Opinion Polls

Yes. We are looking at it now (67%) | No. We are not interested (0%) | We have looked into it out of interest, but no decision has been made (11%) | It is too expensive to consider (22%)

Yes. This would ensure we have the right people making key decisions (33%) | No. This will put people off becoming trustees (43%) | No. Trustees are not expected to know as much as the experts (24%) | Unsure (0%)

Yes. Pension schemes and members will benefit (17%) | No.The Budget did not go far enough (56%) | I think UK pension funds are beyond help (28%)

Add further unnecessary pressure to DB schemes (19%) | Will result in more buy-outs (44%) | This will help improve transparency (19%) | Unsure (19%)

Yes. This will encourage employers to continue running good schemes (25%) | No. The idea is that everyone starts saving immediately and this could give the wrong message (75%) | Unsure. There needs to be more consultation on this (0%)

Yes (50%) | No (50%)

Yes. No question about it. He broke the rules. (55%) | No. We have seen too many changes; the industry needs someone in place long enough to make a change (9%) | Unsure. Depends what the Parliamentary Standards Committee discovers (36%)

No. The government has missed out key issues (50%) | No. There have been too many unexpected surprises (12%) | Yes. The government has done a brilliant job (6%) | Don’t care. I think personal accounts will be dead by 2015 (31%)

Yes. It is the only way to ensure best practice (50%) | No. It would add more red tape to the pensions industry (25%) | Not sure. Maybe schemes just need help in understanding them (25%)

No, holidays should be a thing of the past. (50%) | Yes, a sizeable surplus justifies it. (33%) | I don't know. (17%)

It lacks clarity and could actually make life tougher for trustees (50%) | There are no real substantial changes to the way in which clearance works (0%) | Unsure (50%)

Yes.The majority that opt for them are in the wrong option (75%) | No. Because it is there to help those that are undecided (12%) | Unsure. Members should seek advice and chose the right option (12%)

Yes. It would make them more efficient (46%) | No. Trustees must not benefit from their role (46%) | Unsure (8%)

Yes, as they have nothing to lose by doing so (25%) | No, they should concentrate on shareholder engagement instead (50%) | Unsure. There is a cost to all shareholders and high lawyer fees to consider (25%)

Yes. We are already looking at it (33%) | No. it is all hype (67%) | Don’t know about it (0%)

Yes, they should pay higher taxes (50%) | No, it should remain the same (21%) | No, they should pay lower taxes (0%) | Unsure (29%)

Yes. He will be great (8%) | No. He could have made a difference when he was the chancellor (92%)

Yes. Disclosure is currently very poor (33%) | Yes. Although there is some, it is not enough (67%) | No. There is enough disclosure (0%)

Yes. It is a balanced compromise (0%) | No, it should have been a lot higher (22%) | No, it should have been lower (11%) | Don’t care. Personal Accounts are generally a bad idea (67%)

£3,000 (27%) | £5,000 (20%) | There should be no annual cap (53%)

No. Not at all. (0%) | They could do a lot better (88%) | Yes. We all understand each other and everything is great (12%)

Compensate everyone that lost their pension when their companies went bust (25%) | Compensate schemes for the losses they made when he scrapped ACT (0%) | Remove the inequality between public and private sector pensions (50%) | Nothing. There are bigger issues to worry about (25%)

Terrible. Pensions are still a big mess (57%) | Not bad. Some good progress has been made (29%) | Brilliant. Everything is perfect (14%)

No - there are already too many managers in the market (40%) | Yes - the more competition the better (60%)

Yes. It is the best way to deal with liability risk (25%) | No. It is too expensive and trustees should not be looking at it (50%) | Unsure. There is currently no alternative to buy-out (25%)

Yes. All pension funds should be transparent about their holdings (14%) | No. This is the trustees’ business (0%) | Unsure – it can be hard to achieve the right balance between ethics and good investment choices (86%)

