pension providers within FCA rules there are stipulations that providers should tailor individual warnings for pensioners who are considering the transfer /cash in of their DB pots. The rules are there now they must be used to the advantage of the Scheme Members rather than the ‘pension marketplace’. Another old naive chestnut has raised its head in Ms.Titcomb’s early utterances is that of enforcement powers for compliance, as opposed to education and persuasion, and in that respect she recognises that she does have the necessary enforcement powers, the concern will be, whether she has the bureaucratic courage to use them or not? Ms.Titcomb states … "I think the evidence is that TPR has used its powers when it needs to do so and they are strong powers that can be used after the event, which is very helpful. "We take an approach of educate, enable, enforce, to all our regulation so enforcement powers are important but we would prefer to get people to do what they need to do by explaining very clearly what it is and then helping them do the right thing. "Perhaps what you don't see in the DB area is the enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes in negotiating with employers and trustees to try and ensure that we get appropriate contributions. And we do a lot of that by negotiation with those groups and their advisers rather than by going straight to our enforcement powers." It is not encouraging to hear Ms. Titcomb singing off the old hymn sheet that regulatory persuasion is better than enforcement. It is nothing of the kind. It has all been tried and failed before so why would her powers of persuasion be greater than those of her predecessors? It is neither a good idea nor a good start in a sense of misplaced loyalty to be seen to be defending the failures of her predecessors. The plain fact of the matter is that TPR did fail its duties, was far too lenient on the deliberate misdemeanours on Scheme managers, and by so doing abjectly failed to protect the life savings of the hard working people. The evidence, if one cared to look is all around. If proof be needed Ms.Titcomb would be wise to study the lessons which her boss learned on the other side of the barricades when fighting the steel industries who unashamedly walked off with pension contributions, the echoes of which continue to this very day… The only answer as ever is to speak quietly and carry a very large stick which is regularly applied to the patently disingenuous non-compliers, the lazy, the shirkers of responsibility, and the just plain pension Scheme fraudsters. It is a matter of shrewd professional judgement when persuasions ends(sooner rather than later) and a harsh lesson is delivered, if only pour les encourager les autres… Perhaps the Bugler misjudges Ms.Titcomb at this early point because we have already seen by the end of early March the issuance of four escalating penalty notices against failure of compliance which carried a daily fine of £10,000. That is an encouraging trend which ought to be continued on a broader front. Ms.Titcomb states… "The pensions industry generally is facing the most amazing set of challenges at the moment …". Indeed they are and finding a moral compass, or better still placing one in their collective hands by the TPR with instructions to use it, and from whom they might take the necessary readings of honesty and integrity, might give direction and impetus to this new pension world which the government has set it aspirations on. She says… “Most of all, I learnt that I really liked doing something where I was contributing to society pursuing public policy for the wider good of people in society” …"That's very much a feature of The Pensions Regulator and one of the reasons why I was very keen to work there and lead it as an organisation." . Now that is the type of hymn sheet we hope that Ms Titcomb will sing from and it has not been a notable feature in the past of her previously insouciant and somnambulant organisation and it is to be hoped that in this respect she will put her 500 staff to work and sooner rather than later. How else can people have confidence in workplace pension savings Schemes? Hutton in his solutions to the ills of the ‘pension industry’ proposed that all Schemes should have a Local Pension Board to ‘assist’ the Scheme manager. This proposal is perhaps one of the poorest proposals which he made in his Report and will with time, and when reality sets in, have to be amended/rejected or entirely scrapped. It simply will not work. The Bugler has written about this nonsense before. It is based on the incorrect assumption that a pension knowledge base already exists in ‘Pension UK’ which consists of lay or elected politicians/individuals/trustees, who are to be found, who are willing first of all to find the time to be educated in the intricacies of Statutory pension law for which they will be held legally responsible on the Local Pension Boards which they will sit and secondly have the intellectual capacity to understand what is actually being asked of them. Regulator Titcom has, rightly, some acerbic and astute comments to make on these bizarre Trustee/Manager/Board proposals. She admits she is conscious of the danger of overburdening trustees with education. TPR’s limited resources mean it also has to prioritise which knowledge gaps to help fill. But for schemes struggling with the fast pace of change in the pension arena Regulator Titcomb reminds them that the Regulator is always there to help and one hopes enforce promptly if a Board does not understand the wisdom of her ‘suggestion’. She says: "Our survey of trustee capabilities does show that in the smaller schemes trustees aren't as aware of some of these things as we would like them to be so there is a challenge for us there. We will be continuing to develop and add to our guidance in both areas for