Most of this week's 108 Pensions Buzz respondents agreed the pension schemes bill should be reintroduced in its exisiting form.
The majority (63%) of this week's 108 Pensions Buzz respondents agreed the pension schemes bill should be reintroduced in its existing form following the 12 December general election.
Of these, one said: "It was a good start, so let's not re-invent the wheel, or delay it long term, which it inevitably would."
A further person added: "Though even better if a bit more was added. However, in order to keep moving on, probably best to just get on with it."
"I can't see an improved version happening within a reasonable timeframe," said another.
Just under a fifth (19%) did not agree the bill should be reintroduced, with one suggesting the time should be used to refine it, while another said more items should be added in.
Of the 18% that did not know, one said: "Although we have had numerous indications of what is likely to be in the bill, we haven't seen the detail. If the advance indications are correct, then yes, just get on with it. If no, we might live to regret just getting on with it."
Respondents were relatively split in their views on whether there should be an auto-enrolment (AE) safety net for employed women to help tackle the gender pensions gap with 34% agreeing, 42% saying no, and the remaining 24% unsure.
Of the former group, one said: "It should be for everyone. Remove earnings threshold and continue AE contributions when men or women take time out for maternity related leave."
A further person said: "Yes, there should be, but only as an interim measure until this thorny question is resolved."
Of the respondents who said no, one noted: "AE should be robust enough to take care of this", while another added: "I don't know how you would implement this within the scope of equality legislation. Pensions are a function of the labour market which is the area that needs to be fixed."
A different person added: "This does not apply to all women and some men could have a justifiable case depending on their circumstances."
Many of those who did not know questioned how this would be implemented.
A quarter of respondents argued that addressing contribution rates is the most important pension issue for political parties to address in their manifestos, with one suggesting there is "no question" about it.
A further commentator said: "Until everybody is paying a proper contribution there will be pension poverty and those that think that the state will always provide are living in cuckoo land."
Nearly a fifth (17%) argued the most important issue is expansion of AE and a further 17% believed addressing the state pension/triple lock was most important.
A tenth (11%) said addressing the net pay anomaly was most important, with one pundit suggesting: "This is a completely unfair and unjust situation which is most affecting those on the lowest incomes and goes against the whole ethos of AE."
Just 7% said the pensions dashboard was most important, while 4% said DB scheme funding and 2% said the gender pensions gap.
One survey participant noted: "What people can do to save as much as possible for their pension is paramount."
Respondents were not in agreement over whether they will adopt simpler annual benefit statements, with 28% revealing they already have or plan to, but 39% saying they have not and do not plan to adopt them.
Of those with schemes who have adopted simpler annual statements, or plan to, one said: "This is so important to make sure members know their fund value year on year and make sure they keep these statements safe."
A different participant added: "Probably will [adopt them], but have to remember that the simpler annual benefit statements does not by itself meet regulatory requirements, so additional information either online or part of a pack will be required."
"We adopted the format last year to give consistent information," said another.
One participant who said they do not plan to adopt the statements said: "A prescriptive one size fits all policy is not helpful and reflects and old-fashioned perspective."
A third did not know whether they would adopt the simpler statements, with one suggesting they cannot see the value of the new statements.
More than two fifths (44%) disagreed that setting investment objectives for investment consultants will improve their performance, with one pundit suggesting: "It will make them less flexible and less proactive."
"Setting investment objectives makes clear what the target is but does not control the return," noted another.
Of the 27% who agreed it will improve their performance, one argued: "It will help to focus the attention of both the investment consultants and the trustees - something to measure them against."
"Let's add more measurable performance criteria," urged another.
One commentator who did not know suggested: "It will focus attention, improve consistency, but may lead to lower overall performance should consultants become more defensive due to political repercussions."
"The answer should be ‘yes' BUT it relies on those instructing the consultants having sufficient knowledge," another said.
A final pundit noted: "Incentivising consultants based on investment performance may be helpful but may make them chase returns rather than act in the best interest of their clients. But consultants should be held more accountable for the overall value they deliver via their service."
This week’s top stories included the rejection of an automatic guidance amendment in the Pension Schemes Bill, while The Pensions Regulator posted a sharp increase in the use of its powers.
The majority of the pensions industry agrees an eventual net-zero target should not be mandated for schemes as part of the Pension Schemes Bill, according to a Professional Pensions poll.
Local Pension Partnership Administration (LPPA) has become the latest organisation to join the Pension Scams Industry Group (PSIG) forum.
Two-thirds of UK fund managers are reducing investments in companies that fail on diversity and inclusion scores, according to a survey by Edelman.
England and Wales have seen a fourth successive week of increasing excess death figures as the countries battle through the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic.