Auto-enrolment staging dates, minimum contribution requirement and disclosure obligations finalised; also TPR warns employers to step up auto-enrolment preparations

Regulations have now been laid before Parliament that, among other things, finalise the auto-enrolment staging dates for small and medium sized employers and the timetable for phasing in of minimum contributions (affecting all employers). The DWP also published its response to the consultation on the draft of the regulations (for our briefing on the consultation, click here). The regulations will come into force on 1 October 2012, and implement the following measures:

  • Small employers will be allocated a staging date between 1 June 2015 and 1 April 2017.
  • The first transitional period for introducing minimum employer contributions of 1% has been extended to 30 September 2017 for defined contribution schemes. Consequently, the second transitional period, during which the minimum contribution is 2%, will commence on 1 October 2017, and the requirement to contribute 3% will commence on 1 October 2018.
  • The transitional period during which employers using defined benefit and hybrid schemes can delay the auto-enrolment requirements will end on 30 September 2017.
  • Small employers (those with fewer than 50 workers) must now establish their number of workers based on workers participating in their PAYE scheme. Prior to the amendments made by the regulations, the number of small employers was determined by anyone who fell within the definition of a "full time equivalent worker". Following responses to the consultation that suggested that ascertaining what was a "full time equivalent worker" created an unduly complicated burden, the requirement was replaced with the simpler PAYE requirement.    

Regulations finalising the auto-enrolment disclosure regime have also been laid before Parliament together with the DWP's response to its consultation on the draft of the Regulations.  The most important measures implemented by the Regulations (which will also come into force on 1 October 2012), are:

  • Trustees must issue basic information about auto-enrolment schemes to a jobholder within one month of the trustees receiving information about that jobholder from an employer. This is to attempt to ensure that jobholders have access to information about their auto-enrolment scheme prior to the expiry of their one-month opt-out deadline.
  • Trustees of other schemes will continue to be required to provide basic information to members within two months of the member joining the scheme.
  • The basic information that must be provided must now include an explanation of how members are admitted to a scheme, and whether they are to be automatically enrolled.  

Finally, the Regulator has urged employers to "step up" their preparations for the introduction of auto-enrolment following research conducted that suggests over a quarter of large employers believe auto-enrolment will take less than 3 months to implement. The Regulator believes that full auto- enrolment preparation, including aligning payroll and HR processes, will take approximately 18 months, and has advised employers not to underestimate their role in making sure their staging date can be met.

The Regulator has also recently published guidance on its website regarding the measures it can take to ensure employer compliance with the auto-enrolment regime. The guidance can be found here.

If you have any queries regarding the implementation of auto-enrolment, please speak to your usual contact in the pensions team.  


High Court holds that the Government Actuary's Department is an "administrator" for the purposes of the Pensions Ombudsman's jurisdiction

In Government Actuaries Department v Pensions Ombudsman [2012] EWHC 1796 (Admin),the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) appealed to the High Court against the Pensions Ombudsman's determination that GAD was an 'administrator' of the Firefighters' Pension Scheme.

M, who was a member of the scheme, had complained that GAD was guilty of maladministration by failing to update its commutation tables between 1998 and 2006; the commutation tables affected the level of lump sum that members could take on retirement.

The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to hear complaints against scheme administrators where actual or potential members or beneficiaries claim they have suffered because of a scheme administrator's maladministration. A scheme administrator is defined as someone "concerned with the administration of the scheme, other than a person responsible for the management of the scheme".

GAD raised a preliminary point before the Ombudsman that it was not an 'administrator' as it was not concerned with the administration of the scheme. It was merely an independent "provider of expert judgment" based on statistical data.  Consequently, the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Ombudsman considered that GAD's duty to consider whether to revise the actuarial tables meant that it was an administrator (but did not consider the main issue of whether there had been maladministration in this case).

On appeal on the preliminary point, the High Court held that whether or not a body fell within a statutory description was for a Court to determine; it was not for the reasonable judgment of the Ombudsman to determine the issue. The Court found that GAD was an 'administrator' of the scheme as the duty to consider revising the actuarial tables and to revise the tables, if GAD considered it necessary, was imposed by statute as part of the structure of the scheme. A person could be an administrator even if they engaged in running only part of a scheme; the fact that GAD did not actually make any payments did not reduce  GAD's involvement to a sufficiently low level for it not to be considered an administrator.


