The Department of Work and Pensions has inivited ePolitix.com Forum members to respond to yesterday's publication of the pensions green paper "Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement".

Forum Response: Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Susan Johnson, head of pensions for the 160,000-strong Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "The new proposals mean that the retirement age for new entrants to the teaching profession will be raised from 60 to 65.

"It's already proving difficult to recruit enough people into teaching and having to wait another five years to retire may discourage more people from entering the profession.

"No one chooses teaching expecting to get rich but the guarantee of a good pension at the age of 60 has always been an incentive to take up a teaching career.

"These proposals may particularly affect the number of mature entrants to the profession (one-third of students on postgraduate teaching courses are over 30 years of age).

"Existing teachers will not be affected by the new proposals at present and those near to retirement have no need to worry but for anyone choosing their future career, teaching could now be looking a little less attractive."

Forum Response: National Association of Pension Funds

Christine Farnish, NAPF chief executive, said: "The government has clearly listened, and we welcome this. The tax review makes a number of radical proposals which will make it easier for firms to retain their pension schemes, and offers the genuine prospect of some employers being able to offer schemes where there currently are none. The green paper is a positive contribution, picking up on much of what Alan Pickering and Ron Sandler proposed five months ago.

"Having listened, the government must now act. The outstanding question mark hangs over the timing of these changes. The tax proposals involve a four month consultation process - which means no change for at least another 16 months. For many pension schemes and their members, this would be like getting your Christmas presents on Boxing Day."

Forum Response: Association of Retired and Persons Over 50

Don Steele, Director of Social Policy for ARP/050, said: "The 'radical' green paper pension reforms introduced today by the government have made inroads into addressing the deepening pensions crisis, but have not gone far enough, according to the Association of Retired and Persons Over 50 (ARP/O50).

"The scrapping of the compulsory retirement age of 65 years, now means a flexible decade of retirement, which has been long been championed by ARP/O50.

"We welcome this initiative as our policy has always been that employees should have the option of choosing their own retirement in the decade between 60 and 70.

"Deferring retirement for five years now means that future pensioners will be able to claim a lump sum of £20,000 at the age of 70 instead.

"But the problem of age-discrimination for older workers trying to remain in or re-enter the workplace shows no sign of diminishing and is unlikely to do so even with the introduction of the EU directive in 2006"

"ARP/O50 is concerned that there is no mention of the central issues, which are the abolition of means testing of the basic state pension, the problem of annuity provision at times of low interest rates, removing the ability of future pensioners to predict their income in retirement. No real incentive for the younger generation to start adequately saving for their retirement.

"We believe it is, therefore, necessary to radically re-assess the position of the state pension scheme in relation to the other schemes which the government is advocating""It is also ARP/O50's position that should compulsory contributions be introduced at a later stage, it would be unfair and irrational to force workers to contribute to market-based schemes, which give no assurance of adequate provision in retirement. If compulsion is to be introduced at all, it should relate to a reformed and improved State Pension Scheme.

"We're disappointed that the switch away from State Pension provision is not being halted. People are being told that the answer to their problem will be to voluntarily push their money into the one-armed bandit which is the private pension industry. If they refuse then they will be forced to do so. There is only one agency that can guarantee an adequate income in retirement and that is the state.

"The government has had an opportunity to make that happen and it has failed."

Forum Response: National Consumer Council

Deirdre Hutton, chairman for the National Consumer Council, said: "This is a missed opportunity for a fundamental review at a time when everyone's confidence is being undermined. Two in five employees rely on the state pension and make no other contributions. Simplifying some parts of the pension puzzle is a wasted effort if the government continues to make public provision even more complex.

"For most consumers the key issues are fairer incentives to save and the impact of means testing. Current tax breaks on pension savings, for instance, do more for the wealthy than the less-well-off. Today's pensions tax simplification won't change that. Also important is the whole issue of compulsion - particularly employer contributions. We are encouraged that the new independent pensions commission will at least investigate the case for compulsion.