trustees to try and drive up their competence." "So for example they have to have a percentage of independent trustees. That by its very nature is going to bring a mix to your board that wouldn't be there in a smaller scheme." "[It’s about] asset managers making the information available; the trustees understanding how to assess it and what it's telling them; and us helping the trustees to be in a position to ask the right questions and challenge where appropriate." (The Bugler's underline). Her final piece of advice for Trustees? "Think about your trustee capability – have you got the right people as the trustees of your schemes and are they well trained? Do you have good advisers? And are you getting value for money from those advisers? And then do the basics well". Judging by the sample of elected Members already sitting on the Lancashire CC Pensions Sub-Committee and those the LFRS proposes will sit on the LFRS Local Pension Board we can distinctly count on the continuation of the well-established principle of the Three Monkeys who will ‘assist’ the master fraudster Warren as their Scheme manager who of course actually appoints them following the ludicrous Hutton guiding principle…. So the challenges lie ahead including the legislative. Regulator Titcomb admits that TPR currently do not have the same rule-making powers as the FCA enjoys but neither do they enjoy the services of a very committed Minister of State in Baroness Altmann CBE to whom she is subordinate and that legislative situation may well be changed shortly. Nevertheless a new broom arrives hopefully to sweep away the dust and cowebs of inactivity whilst opening the windows to allow the wind of change to blow away the cosy warmth of city chumdom with its constant faint smell of corruption. The Bugler wishes Ms. Titcomb well and looks forward to the building of the bridge of trust with those she has been sent to protect… |
| TPR ~ A Rude Awakening with Blood on the Floor & BHS |
|
The well-known scandalous story of the BHS stores is still rumbling on into the distance with Green the former £1 boss of BHS shrieking regularly about defamation for which he accuses Frank Field and the Select Committee of W&P of being responsible for. The Bugler well knows about the shrieking of defamation… On 12th March 2015, it was announced that BHS had been sold to Retail Acquisitions for a nominal price of £1. Shortly after the takeover, a total of 51 out of the company's 171 stores were reported as being under threat of closure. By early 2016, periodic store closures had seen the company withdraw entirely from several city centres, including Bath, Cardiff, Carlisle, Oxford, Reading[ and Southampton. Plans were also being made to reduce the size of the flagship Oxford Street branch by leasing excess space to other retailers. In March 2016, the company sought a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) to allow it to restructure the business. As a consequence once more exposing the ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’ when it threw its remaining customers out into the street along with its 200 pension saving workers. In a banana republic they would have been shot for less and who came blame them? As part of its application, it revealed a deficit in its pension scheme of £207 million later changed to £300+ million and it sought to transfer its pension schemes responsibility to the Pension Protection Fund(PPF). The PPF you may recall is the Taxpayers life raft set up to protect pension schemes going bankrupt and their pensioners in just these circumstances. But Frank Field and his Select Committee were having none of it on the basis of why should the Taxpayers have to bail out a bunch of barrow boys who walked away with their gingling bags of loot whilst handily ignoring their responsibilities? In the 'blood on the carpets' of the Select Committee Parliamentary Committees rooms which followed, Green was repeatedly exposed for the person he was and the care he had not exhibited to a single one of his workers or pensioners and to the great huzzzahs of the electrorate Green was forced to ‘cough’ up. In the thick of it the TPR and Lesley Titcomb in particular was hauled over the coals, which were hot and mighty to explain what she and her organisation had done, or rather not done, and why had she allowed all this fiasco to happen on her watch. The Regulator then claimed that she had insufficient powers but the SelCom dismissed this out of hand on the basis that she had more than enough powers which she must learn to use effectively. But once more in quite scathing treatment in public from the SelCom with her job clearly on the line, which it continues to be to this very day, and being regularly bounced off the blood soaked floor a Member of SelCom in an amazing act of self-restraint was recorded as saying to Titcomb… "Well you’re really not much of a Regulator are you?”. |
It seems in a repeated study of those particular females and the repeated experience of the Bugler over the last 10 years that those who have risen rapidly to power and to head up organisations, with their fancy titles, and even fancier salaries that when they are called to account, rather than hold their hand up and admit to their short comings, their knee jerk reactions is always to have immediate recourse to falsehood and feeble excuses; and when all else fails blame the very people under them who they are directly responsible for… To be fair to the Regulator she really has no experience as a former accountant of the cut and thrust to be found on the streets of barrow boys but that does not mean she should not learn and learn very rapidly or join the dole queues out here. But in doing the larnin’ bit she ought to be aware of over reacting; to the effect that everyone who crosses her bow deserves a broadside; that also is the road to her personal