A new report has called for a simpler and more comprehensive pensions policy in a bid to avert a pensions timebomb.

Calling for the government to scrap all existing pensions legislation, Alan Pickering said he wanted "more employers to join the pensions club".

In his report, he attacked red-tape and warned that another Maxwell scandal could happen again under the existing regime.

Forum Response: Prudential

Jonathan Bloomer, chief executive of Prudential Group, told ePolitix.com: "The report sets a radical agenda for the forthcoming crucial debate to find a practical way forward for pensions in the UK.

"The removal of barriers to saving for retirement is crucial, and in particular Prudential welcomes the significant simplification of the types of pension arrangement and the treamlining of legislation. We also support the recognition of the workplace as a key environment for encouraging pension provision.

"To achieve even greater simplification, fundamental changes to pensions tax will also be required. Prudential hopes that the Inland Revenue review will propose the necessary changes to help achieve this.

"It is essential that the government brings together all the reviews currently being undertaken and seizes the opportunity to work closely with the industry and regulators to create a single package of measures aimed at reducing the UK savings gap.

"Given the long-term nature of pensions, the government should be encouraged to look for a political consensus on the measures proposed."

Forum Response: Association of British Insurers

Joanne Segars, head of pensions at the ABI, told ePolitix.com: "Britain needs simpler pensions, and more encouragement to save. The Pickering review, together with the Sandler review into long-term savings, provides the platform for a major effort to close Britain's savings gap and to help many more people prepare for their retirement.

"Alan Pickering's ideas for a simpler pensions framework will help Britain to save. This will help employers run and maintain schemes and encourage more people - including the self-employed - to save for retirement.

"The details of Alan Pickering's recommendations reflect many of the ABI's proposals. We agree that there are too many types of private pension arrangement and that customers need clearer and more accessible information. We also welcome his proposals to simplify contracting out, which will help ease scheme administration.

"More needs to be done to ensure that more money is paid into pension schemes of all types. So compulsory scheme membership for employees will be an important step forward. A pension contributions tax credit will greatly assist here.

"But further incentives are needed. That is why the ABI has proposed a new Pension Contributions Tax Credit, together with wider availability of advice in the workplace. The insurance industry will play a full role in ensuring that there is a strong financial services industry able to extend pension provision for future pensioners."

Forum Response: Help the Aged

Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at Help the Aged, told ePolitix.com: "Many of Pickering's proposals are laudable, in that they would focus the minds of employers and employees on ensuring that some provision was made for retirement. Anything which helps to reverse the flight from future pension provision by employers must be welcomed.

"There are good points in the report, too, about the stripping out of red tape and improving the transparency of pension schemes.

"However, removing inflation-proofing could raise the spectre of workers being compelled to participate in shabby schemes with inadequate returns, which will do little to address the issue of poverty in older age."

Forum Response: Consumers Association

Sheila McKechnie, Director of the Consumers' Association, told ePolitix.com: "These recommendations provide the government with a golden opportunity to modify the pension system to meet consumers' needs and to motivate consumers to make necessary provision for their futures. Now the government needs to grasp the nettle to avoid future generations picking up the tab for today's mistakes.

"As the state withdraws from pension provision and individuals are left to provide for their future, Pickering's review paves the way for the simplification and integration of pension provision. If taken forward, Pickering's proposals should allow for a more flexible system, which is far more appropriate for today's consumers who change jobs more regularly and have rapidly changing lifestyles.

"We recognise that Pickering has raised some key issues in relation to continuation of specific benefits within final salary schemes. These important issues should be a key part of the national debate that the government should immediately activate following today's report.

"The Sandler and Pickering reviews will not solve the savings and pensions crisis on their own, however, hopefully they will be seen as two key milestones in the journey to increase consumer confidence, through creating greater transparency and simpler products that consumers will want to buy into.

"The government now urgently needs to lead a major public debate to develop a co-ordinated pensions strategy that tackles compulsion, where the balance lies between government, employer and the individual and how to prevent pensions policy becoming a short term political football."

Forum Response: GMB

John Edmonds, general secretay of the GMB, told ePolitix.com: ""We are looking at the biggest pensions rip off in history.

"This report condemns hard working people to an old age of income poverty. The government has turned to an industry insider to make it as easy as possible for employers to renege on any pensions responsibility."

Forum Response: Institute of Directors

Richard Baron, deputy head of the policy unit at the IoD, told ePolitix.com: "There is much that is good in the Pickering Report. We need simpler and less restrictive rules, allowing greater freedom of choice to employers who want to offer pension schemes. But it is not only pensions legislation that needs reform. The tax rules must also be simplified and liberalised."

Forum Response: Age Concern

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern England, told ePolitix.com: "Millions of younger people risk being short-changed in retirement because they don't understand how much they need to put aside or how the pensions system works.

"Age Concern strongly supports simplifying the pensions system to help people to plan better for their retirement. The new proposals should make it easier for employers to offer good pension schemes. Currently the system is so complex people are literally gambling on their future.

"However simplifying schemes must not be at the expense of people's pension rights. Any changes which would reduce requirements to increase pensions in line with inflation could have a devastating effect on the welfare of many pensioners as they grow older. Instead of sharing in the prosperity of the nation, they could see the real value of their income go down in retirement.

"Older women are most likely to be struggling on low incomes in retirement. If there were moves to alter the payment of survivors' benefits this would be likely to make the struggle for many women even harder."

Forum Response: National Association of Pension Funds

Peter Thompson, chairman of the NAPF, told ePolitix.com: "This report shows a sound grasp of the problems which have all too often pushed employers out of providing good occupational pension schemes.

"Alan Pickering's proposals could make life easier for those thousands of employers who voluntarily provide pension benefits for their employees. In doing so, they may persuade many employers to retain their pension schemes, where they might otherwise curtail or remove them.

"It is now vital that forthcoming proposals from the Inland Revenue lead to radical simplification of the tax regime for pensions, and that incentives both for employers and employees are introduced.

"However, the Pickering proposals offer a blueprint for practical steps forward and I urge the government to follow this at the earliest opportunity. The NAPF will of course play a full part in any consultation on the implementation of Alan Pickering's proposals."

Forum Response: Unison

Glyn Jenkins, head of pensions at UNISON, told ePolitix.com: "Allowing employers more freedom to cut pensions will undermine employee confidence in pension schemes still further. It is essential to promote an environment to encourage good quality schemes and pensions build up.

This can only be achieved by pointing out the folly of closing good schemes and having the political will to impose realistic levels of contributions on employers and employees.

"A pension that does not hold its purchasing power in retirement is a non starter. If employers are able to opt out of the limited inflation protection we have now, many consumers will wonder why they are bothering to save for their retirement at all.

"UNISON supports in principal the proposal to reintroduce compulsory membership of pension schemes. But we could not support compulsion to stakeholder schemes with a totally inadequate contribution by the employer of just 4 per cent of employee pay.

"The stark truth is that if most low or even average paid workers had been forced into such schemes 20 years ago they would have paid in for nothing. They would now be dependent on the state with taxpayers picking up the bill."