Michelle Mitchell - head of public affairs at Age Concern and Katherine Rake, director of the Fawcett Society

Question: Why have Age Concern and the Fawcett Society joined forces to protest about women's pensions?

Michelle Mitchell: We have a view that there are intolerable levels of hardship experienced by many older women in the UK. We strongly believe that unless the government acts now many younger women will face an old age in poverty.

We want to use the campaigning force of both organisations to put pressure on the government to deliver a radical pensions programme for women today and tomorrow.

Katherine Rake: I think what we're seeing now is a very serious pensions gap between women and men. The difference is quite dramatic in fact: for every £1 received by a man in a pensioner couple, women receive just 32 pence. The government has recognised that this is an issue and it published a chapter on women in its recent green paper on pensions.

But we shared with lots of others a deep disappointment in the fact that while this contained analysis of the problem it offered very few policy recommendations. By joining forces we're trying to raise the profile of this issue and also to use the opportunity of this chapter being produced to start pushing forward some policy solutions.

Question: What about men? Age Concern represents male pensioners as well. Does this campaign open you up to accusations that you are neglecting the problems of male pensioners?

Michelle Mitchell: We're campaigning on the pensions system as a whole and have been very involved in lobbying government on the green paper - looking for a whole range of reforms in the pensions system.

We're not ignoring the plight of men. We campaign against pensioner poverty whether that's men or women. What we are focusing on is inequality in the system. This campaign is highlighting the plight of many women, who after all are some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society today.

We know from the green paper that ministers have identified a problem but they're not offering an action plan to address this problem. One in four older women live in poverty today and nearly twice as many older women are reliant on means tested benefits.

We also know that there are up to 380,000 single older women who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee who aren't claiming it so this sums up the scale of the problem.

We hope our campaign tackles inequality between men and women and reduces poverty for all.

Question: Why do women retire poorer than men?

Michelle Mitchell: There are a number of barriers which stop women from building up adequate pensions. I think the fact that women work fewer hours over fewer years is crucial. They often take time out from paid employment to care for others or work part-time when raising children.

We know about the pay gap - women are paid much less. Women are less likely to make national insurance contributions so they don't qualify in many cases for the full basic state pension.

Women are also less likely to be members of a good company pension scheme and they retire earlier but live longer. The people who live longest in society are women.

Katherine Rake: I think the system is ill designed for women, and increasingly poorly designed for men too. The state pension has not been changed much since the 1940s, so the rules it operates by are very ill suited to women's needs.

The system is littered with hurdles which women, in particular, find difficult to overcome. For example, in order to qualify for a full basic state pension you have to work for nine tenths of your working life and for women that typically means being in paid employment for 40 years. At the moment, these rules mean that many women fail to qualify for a full basic state pension.

In the UK we've moved towards more private and occupational provision and women tend to work in the kinds of occupations which aren't covered by occupational pension schemes. They tend to work part time and part timers in particular have very low access to occupational schemes.

Women also earn less than men. They take time out of the labour market to look after children and increasingly to look after old relatives as well. And women also live longer, so the very small sums they get have to last them longer.

So it's a real combination of a poorly designed system on the one hand and the patterns of women's working lives on the other.

Question: Do you agree with means testing?

Michelle Mitchell: What we would like to see is a pensions system that isn't based on means testing. We welcome the improvements the government has made to means tested benefits for older people. But we'd like to see a basic state pension paid at a decent level which covers real living costs. Means tested benefits do not deliver this.

Given that the government has gone down this path, they have to make sure that these means tested benefits get to the most vulnerable people and the record of up to nearly 400,000 older women who are entitled to benefit but aren't claiming them is one that we should be ashamed about. These are the people who are most vulnerable and those small increases of money that the government has made available would change people's lives quite significantly.

Katherine Rake: The government has had very big problems with take up and where people don't claim, there are unnecessary levels of hardship. Means-testing creates a very big administrative burden. It's a complex way of delivering really. The extent to which we use means testing for the pensioner population in the UK really sets us apart from our European counterparts, where means testing remains quite rare.

So, we think there should be a decent basic state pension that is free of a means test and this is a view shared by the majority of the population. In the final analysis, a non means-tested pension is just the simplest way of delivering a decent income to all.

Question: How are you pressing the government on this?

Michelle Mitchell: We are running a broad campaign on pensions. We are involved in a whole series of discussions with ministers, parliamentarians and journalists in an attempt to push our programme for change in this area.

We have a number of specific recommendations we want to see the government take action on. And let's not forget there isn't a pensions minister at the moment. We think that when he or she is appointed, women and pensions should be at the top of their agenda.

Some of the policy recommendations we are calling for include introducing a better more flexible system of credits for the state pension for those who care for children and older people. Currently there are two systems that may protect your pension record if you are a carer. The systems are complicated and inflexible and can mean people miss out on years of contributions simply because their personal circumstances change during a year. The systems also do not cover everyone who cares for an older or disabled person, so you could find that because you are taking care of perhaps your mother or father, you are losing out on your basic state pension.

We also think that the basic state pension should be paid at a decent rate but it would be better to make it easier for women to claim a basic state pension. We need to include more low paid women in the national insurance system.

We need to close the advice gap. Research shows us that younger women are not saving enough for their retirement. They need to be able to make decisions about their own retirement.

Katherine Rake: What we're arguing for is slightly different from some of the pensions lobby in that although we subscribe to an increase in the basic state pension, we recognise that this won't improve the lot of many women as many of them aren't entitled to it in the first place.

So what we're arguing for is a set of measures that would mean more women could be included in the state pension. This would mean changes in rules and we would also like to see the introduction of a carers' credit, which would recognise and reward the unpaid work that women are doing in the home.

The other thing that we are saying is that the state second pension is a very important part of the picture for women, in particular because they have less access to occupational pensions.

The government has done a lot with the state second pension - it is potentially enormously redistributive but unfortunately it works to the same rules as the basic pension so it is very hard for women to get any entitlement.

Question: Regarding the current lack of a pensions minister, what's your response to the government's failure to appoint someone?

Michelle Mitchell: We want to see a pensions minister appointed as soon as possible. The longer the position remains vacant the greater the danger of a vacuum appearing. It has been about six weeks now. We urge the prime minister to make the appointment and we would call on whoever it is to put women and pensions at the top of their agenda.

Question: How receptive have you found the government to your arguments?

Michelle Mitchell: I think what we're presented with is a once in a generation opportunity. The government has published the green paper and this gives us a chance to put these issues back onto the political agenda.

Poverty and retirement for women isn't a new issue. It is a long standing problem. But we do have a window of opportunity.

At the moment the government is giving warm signals about the possibility of change and we want to build a well thought out and comprehensive programme to stamp out poverty in retirement for women. We urge ministers very strongly to take forward the recommendations that we're making because it will fundamentally make a difference to some of the most vulnerable people in society. It will show the rest of the country that they are serious about equality and serious about pensioner poverty in retirement.

Katherine Rake: I think ministers are listening at the moment. The green paper is a breakthrough really. In my memory of green papers - and I've seen a few - I don't remember seeing a specific chapter on women in this way.

This is significant not least because the majority of pensioners are women and a lot of pensioner poverty is related to women's previous employment history.

I do think that this is a big mark in the sand for us. We now need to encourage the government to use this opportunity to maximum effect and to think very creatively and boldly about producing a new pensions system that properly meets the needs of women.

I think in addition that when people realise the scale of the problem for women in particular, and when we build up our campaign, there will be some significant support nationally because our aims are just and fair.