"Affordable financial advice is essential if consumers are to plan their retirement with confidence. New initiatives, such as a pensions advice line and a more proactive information and advice role for employers, hold promise. But consumers need a real commitment from the government to address the financial advice gap."

Forum Response: Association of British Insurers

Mary Francis, director general of the ABI, said: "The government needed to breathe life into its pensions strategy. Today's proposals contain some useful elements but we doubt that they will fully bridge the savings gap".

"The government has said that those who can save should save. We agree. But people are either not saving at all, or not saving enough for a comfortable retirement. That is a massive problem. "

"The pensions green paper proposes some welcome changes: a radically simpler tax regime and simpler pensions will undoubtedly help remove some of the barriers to saving; so too will ensuring that people know more about their need to save for retirement; and we are pleased that the government has recognised the need for flexibility in retirement. We agree with this voluntarist approach.

"But these measures, welcome though they are, are not enough to get to the heart of the pensions crisis. They alone will not add money to people's pensions schemes. Over the next few months, as the government consults on the green paper, we will continue to call for positive measures that will actively encourage a greater level of saving. These must include the introduction of financial incentives to help more employers contribute to the pension schemes of their employees."

"To close Britain's £27 billion a year savings gap we need radical reform to help ordinary savers. We endorse the government's call to renew its partnership with savers, employers, and the savings industry. We will play our full part in this partnership so that people are encouraged to save and are rewarded for doing so."

"It is clear that we need a simpler tax regime that rewards saving at any stage in life. For that reason we welcome the single lifetime limit of £1.4 million. It will enable consumers to better understand pensions, employers to provide pensions more cheaply and make it easier for advice to be given. The current complexity deters employers from making contributions to schemes. The Inland Revenue review has resulted in some radical proposals which we warmly welcome.

"We welcome the removal of the barriers that stop people from being able to work for longer and welcome the idea of partial retirement. But flexible retirement will not, by itself, address the key problem. In the past 20 years, the proportion of men between 50 and state pension age who are not working has doubled. A third of men and women in this age range - 2.8 million people - are now not working. It appears that people want to retire earlier not work longer. They must therefore save more and start earlier.

"This is good news. We hope that it will provide the reassurance that company scheme members need and help rebuild trust and confidence in pension saving through the workplace.

"We do not support this. An insurance policy to protect pensions if the company goes into liquidation it is likely to be unaffordable and unfeasible. The liabilities are over the very long term and it is difficult to foresee the associated risk. For that reason the premium would be too expensive to be worthwhile. Any such policy could only be offered by the government.

"A watchdog with teeth is never a bad thing. We hope that the new watchdog will have the ability to reassure customers and help develop trust in the pensions regime. They must, however, take a risk based approach to regulation.

"Combined pension statements (state and private pension) have been on the government's agenda for some time and been announced several times. We obviously welcome them - they should help people see more clearly what they are likely to get in retirement and then appreciate the need to save more - but we are disappointed that the government has passed these off as something new in lieu of other firm proposals.

"We welcome the proposed introduction of the simple savings products proposed by Ron Sandler in the Summer. But they will only be effective if they have the right sales regime and pricing structure that means they can reach the target audience - something stakeholder pensions are currently failing to do in sufficient numbers.

"We welcome the introduction of capital protected annuities (money-back guarantees) but we are disappointed that this only applies before age 75. This halfway house is of limited value and likely to confuse consumers. To give consumers maximum value-for-money from their annuity, money-back guarantees should be permitted after age 75.

"We welcome the idea of an independent commission. We need stability in the pensions system in order that people can save with certainty and we hope that the commission will deliver this.

"The green paper makes some helpful suggestions but stops short of recommending that the self-employed should be required to have a second pension. This simple measure could help 2m people and take £2.5m off the savings gap."

