Part 1 - The Pensions Regulator’s AI plan - responsible innovation

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a future consideration for the LGPS. It is already shaping how schemes operate, engage with members and manage risk. 

Against this backdrop, The Pensions Regulator (TPR) recently published its AI plan which provides a timely and welcome steer on how the industry should approach this shift. 

What stands out immediately is the tone. Whilst the Terminator-style “machines taking over the world” public narrative is a popular one, this is not a document that seeks to slow adoption. Instead, TPR is signalling that AI has an increasingly meaningful role to play in improving outcomes for members. Their emphasis is on enabling adoption (underpinned by strong governance, robust data practices and appropriate oversight). 

TPR’s approach is deliberately principles-based, technology-agnostic and grounded in existing regulatory expectations, which to me feels both proportionate and pragmatic. It gives funds and providers sufficient flexibility to innovate, while making clear that the fundamentals of good governance and data quality still apply. 

Clear expectations 

It essentially suggests that successful AI adoption rests on three main pillars: 

Good Governance - “Trustees and scheme managers must ensure schemes are well run and deliver good outcomes for members, regardless of which technologies are being used… They need to understand where and how AI is being used by or on behalf of their pension scheme.” 

Data - “We expect trustees and scheme managers to have a clear data strategy, allocate resources for improvements, and challenge service providers where standards are not met.” 

Innovation - “We expect trustees, scheme managers and administrators to seek appropriate and proportional professional advice when considering or implementing innovations.” 

Perhaps the most important point is also the simplest. Accountability does not change. Trustees and scheme managers are already responsible for outcomes, regardless of whether AI is involved. That clarity is helpful as it avoids any ambiguity around where responsibility sits and reinforces the need for funds to understand where and how AI is being used (including across their supplier ecosystems). 

The plan also strikes a good balance in how it frames opportunity and risk. On the one hand, it highlights clear benefits such as more personalised member communications, improved administration and stronger fraud detection. On the other, it acknowledges the very real risks around bias, cyber threats, poor data and over-reliance on nascent tools. None of these are new concerns, but AI has the potential to amplify them if not managed carefully. 

From our perspective, the emphasis on data feels particularly well placed. Strong data foundations have always been critical in pensions, and the plan reinforces a reality we see every day. AI will only ever be as effective as the data and processes that sit behind it. 

A considered response to change 

Critically, TPR is not proposing a new layer of regulation, rather applying existing principles to a changing technological landscape. For organisations already taking governance and data seriously, this should be reassuring. It suggests that the right response is not wholesale change but thoughtful evolution. 

Further guidance will come later in the year, but the direction is already clear. TPR is encouraging the industry to move forward both carefully and confidently. The conversation is now less about whether to adopt AI and more about how to do so in a way that is proportionate; transparent and ethical; and genuinely delivers value for members. 

Over the next few articles, I'll look more closely at some of these themes in practice, and where funds are most likely to encounter challenges as adoption accelerates. But, for now, this is a very welcome, measured and constructive intervention: one that supports progress, but rightly keeps the focus on outcomes, accountability and trust. 

If you would like to discuss further, please get in touch. 

Important information

This blog is based upon our understanding of events as at the date of publication. It is a general summary of topical matters and should not be regarded as financial advice. It should not be considered a substitute for professional advice on specific circumstances and objectives. Where this blog refers to legal matters please note that Hymans Robertson LLP is not qualified to provide legal opinion and therefore you may wish to obtain independent legal advice to consider any relevant law and/or regulation. Please read our Terms of Use - Hymans Robertson.