This case highlights the potential width of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has in the past found other parties to be 'administrators' of pension schemes, the most recent example being the case of Middleton (880448/1). In that case, the Ombudsman held that a financial adviser who had taken on administrative duties in connection with a pension fund transfer was an "administrator" for the purposes of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. This was the case even though the adviser did not believe that it had been appointed as an administrator or paid to provide such a service.  For our update on that decision, click here.

We understand that GAD has applied for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision.  

Pensions Ombudsman

Incomplete information about the member's early retirement pension was maladministration but member only entitled to compensation for distress

In Wallace (80185/3), the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has only partially upheld a complaint from a member whose employer told him that his deferred pension would be reduced by 3% if taken early.  The member, Mr Wallace, had signed a compromise agreement with the employer under which he received a £55,270 redundancy payment (an amount that included the £6,525 statutory payment he would have been entitled to had he not signed the agreement).  Mr Wallace had also received a letter from the employer that if he took early retirement from his pension scheme as a deferred member, a maximum penalty would apply of 3% per annum to take account of the fact the member would be taking his benefits from the scheme early.  When the member applied for early retirement, he was told by the scheme trustees that the reduction would be based on cost-neutral standard factors which were less generous than 3% (the employer having decided not to consent to the 3% reduction factor being applied).  The Ombudsman held that it was maladministration by the employer not to have informed the member that the application of the 3% factor was subject to principal employer consent (and by implication that if consent was not given, other factors may be applied).

The Ombudsman, however, disagreed with the member that the statement equated to a binding contractual agreement as the three elements of a contract (offer, acceptance and consideration) were not satisfied.  The Ombudsman also did not agree with the member that the letter amounted to a misrepresentation that had induced the member to enter into the compromise agreement – Mr Wallace had no choice in taking redundancy and if he had not signed the compromise agreement, the only real alternative would have been to take a far less generous compulsory redundancy payment.  The Ombudsman also disagreed with the member that the principal employer was estopped from denying the "promise" made in his letter.  The letter did not unequivocally promise Mr Wallace would be given early retirement – this was subject to the principal employer's consent – the requirements for promissory estoppel or estoppel by representation were not therefore satisfied; nor had Mr Wallace acted in reliance on the statement as he had no choice in taking redundancy.  The incomplete statement in the letter had, however, raised Mr Wallace's expectations and caused him distress when those expectations were not realised for which the Ombudsman directed the employer to pay Mr Wallace £250 as compensation.  

Pensions Ombudsman's annual report for 2011/12

The Pensions Ombudsman (and the Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman) have published their annual report and accounts for 2011/12. The key points to note from the report are

  • The Pensions Ombudsman's caseload contains over 3,000 annual enquiries leading to 900 new investigations each year, with a gradual shift in recent years from defined benefit to defined contribution issues.
  • Nearly 900 cases were completed during the year. As in previously years, a significant number relate to transfers (89 cases) and ill health pensions (87 cases).
  • As in previous years, approximately 40% of cases were determined following an investigator's decision.  There are 72 open investigations that are over one year old and only 5 cases which are more than two years old.
  • 14 appeals to the High Court against the Pensions Ombudsman's decisions were heard (or settled) and 4 appeals remained at the year end. A significant number have involved the issue of estoppel.
  • In comparison, the Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman had only a small number of cases during the year of which 17 were accepted for investigation. All the cases determined in the year related to the PPF Levy.
  • On the staffing side, Tony King has been reappointed as Pensions Ombudsman until September 2013. Jane Irvine (Deputy Pensions Ombudsman) was appointed on a part-time basis until November 2012. The department of nearly 40 staff is currently under-resourced, due partly to a group of employees having returned to work for the DWP. 

Pension Ombudsman dismisses another member complaint on RPI/CPI switch

In Frost (86146/1), the Pension Ombudsman dismissed a complaint from a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in relation to the scheme's switch from RPI to CPI as the inflationary measure for increasing pensions in payment and revaluing deferred members' pensions. The complainant, Mr Frost had worked for the West Midlands Police Authority and joined the LGPS in 1993 and transferred additional funds from his previous pension arrangements in 1994 and 1995 to the LPGS.