Forum response: ACCA

John Davies, ACCA pensions spokesman, said: "Crucial to the recovery of the pensions industry is giving people the confidence that what they save through pension schemes will make them better off in retirement. Although tax relief on contributions and the tax free lump sum have been retained, further initiatives to make it easier and more attractive to save through pensions are needed, but fail to appear in the green paper."The accelerating number of company schemes being wound up, the failure of the stakeholder pension to reach its market and the plight of long-serving workers who have seen their pension rights evaporate on scheme closure, presented the government's pensions review with the opportunity to address the public's concerns head on. In this respect, the green paper represents a missed opportunity. While a number of proposals have been put forward to address these specific matters, the core issue of restoring confidence remains unaddressed."Unless the current structural problems are addressed and resolved, lower earners in particular risk seeing their pension contributions producing a poor return by the time they retire. With respect to money purchase schemes, unless real improvements are made to the rules on compulsory annuity purchase, younger people will continue to conclude that other forms of investment, particularly the property market, are a better long-term bet, and those individuals who are currently having to buy annuities at historically low rates will continue to be disadvantaged."

Forum Response: Institute of Directors

Derek Brownlee, taxation executive for the IoD, said: "We welcome plans to simplify the pensions system, but that is only a small part of the solution. Ultimately we need to get more money going into pensions. The IoD is pleased that compulsory contributions have been ruled out since they would add to the already high burdens on business. For many businesses struggling to cope with red tape and higher National Insurance Contributions, compulsory pension contributions would have been the last straw.

"To get more money into pensions, we need to look at whether the current incentives for contributions by employer and employee are sufficient. Also whether people understand just how much they need to save in a pension to get a decent level of retirement income - we suspect most people don't."

"For many low paid workers, saving into a pension is probably not worthwhile since the Minimum Income Guarantee will pay more than they could ever hope to generate through savings.

"We need to move to a system which rewards all saving and removes disincentives like these. A system which is stable so that people can plan for their future without worrying that the rules will change every few years."

Forum Response: Age Concern

Gordon Lishman, director general for Age Concern England, said: "We welcome the government's announcement to introduce new laws to stop employers from forcing older workers to retire against their will. This proposal is one crucial part of the pensions jigsaw and will enable older workers to stay in the workplace and build up their retirement pot.

"Greater incentives for people who want to defer their state pension and also the possibility of taking it as a lump sum will improve people's retirement options. At the same time, we are pleased that the government has listened to Age Concern and ruled out raising the basic state pension age. This proposal would have penalised many of Britain's most poorest older people who are likely to have worked for the longest in the most physically demanding jobs.

"While this green paper provides some useful housekeeping, it fails to go the whole way towards putting the pensions house in order. The government has missed a vital opportunity to create a new and more coherent pension settlement based on a partnership between state, individual and employer.

"If meaningful pension reform is to be achieved, the government must review the role of the basic state pension to ensure it remains the foundation of retirement income."

Forum response: Help the Aged

Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs for Help the Aged, said: "We are bitterly disappointed with the green paper. This was a once in a generation chance to end poverty in retirement and the secretary of state has failed to rise to the challenge.

"The government has today committed itself to being out of step with the broad consensus of pensions experts, academics and older people themselves, which has called for a simpler, more rational approach to the state pension and benefit support for pensioners, to lift them out of means testing.

"Voluntary pension provision, by employers and employees, has clearly had its day. Compulsion is now the only way but the government still believes it can swim against the tide, with simpler products and a new regulator as its big idea.

"The public has lost confidence in politicians to deliver over the long term on pensions and have had their trust in private provision shaken. We therefore need an Independent Pensions Authority, not a government-appointed watchdog, to oversee a proper structure for pensions in the UK.

"The one element of progress was on encouraging older workers. But even here, scrapping the normal retirement age - and only in the public sector - in itself is not enough. There needs to be a concerted attack on age discrimination long before 2006, including re-training opportunities for older people, re-organising employment practices (such as part-time working) in a more older-friendly way, and looking at the inducements and fringe benefit packages offered to older workers.

