However, the SPP go on to explain that they believe that there are some areas where unintended outcomes could arise and where further clarification would be helpful,
The SPP also states that it agrees, “…that considering impact, scale and complexity is a reasonable approach to prioritising enforcement activity” but warns, “…there is a risk that this could be misunderstood to imply that small schemes would be less likely to face enforcement action or that 'scale' is only considered in relation to a single scheme rather than also including a single issue affecting multiple small schemes.”
The SPP response highlights that industry recognises that TPR’s resources are finite and that there may therefore “…be a temptation to focus on any egregious corporate activities at larger or less well-funded schemes” but despite such temptation, SPP urges TPR to, “…continue to look at poor behaviours in schemes activities, even for well-funded schemes, and avoid any appearance of different standards given that funding levels and covenant strength can change going forward. If TPR were to engage less on situations involving better funded schemes then it risks missing significant problems. As the SPP has repeatedly highlighted, low dependency is not no dependency.”
Finally, in seeking the views of SPP members on the strategy, and in particular what should be prioritised, the SPP state that several SPP members, “…have highlighted that in the context of the new surplus flexibilities, queries are being raised regarding the offences introduced under the Pension Schemes Act 2021 and whether trustee decisions to release surplus (and potentially advisers who advise it’s reasonable to do so) could be caught.” To solve this problem, SPP suggest that TPR review the application of the enforcement and criminal offences policies in light of the new surplus flexibilities.
This SPP consultation response can be read in full here:
|