The scheme documentation he received in 1993 (which mainly included scheme leaflets) stated that pensions in payment and deferred pensions would be "increased in line with rises in the Retail Prices Index".  Following the shift from RPI to CPI as the inflationary index, Mr Frost complained to the Pensions Ombudsman, arguing that the administering authority was guilty of maladministration, both for adopting the CPI as the index used for revaluation, and for providing misleading scheme documentation that did not mention the possibility of a different revaluation index being used. He went on to argue that, had the correct information been given, he would not have joined the LGPS and would not have transferred his existing pension arrangements to the scheme.

The Pension Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on the following grounds:

  • CPI had been adopted in law as the revaluation index for public sector schemes, meaning the authority was obliged to increase pensions in line with that index. It could not be guilty of maladministration for following the law.
  • Although it was accepted that the 1993 scheme documentation could have included provisos acknowledging that the revaluation index could change, the documentation was not considered misleading enough to constitute maladministration. This was because the documentation did not explicitly state that benefits would always be increased in line with the RPI – it only stated the practice at the time the documentation was published. As it was reasonable for the documentation to state the revaluation practice at the time of publication, the Pension Ombudsman thought that it would be "too much" to read the documentation as promising anything beyond what the LGPS regulations provided.
  • Even if the authority had committed maladministration when providing the scheme documentation, it was unlikely that this would have affected Mr Frost's decision to join the LGPS. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Frost relied upon the revaluation provisions when making his decision to join or transfer additional funds to the scheme; the generosity of the LGPS meant that it was likely that an employee would have joined the scheme anyway, regardless of the revaluation index. The Pensions Ombudsman therefore found that the alleged maladministration was not responsible for any of Mr Frost's possible losses following the change to the CPI.


This is yet another decision that shows the difficulty members face in challenging schemes that have moved from RPI to CPI.  A similar decision was reached by the Ombudsman in Clarke (82434/3) – for our update on the Clarke determination, click here.  

HM Treasury

Test Achats: HM Treasury proposals to amend UK legislation finalised

HM Treasury has, in its response to its December 2011 consultation, finalised its proposal as to the legislative approach it is going to adopt following the European Court of Justice' s decision in the Test Achats case and the issuing by the European Commission's guidelines on the impact of the case in December 2011. The ECJ had decided in that case that from 21 December 2012, insurance companies will not be allowed to use gender-related factors in determining premiums and benefits in insurance contracts. For our e-alert on the Test-Achats judgment, click here and the Treasury's  December consultation, click here. The key proposals are:

  • Provisions in the Equality Act 2010 which allow insurance companies to use gender-related factors in determining premiums and benefits in insurance contracts, are to be repealed from 21 Dec 2012. The current provisions will continue to apply to a contract "concluded before 21 December 2012". New insurance contracts entered into from 21 Dec will have to be based on gender-neutral factors. Issues may arise in relation to whether the renewal of a contract that was concluded before 21 Dec 2012 constitutes a new contract or not.  The December consultation stated that if a contract is renewed from 21 December 2012 it will create a new contract but a review of a contract under its terms is less likely to do so.
  • Insurance companies may continue to rely on the group insurance exemption. This exemption in the Equality Act 2010 allows services relating to a personal pension arrangement and insurance arrangements that are made by the employer "for the service-provider to provide the services to the employer's employees, and other persons, as a consequence of the employment" to be based on gender-specific factors.
  • No amendments are to be made to the exemption in the Act that allows occupational pension schemes to use gender-specific factors, for instance in the context of commutation of lump sums, early retirement benefits and calculation of transfer values.  

For further advice on the impact of these proposals for you pension scheme, please contact a member of the pensions team.

Government concludes its review of "Fair Deal" policy

In a written ministerial statement issued on 4 July 2012, Danny Alexander (Chief Secretary to the Treasury)  has announced that the Government has concluded its review of the "Fair Deal" policy.

Fair Deal deals with the treatment of employees' pensions when they are compulsorily transferred from the public sector to a private sector employer. The policy is a non-statutory policy but is followed by many public sector employers. Broadly, Fair Deal requires:

  • The new employer to provide a "broadly comparable" pension for the transferred staff – in effect, this means that a DB scheme has to be provided for transferring employees following the transfer if they had access to a DB scheme before the transfer. The schemes do not have to be identical, however, so long as the employees do not suffer a "material detriment" overall.
  • Bulk transfer arrangements for employees who wish to transfer their benefits in the public service pension scheme to the new employer's pension arrangement that provide service credits on a "day-for-day basis".

The Government is proposing that, on all future TUPE transfers from the public sector, the transferred employees should be able to retain active membership of their existing scheme so that they do not need to be offered membership of a replacement scheme by the private sector employer. Until now, only the Local Government Pension Scheme (and on limited occasions the NHS Pension Scheme) allow a private sector employer and its employees to participate in those arrangements following a TUPE transfer. At present, private sector employers face considerable barriers to delivering public services compared to their public sector competitors and can find themselves at a serious disadvantage during the tendering process. The proposals will mean that unfunded schemes such as the Teachers' Pension Scheme, the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and the NHS Scheme will be available for continued membership for employees following a TUPE transfer.  Details of the proposals will be published later in the year.  


Small DC pots proposals announced

The DWP has published its response to last year's consultation on dealing with small DC pension pots and has proposed implementing a 'pot-follows-member' approach that was floated in the consultation - for our earlier update on the consultation click here. The 'pot-follows-member' approach has the following features:

  • An individual's small DC pension pot will be automatically transferred to their new employer's workplace pension scheme when the individual changes employment.
  • Automatic transfer will apply only to pots created in auto-enrolment schemes; pension pots accrued to date therefore will not be affected.
  • Individuals will have the right to opt out of an automatic transfer.
  • The right will not apply to defined benefit rights.
  • A small pot for this purpose is likely to mean a pot with a value of between £2,000 and £20,000 (although the upper limit has not yet been decided).

The DWP has chosen to implement the approach at the "earliest opportunity" although it is unlikely to come into effect until 2015/2016.  The implementation of the new approach will see short-service refunds regime for DC (but not DB) schemes being abolished – the regime currently allows members of occupational pension schemes to opt for a refund of contributions if they leave the scheme with less than two years' pensionable service, but a new exemption for "micro-pots (pots between £50 to £200) is being floated.


This 'pot-follows-member' approach has some flaws. For a start, an individual will not be required to obtain financial advice before an automatic transfer takes place. The transferring of pots could mean some savers lose valuable aspects of their pension such as guaranteed annuity rates as a result of not having taking advice first. The transfer scheme will only apply to automatic-enrolment schemes, excluding workers ineligible for auto-enrolment and who are contractually enrolled in their employer's scheme.  

Pensions Regulator

TPR publishes report of its role in relation to the GP Noble fraud

The Pensions Regulator has published a report in relation to its role to "disrupt fraud" and protect member benefits in the GP Noble Trustees case. The report comes after reporting restrictions were lifted following the conviction of Graham Pitcher, director of GP Noble Trustee Limited (who received an eight year prison sentence for conspiracy to defraud in July 2011) and investment adviser, Quentin Russel (convicted of fraud and forgery and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment in September 2011). Click here for our coverage of the Serious Fraud Office's issue of criminal proceedings against Graham Pitcher and the operations manager of GP Noble, Gary Cordell. Gary Cordell has however been cleared of the allegations against him.

Background and key points from the report

GP Noble, an independent trustee company, acted as a professional trustee for nine occupational pension schemes. In 2008, the Regulator became aware of fraudulent activity by the trustee company involving investments of pension scheme assets.  The central feature of the fraud was the disinvestment of some £52 million of scheme assets, from a total of approximately £57.6 million belonging to the schemes.The Regulator took urgent action to suspend GP Noble and appointed Independent Trustee Services Limited ('ITS') to administer the schemes and also reported the matter to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

ITS commenced an extensive investigation and civil proceedings to assist in the recovery of the funds. It found that the majority of the schemes’ assets had been invested in off-shore investment vehicles registered in the British Virgin Islands and Nevis which were not sufficiently transparent (with many of the terms and ownership structures being unclear), illiquid (ie could not be converted into cash in the short term) and contained many commercial terms which were not considered to be in the best interests of the members of the schemes.

In the regulatory case team’s view, it should have been obvious to directors of GP Noble, Mr Pitcher and Mr Cordell (subsequently cleared of all allegations against him) that proper due diligence was not conducted in relation to these transactions.