"Older people today, and the older people of tomorrow, were looking for a future they could trust. They will read this green paper in vain."

Forum Response: GMB

John Edmonds, general secretary of the GMB, said: "We are not going to let the government press gang millions of public sector workers into working into their retirement. Frankly ministers have bottled it. We needed a radical set of measures to deal with the pensions crisis."

Forum Response: Work Foundation

A spokesman for the Work Foundation, said: "The government has looked at the pensions crisis, but crossed the road and passed by',

"The pensions gap starts with the lack of a universal state pension at a decent level.

"The government's proposals do not address the fundamental problems. It has tinkered with the detail. Its notion of a responsible partnership between government, employers and people is to wash its hands of the great shift of risk by government and employers onto individuals.

"The amount the government spends on state pensions is based on a percentage of the national cake (GDP) that is not planned to increase in proportion to the expected rise in numbers of pensioners. The present state basic and guaranteed minimum uprating amount to only 22 per cent of the average national wage. The Minimum Income Guarantee is a means tested benefit and between a quarter and a third of those eligible do not claim.

"State pension provision in the UK is on average at half the level of present EU members.

"Nearly two out of three pensioners will be means-tested by 2020 if the Pension Credit continues to be calculated as at present.

"The pensions tax regime remains fundamentally regressive, favouring the better off. The government's 'save more, work longer' dictum' has not considered a more redistributive approach. It would be better to pay money into lower paid people's pension arrangements.

"Protection for members of final salary schemes will only be assured through employers' mutual insurance with a government pension protection scheme standing behind it. Simply altering, when a scheme fails - or as has recently been shown, when a solvent employer discontinues a scheme - the priorities for a claim on the scheme is robbing Peter to pay Paul. For those outside final salary schemes, there is no predictable level of pension and much less security than exists even now in final salary schemes.

"It is misleading just to say that we must save more given the risky nature of savings vehicles, the huge levels of consumer debt and the questionable value for most people of locking up money, surrendering control over it, for decades. It is not possible for there to be no risk in savings products, but the government confuses when it is appropriate and reasonable to take risks and saving for security.

"Although it is useful that people will be able to work and take their company pension at the same time and that employers will not usually be able to fix retirement ages, the proposals will not tackle the problem of the people in their 50's and early 60's who are retired or not working. Many jobs for older workers are not quality jobs.

"Much more work needs to be done to extinguish age discrimination from the work-place but also to equalise the opportunities for work throughout the country. Employers should be supported in developing suitable work for older people. Key employment rights in unfair dismissal and redundancy should be given to people who work beyond 65 or their 'normal retirement age'.

"We should remember that living longer does not necessarily mean being healthy enough just to go on working."

Forum Response: Usdaw

John Hannett, deputy general secretary for Usdaw, said, "Many of our members have recently seen their final salary pension scheme closed to new members or closed down altogether. It is a very worrying time that has left many workers confused and uncertain about how to save for their retirement.

"This green paper could be an excellent opportunity to sort out the problems with pensions. We very much welcome the government's proposals to simplify the regulations on company pensions; improve protection for pension fund members, and the right for employees to be consulted on changes to their pension scheme.

"The government is right to highlight the importance of the role of employers in pensions provision. However, Usdaw firmly believes that employers should be compelled to make a contribution to their employees savings for retirement, otherwise lower-paid workers will be forced into working beyond the current retirement age".

Forum Response: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Duncan Brown, assistant director-general at the CIPD, said: "The green paper recognises the essential need to educate employees and provide them and their employers with choices, within a simplified, more flexible pensions framework. Employees should be seen as customers and not as take-it-or-leave-it recipients of a one-size-fits-all pensions scheme, when it may not suit their financial needs.