Yes (0%) | No. It needs more clarification (33%) | It means different things to different people and should be renamed or scrapped as a term (67%)

Yes. This will help simplify pensions regulation (38%) | No. This will not work (44%) | Not sure – there are good and bad points about this happening (19%)

Yes, and we are already looking at it investing in it (60%) | Possibly – depends on the circumstances of the scheme (20%) | No. Property is still stronger in the alternatives markets (20%) | No. It's just all media hype (0%)

Yes.They are trying to get involved in business decisions which they have little understanding of (45%) | Yes. There is too much striking and not enough negotiating (9%) | No. They are there to protect their members' rights (45%)

No. There is a real need for trustee education (44%) | They only understand basic concepts, but have no idea about complex issues such as hedge funds (33%) | Yes. Most trustees are fully trained and able to make the right decision for their scheme (11%) | No, but trustees do not need to know much as they can rely on their consultants (11%)

PPF is likely to go bust within a period of two years if full compensation is ordered by the UK High (60%) | The PPF will increase levies significantly to meet payments (20%) | The PPF is already in a strong position and will meet demands (20%)

A good idea, it will help employees realise what a good scheme is. (30%) | Not sure, I need to see more details on it before I can judge. (40%) | A combined 10% DC contribution rate is unrealistically high, so it won't work. (10%) | Will be interesting to see how public and private sector schemes compare. (10%) | Doesn't take into account factors such as employer solvency, which are vital. (10%)

Yes, property is underweighted by most schemes (25%) | Yes, but only for overseas property allocations (25%) | Possibly, but Reits are more volatile than other property vehicles (0%) | No, property is sufficiently weighted by funds (0%) | No, property is so last year, infrastructure is the thing for 2007! (50%)

It shows the levy was deliberately set too low at the start (26%) | Undercollection will remain a problem as schemes improve their funding (11%) | It will make life even harder for underfunded schemes (11%) | It's a good move to reduce any danger of a PPF deficit (26%) | It's funny that they've announced it just before Christmas (26%)

Further evidence of inconsistent and arbitrary policy-making (55%) | The government is right to limit potential abuse of tax relief by the rich (9%) | Not relevant to most people, so not too bothered really (9%) | The phrase 'rearranging deckchairs on the Titantic' comes to mind (27%)

This is only a minor, short-term issue and the PPF will be financially strong (36%) | This shows that PPF levies must rise sharply, to the detriment of solvent schemes (27%) | This shows the concept of the PPF is fatally flawed and doomed to disaster (23%) | This shows that the PPF needs to find a more creative accountant (14%)

To invest regardless of the climate change impact of their investments (0%) | To take the climate change impact of investments into account, as a secondary issue (8%) | To put the climate change impact of their investments at the heart of their investment policies (42%) | To ascertain scheme members' views on this issue and then to act accordingly (50%)

Yes. We are already looking at it (38%) | Yes, but not as soon as within the next three years (38%) | Possibly, but we are unsure when (12%) | No. Hedge funds do not form part of our long term investment strategy (12%)

Yes – employers may be forced to level down as a result (0%) | Yes, but not sure what the impact will be (33%) | Unsure – the draft regulations are unclear to say (33%) | No. Employers have had plenty of time to assess age discrimination and fix potential problems (33%)

Yes, not a problem (31%) | Yes, but only if they have access to independent advice (15%) | No, a cash payment could cloud members' judgement (23%) | No, it looks like a bribe and is bad for the image of pensions (31%)

Yes, his record on pensions is good (14%) | Yes, despite his record on pensions (7%) | No, because his record on pensions is awful (36%) | No, but for other reasons (43%)

Yes, it is a brilliant idea (25%) | Possibly, but it needs more thought (19%) | No. The government should scrap the idea (31%) | Whatever (25%)

Yes, everything is really simple now (21%) | Yes, things are a bit simpler (17%) | Possibly, it should help in the long run (38%) | No, it has created more work for no gain (25%)