UK - The Pension Regulator's (TPR) proposals to improve data and record-keeping by pension schemes do not go "far enough", and could still result in inaccurate information being delivered, PricewaterhouseCoopers has claimed.

In its response to TPR's consultation on record-keeping, which closes tomorrow, PwC agreed trustees need to keep a focus on data quality and administration despite increased funding pressures resulting from the current economic conditions.

However, the firm claimed the TPR's proposals for 'good practice' guidelines on problem areas such as poor quality legacy data and a lack of common standards, "does not go far enough".

Peter Sparshott, director at PwC LLP, said: "The regulator's proposals are a welcome spotlight on the impact of poor data and record keeping. That said, the focus on the presence of data does not go far enough to guarantee data quality - just because a data field is complete does not mean it is accurate."

For example, PwC claimed standardisation in providing and transferring data is only useful when the requirements of the schemes are the same, and if schemes have different needs then "standardisation can complicate and increase risk of errors occurring".

The aim of TPR's consultation is to tackle the problems of poor administration, which it suggested could add 5% to the cost of a scheme buyout through problems such as missing or incomplete member records. (See earlier IPE article: Poor record-keeping could add 5% to buyout cost)

Sparshott said: "The challenges faced by many employers and trustees recently mean it has been difficult to get pension scheme administration on their agenda - and with mounting funding and market pressures there is a real danger it could drop away even further."

PwC agreed trustees should not lose sight of the importance of quality administration, particularly in the current market conditions, but it suggested TPR should place more focus on the quality, rather than the presence, of data.

In addition, the firm argued against the use of separate lists of core and additional data which trustees must record for each member, specifically that stating trustees must keep every item of core data for all schemes, and noted there are a "number of anomalies" in the definition of the types of data which suggested the lists should be reviewed. 

"To protect members and mitigate risk of incurring the steep costs and reputational damage caused by poor quality data, trustees need to give far more consideration to the controls surrounding data collection, storage and manipulation," added Sparshott.

If you have any comments you would like to add to this or any other story, contact Nyree Stewart on + 44 (0)20 7261 4618 or email nyree.stewart@ipe.com