Appointment of the Chair of the Pensions Regulator

We would like to put on record our thanks to Mark Boyle for his service as Chair over the past seven years.

During the pre-appointment hearing, we discussed with Mrs Smart the potential conflicts of interest arising from her spouse’s role as Chief Executive of British Airways Pensions. She told us that he was making plans to leave that role and would do so by September 2021 at the latest. We support her decision that it would not be sustainable for him to remain in his current job if she were appointed as Chair. On that basis, we are satisfied that Sarah Smart has the personal independence and professional competence to be Chair of The Pensions Regulator. We wish her every success in her new role, and we look forward to working with her.

We are conscious, however, that—given wider economic uncertainty—her spouse’s situation may change. In that event, we would urge TPR, the Pensions Minister and Mrs Smart herself to consider whether she can remain in her role.

We were surprised to hear that Mrs Smart had not met the Pensions Minister before being chosen for this role. We urge them to arrange a meeting at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the course of preparing for this hearing, we discovered that TPR’s practice has been to publish only a “summary” of its board members’ declared interests—not including interests arising from connected parties, such as family members. We welcome the rapid review of the Code of Conduct and related rules and guidance that has been commissioned by Mrs Smart, and her own request that details of her spouse’s role be published immediately. We are, however, concerned that her spouse’s role at British Airways Pensions has not been recorded on TPR’s public register of interests at any point during her time on the Board, and nor have the interests of any other Board members’ close family members. We agree with Mrs Smart that any member of the public who views the register should be able to develop a reasonable understanding of any potential conflicts, something which is not possible from the current contents of the register. TPR should rectify this as a matter of urgency. Following the next Board meeting, it should update the Committee on its response to the recommendations of the review of its Code of Conduct, and on how and when it intends to implement them.