perdition. Normally when a young inexperienced Officer under the Bugler’s command had been given a rocket for his crew’s lack of discipline and capability it was essential to monitor the subsequent performance to ensure that in the pendulum of discipline/capability further induced inexperience did not lead to an excess swing over of the pendulum into the attitudes of the much maligned Captain Bligh. Those handling power with inexperience have a grave tendency towards this and as a consequence of her regular re-dusting of the SelCom carpet Ms. Titcomb may well be heading off in that direction which she would be wise to guard against by establishing at an early point a balance, in using some of her powers for the extraordinary first time, between a carrot and a stick. After speaking on a panel about the future of defined benefit (DB) schemes at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) annual conference in Manchester, the Regulator told Professional Pensions® … "We're hearing from the regulated community that it wants TPR to be tougher on those that don't comply. We're becoming tougher, intervening more quickly, and using some of our powers for the first time.". There remains the small matter which must be started sooner than later, that of the need to formally introduce a requirement that every single person in pension administration across the land shall have and hold by renewable Nationally/Internationally a recognised mandatory licence to practice pension administration; a qualification set against a sliding scale of level of appointment and responsibility. Only this will inspire confidence in Pension Scheme Members that their ‘ pension investment’, never mind the City of London, is in safe hands with Local Authorities and Local Pension Boards on which will sit equally well qualified Pension Scheme elected Members, including representing the Scheme Members; and to act as a local Watch dogs for reassurance; not just to provide another excuse for Councillors fiddling expenses… Clearly the Regulator is still on board and is now ‘on message’ from the SelCom and would be wise to remain so, no matter how it might run against her personal grain. |
| Not for Larnin' ~ 2017 |
|
In 2015 the Bugler was not prescient when advising the new Regulator that ‘education’ in legal compliance rarely works. It was based on decades of experience. Much better to speak softly and carry a big stick to which the pension ‘industry’ is, as yet, not very familiar, but if necessary it will learn the hard way. An old adgage would be helpful, it is mind over matter… "we don’t mind and you don’t matter”… Until recently, the Fire Service has been enforcing legislation since 1928 with the then advent of the Petroleum Act. The lessons learned and relearned in enforcement were perpetual. It starts with the understanding that those being enforced to comply with this or that Act all produce balance sheets of excuses for not doing the work. Generally balance sheets, which are for scrutiny by the Tax Authorities, are figments of fiction and never include ledger entries for ‘common-sense’; ‘legal or moral liability’; nor the ‘value of a human life’ or in this case the right to the amenity of a pension which the pensioner has worked hard all their lives with the reassurance from successive governments that it would be there on the golden day of retirement to their green pastures. Those running a business rarely give a thought to their social responsibilities and have had on many occasion, lying well beyond the 'kindly persuasion envelope’, had to be reluctantly persuaded with the ‘big stick’ because ultimately, some will never learn but they are useful in providing an ‘example’ which like-minded others should learn from, because like it or not, fear for some remains the key. The rule seems to be that where money abounds the reluctance to spend it in respect of social and legal obligations is inversely proportional to its owner’s love of it.
Although the Fire Service had comprehensive enforcement powers it preferred to ‘police’ them with a gentle but firm hand but there was always the exception, the fool or rogue. |
The Bugler was reminded recently by a colleague’s story where in spite of the best will in the world with the combined efforts of the Service and a HSE Inspector one recalcitrant occupier was simply not for ‘larnin’. An onsite meeting concluded with the occupier looking forward to the next meeting asking when and where it might be? The HSE Inspector said tomorrow morning, and after grumbling at the short notice, the occupier inquired where, and when it was to be, a phlegmatic Inspector very casually replied … “Ooh! About 10 oclock in the Magistrates Court…”. Now especially for the Bugler’s 'friends' in Lancashire a Statement from the Regulator… “November 2017 Monetary penalties: The Watchdog also outlined how it would change its approach to calculating penalties, particularly in relation to joint and liability cases, and to take into account the different types of trustees when doing so. It said it will consider a number of factors when setting fines, up to £50,000, including: the track record of a person in complying with their duties; if the breach could have been prevented; the conduct of the person when issues are identified; if a person presents themselves as having expertise; if a trustees receives remuneration, and the circumstances of that remuneration; and if a trustee or pension board members acts in relation to multiple schemes. This penalty is underpinned by three principles, however, which relate to proportionality, changing behaviours, and deterring repetition.”. Bugler’s N.B. : A ‘trustee’ is someone, disabled FSV’s, their Widows, and Beneficiaries place their trust in to have their correct pensions paid, and to administer their pension fund investments with due care and human consideration.