The SFO and ITS, with the assistance of the Regulator, obtained freezing orders on several bank accounts around the world which had been identified as holding several million pounds of the schemes’ funds.

In January 2010, the Regulator made a successful application to the Pensions Regulator Determinations Panel to prohibit GP Noble and Mr Pitcher, (among others), from acting as trustees on a range of grounds including failure to obtain proper investment advice, the improper nature of the investments, and the failure to notify the PPF and the Financial Assistance Scheme (all of the nine schemes were at different stages of being assessed by the PPF or FAS for financial assistance).

Approximately £36 million of the schemes' assets have been recovered though proceedings brought by ITS and civil proceedings are on-going in an attempt to recover further amounts. The criminal trials brought by SFO have however been concluded.


The report concludes with the Regulator emphasising its intention to take swift action to disrupt fraud and its ability to work with other agencies, such as the police and the SFO, where there is evidence of fraud.  The report is to be welcomed in the wake of recent reports in the pensions press that increasingly more pension schemes are being affected by fraud.  

Regulator's statement on its approach to FSDs in insolvency situations provides little comfort for insolvency practitioners or lenders

The Pensions Regulator has issued a statement setting out its approach to Financial Support Directions in insolvency situations. The statement follows the Court of Appeal's decision in Bloom v The Pensions Regulator (Nortel) in October 2011 that a liability arising from a Financial Support Direction, or a Contribution Notice, issued to a company in administration or liquidation will, except in very limited circumstances, amount to an expense of that administration or liquidation. The statement seeks to provide reassurance to lenders and insolvency practitioners that the Regulator does not intend to "frustrate" the proper workings of the restructuring and rescue culture and the lending market. This is to be commended but the statement falls some way short of providing the level of certainty that lenders and insolvency practitioners might want. For a detailed review of the statement and its implications, see our earlier e-briefing.

Multi-employer schemes and employer departures guidance updated

The Pensions Regulator has updated its guidance for trustees on defined benefit "multi-employer schemes and employer departures" following the amendments made to the employer debt legislation in December 2011.  For our update on the changes to the employer debt legislation, click here.  The key aspects of the revisions are the Regulator's guidance on flexible apportionment arrangements (FAAs).  We will be producing a briefing on FAAs shortly (which will draw out the key points from the revised guidance).  

Pension Protection Fund

PPF consultation on funding determinations and reconsideration applications

The Pension Protection Fund (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2012 came into force on the 23 July 2012.  The PPF has issued a consultation on how it intends to apply its powers under these regulations.

Funding determinations

The Regulations allow the PPF to use a "funding determination" for certain types of multi-employer scheme as an alternative to the scheme having to incur the cost and delays of obtaining a formal section 143 valuation. Section 143 valuations are currently carried out, typically by the scheme actuary, at the request of the PPF, to enable the PPF to assess whether the scheme qualifies for PPF compensation. In the consultation paper, the PPF has issued proposals as to how it intends to use the new powers given to it. Broadly, the proposals are:

  • PPF will make a funding determination where a scheme is either very underfunded or very overfunded.
  • The funding determination will estimate the scheme's PPF liabilities by reference to the scheme's most recent section 179 valuation or a suitable alternative actuarial valuation (if the latter gives a better estimate of the scheme's funding).
  • The funding determination will be based on a valuation that took place within two years of the date on which the assessment period began. Any estimate regarding any changes in the position from the date of the valuation being used must overstate the assets and understate the protected liabilities where a scheme is expected to be underfunded, and vice versa for overfunded schemes.  

Reconsideration applications to the PPF

The Regulations allow a scheme to apply for reconsideration for transfer to the PPF where the scheme was more than 100 per cent. funded on a section 143 basis as at the assessment date but is unable to afford to buy out the PPF level of benefits in the market, without having to provide a 'Protected Benefits Quotation'.  (Schemes may, for example, be unable to afford to buy out benefits where the value of scheme assets falls between the assessment date and the time the scheme tries to obtain a quote for annuities.). The current rules on reconsideration require trustees to obtain a Protected Benefits Quotation in order to apply for reconsideration. Broadly speaking, this is an annuity quotation which would provide in respect of each member PPF-level benefits or full scheme benefits (whichever can be secured by the trustees at the lower cost to that member).

