UK - Weaker regulation could lead to "significantly stronger" funding requirements, The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has warned.
He said: "Weaker regulation has the potential to cause a reaction in terms of more rigid and significantly stronger funding requirements. Be careful what you wish for.
"But equally we need to be careful not to over-react to calls for stronger regulation and a shift from risk-based approach as a knee-jerk response to the current crisis."
Norgrove's comments followed an independent report commissioned by the NAPF and written by independent consultant and former TPR head of strategy John Ashcroft, which stated UK pension regulation was "out of step" with international practice in four crucial areas.
The report compared key elements of the UK regulatory framework for private pensions with five other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, which have large private pension sectors - Australia, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the US.
The report identified a number of regulatory issues that require further analysis and potentially regulatory reform.
Key findings from the report showed mandatory inflation proofing in the UK was out of step with regulation elsewhere and made the defined benefit (DB) promise far more expensive than in other countries.
In addition, the report said DB employer covenant regulation was "unparalleled" compared to the regulatory regimes used elsewhere.
Governance requirements in the UK requirements for trust-based schemes were high and were only exceeded in countries where most pension schemes were very large. It also said consideration should be given as to whether the UK's approach was "proportionate".
As for defined contribution (DC) contract-based provision, the report said the regulation of contract-based schemes - especially group personal pensions - was out of line with the regulation of similar DC schemes in most other countries.
NAPF director of policy Nigel Peaple said: "Comparing UK regulation to that in other countries gives a fresh and objective perspective. The study shows we need a more flexible approach for DB schemes, especially regarding indexation and the employer covenant.
"As for DC schemes we need to think carefully about how best to achieve high standards of governance over both trust based and contract based schemes.
"We hope the analysis will help promote informed discussion on how the regulatory framework in the UK should evolve in the future."
The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is consulting on proposals to charge a "risk reflective" levy for commercial defined benefit (DB) consolidation vehicles.
The funding gap across FTSE 350 schemes could be slashed by as much as £275bn if schemes look beyond traditional ways of creating value. Victoria Ticha examines how
There will be "many flavours" of defined benefit (DB) consolidators but consolidation will only be the right answer for a minority of schemes, Alan Rubenstein says.
Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) chairman Frank Field has questioned the regulator on what lessons it can learn from the experience of the Kodak Pension Plan No.2 (KPP2).