Contributors enthusiastically backed the latest call for a single regulator for all workplace pensions. More than three quarters said this was the way forward, while fewer than one in five backed the current system.
The arrangement which splits responsibility between The Pensions Regulator, which oversees trust-based schemes, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which looks after contract-based schemes was branded "ridiculous".
Some respondents pointed out a consistent approach was unlikely to be agreed under this system.
"A thousand times yes!" said a respondent (whose vote was nevertheless only counted once). "Where there is overlap with other regulators, it should be up to the regulators to agree the regulation but for the occupational pensions regulator to implement."
There were conflicting opinions over whether the "toothless" Pensions Regulator or "heavy-handed" FCA was best-placed to fill the role.
Others who supported the idea in principle questioned whether the changes would be too expensive or ultimately impractical.
"The logical reply is to say yes," said one contributor, "but only if the framework under which pensions then have to work is more aligned to the current trust-based regime than the current FCA contract-based structure."
Another respondent said: "We need consistency. Structured correctly this should achieve it but simplicity and clarity are important."
But a significant minority thought a single regulator would prove unworkable or were not convinced the benefits would outweigh the upheaval.
"Even if TPR and the pension section of FCA are merged we will still have the Prudential Regulation Authority and HM Revenue and Customs alongside," said one contributor. "TPR is the regulator of 'pensions past', let it continue in this role."
A more libertarian respondent remarked: "I'm not convinced you need a regulator at all."