|
| TPR ~ The Enforcer Cometh… |
|
Ms. Nicola Parish who is a solicitor was admitted to the Rolls on 1st November 1993 and has 24 years legal experience and is now the TPR’s lead ‘enforcer’. Ms. Parish has worked at TPR in various roles for eight years, including as Director of Legal Services and Enterprise Risk Management, and her most recent role as Director of Case Management. This handout ought to have added that she also ‘experienced’ the 'test by fire' and survived the Inquisition of SelCom in the matter of BHS no doubt that ought to have focused her mind on the task lying ahead. Ms. Parish in speaking about her intentions and though her remarks and intentions are directed, for the moment using the generic word ‘trustees’ one must can reasonably assume that she will apply the same ‘Tests’ to those who come under her scrutiny as ‘pension administrators’ in the broadest sense of that description. Integrity Test The Regulator will assess a person’s honesty and propriety by checking: bankruptcy, unspent criminal records, appropriateness for being a trustee and any director disqualifications, credit history, adverse findings or settlements in civil proceedings, contravention of |
regulatory rules, and other regulatory information available. Conduct Test The Regulator will assess an individual’s previous behaviour while also monitoring their future conduct on an ongoing basis as part of the scheme supervision. Competency Test The Regulator will also look at a scheme individual’s experience, knowledge and qualifications, ensuring they have a basic understanding of pensions and trustee duties, using existing Trustee Knowledge and Understanding requirements. Well we can all rest assured that Lancashire pension administrators will fail almost every element of these 3 Tests. Encouragingly, in 2016 her own firm words she laid out her order of priorities and emphases which in the period which has followed she has secured several ‘Ouch’ convictions with more in the pipeline to come and if we are to judge by the whinging and groaning of the pensions ‘industry’ Ms. Parish has started as she means to continue. Recently the Bugler at the invitation of SelCom W&P submitted a report on the state of administration of the Fire Service Pension Schemes and acting of the advice of Chairman Rt Hon Frank Field DL M.P., this report was handed to the Regulator Ms. Titcomb. Subsequently TPR have confirmed that they will carry out an investigation into the questionable practices outlined in this 77 page report which will shortly be published in Current Affairs on The Morning Bugler. For Editor's Comments and TPR Press Releases Go Here. |
| The Pensions Regulator ~ 2015 ~ 2019 ~ Sacked |
|
It seems that even though the government reported that she had been appointed for 3 years somewhere along the line to the horror of two Select Committees it has been discovered that she was either quietly granted a new 3 year term or an extension to March 2019.
Nothing but a complete root and branch clear out will suffice. It is unconscionable the Boyle who must share the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco should be allowed to pick Titcomb’s successor making one wonder what happened to the Equality Act and Commission where civil service job vacancies are concerned? Titcomb has been not only a complete failure but up to this point a successful deceiver in everything she touched. She is not alone. The Pension Ombudsman Arter is following a similar path to perdition where deceit, stonewalling, and institutionalised falsehood and laziness are the order of the day at all staffing levels in his organisation. Surely TPO’s Arter is next for the chop? It is unavoidable ? Readers will recall that recently disabled Fire Service Veterans whose pensions had never been protected by TPR put the TPR on test once more in the person of Ms.Christina Burton. Burton who, once more, pulled all the same old stonewalling dirty tricks to derail the disabled FSVs |
Complaints she had pulled before basically saying there was nothing TPR could, or would, do. It is to be hoped if there is any justice left in this world that Ms. Burton and those who directly instructed her in these institutionalised negative antics of gross misconduct, because there is no other way to describe it, will promptly follow Titcomb out the front door clutching their P45’s in their corrupt hands as well. Fair play and justice demands nothing less. The only person it seems to the Bugler who demonstrates any backbone at TPR and its true Regulator is Ms. Nicola Parish its Executive Director for Front-Line Regulation who has the greatest attribute in that she is most unpopular with the pension ‘industry’ and who now has the opportunity, which cannot be exceeded in career terms, which is to follow a complete failure… Now while the pension ‘industry’, Titcomb’s chums, make room for her in the dark recesses of some boardroom somewhere, this nonentity will of course be taken care of for the favours rendered to them but not for favours she failed to extend to the pensioners that she was put there to protect and which she and her staff were signally meant to look after. Already the ‘industry’ bleeding hearts are trooping out their false sentiments which is quite fascinating because it includes the following support from the Fire Services’ largest pension fund which has been repeatedly accused, with justification, of have a less than a healthy relationship with the TPR and now more recently with TPO… “Sorry to hear that as I have found Lesley to be very professional and open minded in all my dealings with her. Hopefully her successor will continue to engage with the industry in the proactive and positive manner Lesley has. — LPFA (@LPFA1) May 31, 2018 ”.