The Regulations permit trustees to apply for reconsideration where they can show that (i) they were unable to obtain a Protected Benefits Quotation having taken all reasonable steps to do so and (ii) the PPF is satisfied that the value of the assets is less than the amount of the PPF protected liabilities at the time of reconsideration. In its consultation paper, the PPF has asked if the new measures will simplify the reconsideration application process and reduce costs for schemes applying for reconsideration.  


Finance Bill 2012 enacted

The Finance Bill 2012 has now received Royal Assent and become the Finance Act 2012.  Among other things, the Act introduces the new tax regime for asset-backed funding (ABF) arrangements.  The changes to the regime are designed to ensure that tax relief received by employers who put ABF arrangements in place reflects accurately the payments received by the scheme.  For our e-alerts on the significant changes, click here and here.  Draft guidance has also been published on the new tax regime for ABF arrangements and now that the legislation has been enacted, is expected to be finalised.   Round-up

Consultation on takeover code

The Code Committee of the Takeover Panel has issued a consultation on the Takeover Code which, among other things, proposes that the provisions currently in the Code that relate to employee representatives should be extended to apply to the target's pension scheme. The proposals are similar to those which trustees and pensions groups such as the NAPF  had recommended last year but which  did not end up forming part of the consultation on last year's review of the Code.  Broadly, the proposals are as follows:

  • The offeror must in the offer document set out its intentions in relation to the target's pension scheme and the likely repercussions of its strategic plans for the target on the scheme. In particular, if the offeror has no intention to make any changes in relation to the scheme or if it thinks that its plans for the target will have no repercussions for the scheme, the offeror should make a statement to that effect.
  • The offeror to make available certain information to the trustees of the target's pension scheme to enable the trustees to form a view on the impact of the offer on the scheme. The information should be the same as that which is currently required to be made available to the offeree company's employee representatives (such as the announcement which commences the offer period, the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer and the offer document).
  • Trustees of the target pension scheme to have a right to make known their views on the affects of the offer on the scheme equivalent to those granted to the offeree company's employee representatives. These are, in the main, a right for the trustees to have appended to an offeree board circular a separate opinion from the trustees on the affect of the offer on the pension scheme as long as the opinion is received in good time before the circular is published; if the opinion is not received in good time, trustes will have a right to have the opinion published on a website and the offeree company must then  announce that this has been done.  

Comments on the proposals are invited by 28 September 2012.  Any changes, however, are not likely to take effect until the end of the year.

Actuarial Profession publishes new conflicts of interest standards and guidance

The Pensions APS Standards Committee, in conjunction with the Conflicts of Interest Working Party of the Professional Regulation Executive Committee, has published a package of material on conflicts of interest following a consultation process last year. The package includes Actuarial Profession Standards (APSs) for pensions (APS P1) and life actuaries (APS L1), a guide for actuaries on conflicts of interest and a note for pension scheme trustees.

The APS P1 has been amended to deal with conflicts.  Broadly, under APS P1, where a scheme actuary or another actuary from the scheme actuary's firm is undertaking work for the employer to the scheme, the scheme actuary must ensure that the trustees are aware of this fact and of the potential for conflicts to arise.  APS P1 also introduces a rebuttable presumption that an irreconcilable conflict of interests will arise if a  scheme actuary also gives client advice to the employer to that scheme in relation to the funding of the scheme or to any matter which has a direct bearing on benefits payable under the scheme. Industry bodies had warned against the introduction of a specific prohibition in relation to conflicts and the new APS P1 does therefore allow scheme actuaries to depart from this presumption, albeit in exceptional circumstances.

The APS P1 also introduces the requirement for a written conflicts plan to be agreed with the trustees and the employer for whom the work is undertaken if the scheme actuary, or another member from the scheme actuary's firm, is also acting for the employer. The plan should set out all known conflicts of interest and a mechanism for dealing with how future conflicts will be addressed. The note for pension scheme trustees explains that trustees must be appropriately informed in relation to the conflicts management plan's implications and that this requirement will normally be met by the scheme actuary advising the trustees to consider seeking independent legal advice.

A guidance note on conflicts of interest has also been published for actuaries and gives practical options to consider when dealing with conflicts. In response to the consultation process, the guide has provided additional information on the use of different client teams and implementing information barriers.

The APS L1 came into force on 1 October 2011 whereas the APS P1 does not come into force until 1 July 2013.