For AGE Platform Europe, which represents the interests of persons aged over 50 across Europe, it is crucial to restore confidence after a lengthy crisis. Good intentions are not enough. Concrete actions are needed to protect the rights of today’s and tomorrow’s older persons, including the most vulnerable. AGE recommends, among other measures, an adequate old-age income and a better balance between public schemes and private-funded pension schemes. Europe should also have greater competences.

What do you expect from this green paper and more generally from the European Union?

For now, we mainly have the impression that the Commission is launching a major project but that it doesn’t really know where it’s headed. The EU has indirect competences: it has quite a lot to say on member states’ budget deficits, which means that indirectly it forces the member states to come up with solutions to make their pension and long-term care systems lighter on public expenditure. In 2001, the European Union made fairly strong commitments as part of the Stockholm strategy and although the context has changed, it must continue to develop appropriate social protection systems that are financially viable.

One of the key issues to be addressed is the adequacy and viability of pensions. What is the AGE’s position?

We see this as the heart of the problem. While adequacy and viability can both be envisioned, reducing or increasing aid is not the only solution. We also need to ensure that people receiving small pensions can continue to live decently.

The question of adequacy can be approached by seeking other sources of income. It has to be possible for people to work longer, including after retirement age. There is no need to be afraid that this will make jobs for young people even scarcer: the two do not directly affect each other. This debate on pensions is inseparable from the debate on employment: most older people today did not have access to lifelong learning so it is vital to help people obtain training and stay on the labour market.

This analysis of the adequacy and viability of pensions should not be limited to standard profiles, namely the average retired male with average income and a full career. Today, we need to think in terms of incomplete careers, with people who don’t have the required insurance period to receive a full pension.

AGE makes it a point of honour to defend the most marginalised older persons. Who are these persons at risk?

At present, we are relying more and more on funded schemes and less and less on the public ‘pay as you go’ system. This trend is increasingly unfavourable to women because their careers are incomplete, plus they have lower earnings (15% less for equal work, so they can’t invest in a private supplemental pension). Other high-risk groups include migrant workers, for whom rules on minimum insurance periods, contributions, etc are not in their best interests in terms of access to pensions. [...] With the crisis, the risks are being placed on the person and de facto on the family, more so than in the past. If we continue in this direction, we’re headed for disaster. This is where we hope the green paper will take a holistic approach.

Are ‘pay as you go’ systems more sustainable?

Opinions vary on that. Some say that if everyone worked until legal retirement age and if other fairer sources of income could be found, it would be possible to maintain a ‘pay as you go’ system that would be more suitable for everyone.