This LFB statement encapsulates the complete problem. Neither TPR nor TPO and its civil service staff have been employed by us the Taxpayers there to serve the pension industry. Their expensive organisations have been put there by the Taxpayers to protect our pensions. Which part of this pragmatic ethos did the departing Titcomb and hopefully the soon to be departed PO Arter not understand, or is it a case of who is paying the piper? Certainly as the Bugler initially reported on Titcomb she could talk the talk, but signally she failed to walk the walk… Perhaps this is the new Secretary of State McVey beginning to flex her muscles, which is all and good, provided she forces the right people to walk the plank… |
|
And now for some flights of fancy by Titcomb reported in the Professions Pensions® periodical..
"Lesley Titcomb is to leave The Pensions Regulator (TPR) at the end of her four-year term as chief executive in February 2019, the watchdog has announced.
Titcomb joined the regulator in 2015 but has confirmed she will not seek a renewal of the contract as it comes to an end over the next nine months.
Saying there was "a lot more to do" before she leaves, Titcomb said the decision had been difficult but next February was the "appropriate moment" for her to step down.
"This has been a difficult personal decision taken after extensive discussion with family and the chairman [Mark Boyle]," she said. "I love working at TPR and am immensely proud of what we are achieving. But as I turn 57 next month, the end of my contract in February 2019 feels like the appropriate moment to find more time in my life for family, friends, other interests and opportunities.
"However, in the nine months before my departure, we have a lot more to do. I will be here leading that work with my strong, committed TPR team."
The regulator said a search for Titcomb's successor would begin "immediately" and would be led by Boyle, with the final appointment subject to the secretary of state for work and pensions, Esther McVey.
Boyle thanked Titcomb for her service, noting she had been a "catalyst for change" at the organisation.
"On behalf of the board and the whole organisation, I want to express our appreciation for the superb job Lesley is continuing to do as our chief executive," he said. "We respect her decision but will be very sorry to lose her.
"She has been a real catalyst for change, working with energy and drive to get results and make a difference to the way we work. Lesley has strengthened our leadership team and will continue, over the coming months, to implement TPR Future, the change programme she and I instigated together which is already making us a more effective regulator."
The announcement comes after a challenging couple of years for the regulator in the wake of the collapses of BHS, and Carillion, and the saga surrounding the British Steel Pension Scheme.
Criticism has particularly been levelled at TPR's senior leadership by the Work and Pensions Committee and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee whose chairs, Frank Field and Rachel Reeves, recently said they were "far from convinced that TPR's current leadership is equipped" to make cultural changes necessary at the regulator.
However, writing for Professional Pensions, former pensions minister Sir Steve Webb – now Royal London director of policy – dismissed the committees' criticisms as "unnecessarily personal" and said it was "harsh to blame her personally for the failings of TPR" when she was not chief executive.
Industry commentators expressed sadness at her decision, and praised her "proactive and positive manner…" What a nauseating display of false loyalty including the greatest pal the ‘industry’ ever had in the former pensions minister now the elevated 'Sir' Steve Webb – currently Royal London director of policy… another honey pot dipper…how chummy. They would circle the wagons, would they not…TPO needs to do that as well…perhaps the age of accountability is reaching both these moribund organisations the TPR and TPO and it needs to? |