Question: What do you think about the government's approach to the state pension?

Yvonne Bennion: The fundamental problem is seen when we look into the future. Ministers are basing their assumptions on 5 per cent of GDP spend going on state provision over the next fifty years. But there is an increasing number of pensioners - set to grow by a third over the next 40 years to around 16 million, and they are all going to live longer.

This means that if the 5 per cent of GDP spend doesn't go up, then obviously the relative value of state provision falls. If you've got a lot more pensioners, but the pot that you're drawing on remains the same size, this clearly has an effect on the amount of money that people will have to try and find somewhere else.

Question: Is the government right to assume that people work until they are 65?

Yvonne Bennion: The government does assume in the green paper that people will have a full working life and can build up a complete record of NI entitlement to a state pension. Now, if that isn't true for lots of men it is certainly not true for women, who have a history of broken employment.

There has been a lot of talk about increasing the state pension age to 70 and we are very glad that ministers don't appear to be going down that road. Such a move wouldn't do much for present day problems at all.

The difficulty is that two thirds of men have stopped working by their 65th birthday and there is a real problem for men in their fifties coming out of manual work and in poor health in areas where unemployment is high.

In addition, the government is proceeding on the premise that it has already done a lot to help the state pension. It is perfectly true that some pensioners are going to better off by what they have done. But the way that all this works is that progressively more and more people will be means tested.

The government is very keen on 're-branding' tax relief on pensions contributions, but they don't say in the green paper how much revenue will be foregone through tax relief if they are successful and people do save more for their pensions. This very much limits the scope of the debate. It is very important, we believe, that ministers be prepared to look at the state pension again, and answer this question around costings.

Question: What would the Work Foundation like the government to do on this?

Yvonne Bennion: We need a much better level of the basic state provision because there are significant risks inherent in saving for pensions and really big considerations as to whether people can afford to save enough. We want a universal state pension that is a much better platform. It is also true that a better level of state pension could provide something of a hedge for people's more risky savings.

This is very important now that the former consensus between the state and employers on pensions provision has broken down and the risk has increased dramatically for individuals.

Question: So in increasing the state pension, where should this extra money come from?

Yvonne Bennion: It would imply tax increases. A lot of the recent debate on pensions has focused on the details and has been very reluctant to look at the systemic weakness in the system and to face up to the essential question as to how far working people are prepared to see wealth transferred from themselves to those retired.

People don't really address that question because it is peering into the abyss where they do not want to look.

Question: Some argue that the pensions system is very complex. Should the system be made more consumer-friendly?

Yvonne Bennion: Unfortunately, that is really quite difficult. There is a hope that it will be possible to develop a range of more simple but effective products - that was one of the conclusions of the Sandler Review.

But I think we have to accept that this will be difficult. And this adds to the risk for individuals.

Question: Are Britons adequately protected when it comes to pensions?

Yvonne Bennion: No, there are numerous problems. For example, if a company scheme winds up, the members of the scheme who are not already drawing a pension are ranked below pensioners in the distribution of assets and when a company goes down pension schemes are in the position of unsecured creditors. So protection is actually very weak.

We believe that it is absolutely fundamental that the protection for scheme members must be reinforced before compulsion becomes a viable option.