Following the government response to the pensions green paper, the Consumers Association questioned whether the government should have done more to restore and build consumer confidence and trust in the pensions system.

A spokesman for the Consumers' Association said: "Although the government made several recommendations for addressing future problems with occupational pensions, it did not offer solutions to the many individuals with no pension and no plans to get one or those trapped in the minefield of individual private pension plans."

Malcolm Wicks, minister of state for pensions, told ePolitix.com: "I am interested in the responses being generated by this Forum - though I am, of course, already very familiar with most of the views that have been expressed, as all these groups were among the 800 individuals and organisations that responded to our pensions green paper consultation.

"John Davies of the ACCA is exactly right in identifying the competing political demands which we have been facing. So many of our proposals have been centred on finding the right balances - for example, between greater protection for members, to ensure that pensions promises are delivered, and greater flexibility for schemes to ensure that it remains viable and attractive for firms to run schemes where possible.

"We welcome the general level of support that our proposed Pension Protection Fund has received both here and in the wider media, but I would disagree with John Davies' concern that it may damage employer commitment to final salary schemes.

"By strengthening the requirements on solvent employers who wind up their schemes, we will discourage employers from going down that route, and by restoring confidence through the guarantee, these schemes should offer greater recruitment and retention benefits to employers who run them.

"It is also misleading to think of better schemes merely subsidising poorer schemes, as the levy will have a risk-based component calculated on the basis of the funding level of the scheme.

"The wide disagreement over compulsion is already evident in the media with the TUC and the CBI highlighting strong concerns on both sides of the argument. While we understand the rationale which led the Consumers' Association to repeat their call for compulsion at their breakfast event on Tuesday, we have to balance this against the fact that low earners would still contribute insufficient amounts to draw them out of income-related benefits, and there would be potentially very significant burdens on employers. Moreover, although pensions are the most obvious means of bringing financial security to old age, some individuals exercise other choices about securing their financial future.

"The Pensions Commission yesterday published its workplan which is the first stage in its examination of the voluntarist approach. I am sure that we will all follow its work with considerable interest.

"Many are calling for reform of the state system with concerns expressed over the level of support for today's pensioners. The government's immediate priority on coming into office was to tackle pensioner poverty. Compared with 1997, as a result of the government's measures including Pension Credit, from October 2003 pensioner households will be on average £1250 a year better off in real terms - around £24 extra a week; and the poorest third of pensioner households will have gained on average £1600 a year in real terms.

"The Basic State Pension will remain the foundation of income in retirement. Between April 2000 and 2003 pensioners have benefited from a cash increase of almost £10 a week for a single pensioner and nearly £16 a week for a couple. Furthermore, we will increase the Basic State Pension in future years by 2.5 per cent or the increase in the September Retail Price Index, whichever is the higher.

"Our Action on Occupational Pensions publication was the first stage in a rolling programme of reform resulting from our green paper last December. This wider programme includes simplification of the tax regime, the informed choice agenda and the re-invigoration of the partnership approach at the heart of the voluntarist system.

"The success of this system depends on the role that all of us play in this partnership and we will certainly want to continue with the relationships and good will that was evident during our green paper consultation."

Forum Response: Consumers' Association

Sheila McKechnie, Director Consumers' Association, told ePolitix.com: "Only one in five of the working population is an active member of a final salary scheme. The majority of the population either has no pension provision at all or is forced to rely on the stock market and the retail financial services industry to provide a decent and secure pension.

"Such is the loss of consumer confidence and trust in pensions and the financial services industry that only half of today's population are contributing to a pension, and, of these, four in five have no plans to acquire one in the future.

"Many of the government's proposals announced last week only apply to current employer schemes and the simple issue that we are not saving enough and the retail financial services sector is not fit for purpose was side-stepped and left to Adair Turner's Pensions Commission.

"At our pensions breakfast event tomorrow, CA and others will tackle the issues the government ducked by providing radical but practical new approaches to achieve the decent and secure retirement income people need."

Forum Response: Institute of Directors

Derek Brownlee, pensions executive for the IoD told ePolitix.com: "While much of the detail of the government's response to the consultation on pensions has yet to be published, we welcome the principle of the Pensions Protection Fund, though the devil will be in the detail. In particular, if the burden of financing the fund falls on employers, some may be forced to close their final salary schemes altogether.

"We also welcome the proposed changes to the priority order of pension assets where pension schemes cannot meet their full liabilities. However, though at first glance the bulk of the government's announcements are welcome, we still don't see any real progress on making it more attractive to save into a pension - and that is the core of the pensions crisis which must be addressed."

Forum Response: Help the Aged

Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs for Help the Aged, said: "Confidence in pensions has collapsed. The government persists with a meagre state pension supplemented by means tested benefits, and now moves to restore certainty to private schemes by chopping the mandatory indexation requirement. Some protection. The onus and risk of social protection in older age is being transferred remorselessly to the individual.

"There is a whiff of panic about the centrepiece of today's announcement. It trades off improved protection for a few with decreased protection for many and increased the risk of poverty in old age. More measures to demonstrate that schemes are properly funded, even if they were painful to employers and employees, would be a more honest approach.

"The green paper proposed some modest changes around the periphery of the pensions issues and some of these are now being driven forward most purposefully. But the big question about a realistic way of finalising old age, has been missed."

Forum Response: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

John Davies, head of business law and pensions spokesman for ACCA, told ePolitix.com: "The government's recent announcement is indeed disappointing in its failure to come up with measures which will make a real difference to employers' willingness to set up and maintain good final salary schemes.

"Without this commitment, more and more individuals are likely to find it unrealistic to think in terms of funding their own income in retirement.

"The changes which the government is making, with respect to the safeguarding of members' rights in both solvent and insolvent schemes, are of course welcome - a 'pension promise' once made by an employer should not be something from which an employer can walk away.

"But requiring the better-funded schemes to subsidise the poorer schemes via the new compensation scheme is a strange way to shore up employer commitment to final salary schemes; for some it may turn out to be the final straw.

"The government has failed to grasp the strategic importance of providing real incentives to encourage both employers and workers to save for the future via pension schemes. Providing these incentives is no doubt an expensive option and there are competing political demands for the government to satisfy.

"But in the long-term, the failure of the stakeholder pension to reach its target market, the continuing decline of final salary schemes and the poor value now being offered by money purchase schemes together suggest that the state is likely to have to bear an ever-increasing burden of caring for an ageing population.

"This is one example of convergence with our European partners that we should all agree is not in our interests."

Forum Response: National Consumer Council

Ed Mayo, chief executive of the National Consumer Council, told ePolitix.com: "There are now as many ideas on improving the pension system as reviews of the new Harry Potter. The government needs to accept reality and open up to a more generous state pension at the heart of a much simpler system.

"The state pension has shrunk from 25 per cent of average earnings to 16 per cent over the last 30 years. If the government allows this trend to continue, in the belief that company schemes and private pensions saving will fill the gap, our pension system will be even creakier tomorrow than it is today."

Forum Response: The Association of Retired and Persons Over 50

Don Steele, Director of Social Policy, told ePolitix.com: "The Association of Retired and Persons Over 50 fully shares the concern expressed by the Consumers' Association regarding future pension income.

"We have consistently called upon the government to make the state pension the backbone rather than the safety net of pension provision.

"A compulsory scheme, separately funded from other 'welfare' provision and capable of receiving AVCs from those able and willing to 'top up' their future pension. There is no other way than through a government backed defined benefit scheme that future pensioners will be guaranteed an income in retirement.

"The majority are openly rejecting what they see as the lottery of defined contribution schemes linked to the financial services industry and this rejection, which is compounded by an equally unpredictable annuity system, is likely to become universal as the catalogue of failure and disappointment increases."