"The CIPD believes that any proposals to force employers to provide occupational pension schemes, and employees to join them, would be inflexible and not suit the needs of many staff and organisations, in today's increasingly diverse and fast changing employment market-place.

"We can't turn the clock back to a world of mostly full-time male employees working for up to 40 years with the same employer. As the disappointing take up of the new stakeholder pensions that employers now have to provide demonstrates, compulsion is increasingly out-of-step with a consumer-driven society.

"The CIPD's recent publication, 'Pensions and HR's Role' demonstrates that successful employers are crafting attractive total reward packages that meet the diverse needs of their workforce, and giving them choices to tailor their pensions and other benefits to suit their personal circumstances.

"The CIPD also supports the government's decision to resist calls to raise the state pension age to 70. "These reflect a purely financially-oriented calculation, which takes no account of real employee's situations or wishes. Our research shows that one-third of under 25's already realise that they are not saving enough for their retirement and need to save more. They have got time to address it, and who knows how pension funds will fare on the stock market in the coming decades?" Brown continues, "with sufficient education and planning, the current view that we will all have to be working into our 70s could well be wide of the mark and alarmist."

Forum Response: FDA

John Merson, pensions officer at the FDA, said: "The current situation in which some departments force civil servants to retire when they reach 60, while in others staff can continue until 65 if they wish, is obviously unfair. We fully support moves to address these inequalities and will continue advocating a move towards a flexible decade of retirement from 55 to 65."

"However, we are concerned by the proposed moves to raise the pension age for new recruits in public service schemes to 65. Certainly, any proposals must protect the position of existing staff. We note the assurances given that new arrangements will be developed in partnership with the Cabinet Office, but we are extremely concerned at suggestions within the Civil Service Pensions 'question and answer' document now circulating in departments, that unhelpful changes may be made to accrual rates for existing members of the pension scheme. The FDA would resist any such move.

"The green paper raises a lot of issues and questions that will need in depth study and we expect this publication to be the start of a detailed process of consultation and negotiation with the Cabinet Office."

Forum Response: The Disabilities Trust

Matt Townsend, public affairs officer at The Disabilities Trust, told ePolitix.com: "The Disabilities Trust is pleased the government has recognised the severe problems with current pension provision through the publication of this green paper. As an organsiation that seeks to ensure its employees are well provided for we are encouraged the government is willing to reform the extremly complex regulations that currently can act as a disincentive to save."

Forum Response: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Matt Grainger, of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, said: "The implications, for any employer, of altering the current retirement age will need to be studied carefully.

"As a charity, Guide Dogs depends for a proportion of its income on legacies. We have already seen a significant drop in our income from this source, as older people increasingly fund their care needs from their savings and other assets.

"In principle, any proposals which help to sustain greater wealth for longer are welcome. However, many charities are likely to face even greater calls on their resources as those who have not made adequate pensions provision, or whose health prevents them from working into old age, seek support."

Forum Response: Depression Alliance

Jim Thomson, director of Depression Alliance, told ePolitix.com: "The choices seem to be that the government can either raise taxes and increase the basic state pension to a level at which one can exist, or they can expect people to save more and work for longer.

"The green paper does not fully explore these options and certainly does not take into account the alarming number of people on long-term disability benefit due to mental illness. These people, unable to work nor save for their old age, will again been left out in the political cold."

Forum Response: Business Services Association

Norman Rose, director-general for the Business Services Association, told ePolitix.com: "While we welcome the flexibility of the revised pensions proposals outlined in the green paper, we are disappointed that government has not taken bolder steps to address the problems faced by millions of individuals and their employers.

"The simplification of the pensions tax regime will assist employers, but legislative and reporting procedures still sap financial and administrative resources that could otherwise be used to benefit employees. We would not wish to see the burden of compulsory contributions placed on companies or individuals, but believe that incentives will need to be built into the system if the non-compulsory approach is to succeed."