Baroness Hollis, a former minister at the Department for Work and Pensions and a leading campaigner on women's pension rights, says in the foreword to a Scottish Widows report on pensions: "Too many women believe (often wrongly) that their partner will provide for them. They believe too that the children's need for trainers today takes precedence over some undefined needs 30 years on, that it is 'selfish' to squirrel money away for herself that is needed by the family.
"These women are baffled, along with most people, by the complexity of pension structures and they reassure themselves that if the man in their life won't provide, then the State will." But while the State may lift women out of penury, it will not provide them with adequate comfort, she says.
There is no point in the meantime exhorting men - or women - to save more when they cannot. Even if people do work for 40 years, from 25 to 65, they will never be able to set aside enough to live in comfort for another 20 years. By the time they have paid off their student loans and top-up fees, and educated their own children, they will have no money left to save at least until they are approaching 50, by which time it is too late to accumulate sufficient funds.
...everyone will need to work well past 65 to avoid pensioner poverty. Pension contributions might have to become compulsory.
So what is the answer? The extension of women's retirement age to 65 in October 2006 will give women a little longer to build up their pension entitlements, assuming employers still want them. The CBI has mooted that the state pension age be raised to 70 by 2030. Even a small adjustment in working ages of two or three years makes a huge difference to the sums and to the State's ability to pay a decent pension.
Other experts suggest restoring the link between the basic state pension and earnings, broken by Margaret Thatcher, as well as widening entitlements through more generous credits to carers and those with interrupted work histories.
Compelling companies to contribute to employees' pensions is another way forward, although while costs will initially fall on companies, they soon adjust wages to compensate. Then there is the possibility of improving incentives so that it becomes more obviously in the interests of individuals to save. It is widely agreed that the government must send out a clear message: your state pension will keep you out of poverty, but you must save if you wish to be comfortable. When you do, you won't lose entitlement to meanstested benefits.
Adair Turner, the former CBI directorgeneral and head of a governmentcommissioned investigation on pensions, says everyone will need to work well past 65 to avoid pensioner poverty. Pension contributions, he says, might have to become compulsory.
The facts are clear and stark. By 2040, 25 per cent of Britain's population will be 65 or over and there has been a dramatic fall in birth rates which means fewer taxpayers to support future pensions. Other social changes will have a profound impact. Fewer divorces mean less pension sharing, and the pension system discriminates against part-time working and career breaks. The Government is dealing with the broad picture, but SAGE is focusing on the detail, for example those 'Bridget Joneses' - the significant group of women without husbands to provide for them, children to look after them, the security of their own house or an adequate private pension to supplement the meagre State offering. They will need costly care homes to look after them, assuming there are spaces available.
Then there are the employers who - even after Age Discrimination legislation comes into force in 2006 - need to be persuaded to keep on older people in wellpaid jobs and not to pepper their recruitment advertisements with phrases such as 'dynamic person wanted, lots of energy needed'.
John Hutton, the Work and Pensions Secretary, will be grappling with the biggest social issue of our time. But unless this Government - and its successors - recognise the complexity of individual lives, in the way that SAGE is doing, there will be an enormous new underclass of 'losers' who will regard longevity as blight rather than blessing.
Previous