The second reading of the pensions bill is due to arrive in the House of Lords next week, but I want to set out now why I believe they should oppose this.
The bill includes changes that will deny 33,000 women in their mid-fifties of over £10,000, and some 500,000 women of between £5,000 and £10,000, because of changes to accelerate increases to their state pension age. These proposals, to bring the equalisation of the state pension age forward two years so that the state pension age for women reaches 65 by 2018 (previously 2020) and 66 by 2020 (previously 2026), are in the pipeline despite explicit commitment in the coalition agreement that while ‘the parties agree to … hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66 … it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women’.
In practical terms, these changes mean that the state pension age for half a million women born in 1953 and 1954 will increase by more than a year. The majority of these women – 300,000 – born between December 1953 and October 1954 will face an increase of 18 months or more. And, in the most extreme case, 33,000 women born between 6 March and 5 April 1954 will have an increase of exactly two years, retiring two weeks before their 66th, rather than their 64th, birthday. These women have planned for their retirement on the assumption that they will reach state pension age in March 2018. They are now being told that, with just seven years to prepare and plan, they now must work an extra two years before being able to draw a state pension.
Women are already at a significant disadvantage when it comes to their pension provision. This generation of women has tended to earn far less during their working careers, were often prohibited from joining a private pension scheme when they started working (part-time workers were only allowed to join pension schemes relatively recently) and have had interrupted careers which gave them less chance to build up a pension outside the state pension system. Indeed, the median pension saving of a 56-year-old woman is just £9,100, almost six times lower than that of a man of the same age, who have an average of £52,800. At retirement, this translates into just £564 a year, or £11 a week for a woman. This group of women are not in the position to draw on substantial savings or rely on occupational pensions and yet they are being asked to bear the burden of this policy change.
Let’s be clear, we are not saying ‘no change’. It is right that the state pension age for men and women should be equalised. This principle was established in the 1995 pensions act, which set out the timetable for increasing women’s state pension age from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020. But these changes gave those affected had at least 15 years to prepare. It is also clear that the state pension age for both men and women needs to rise beyond 65 in order to pay for a more generous basic state pension, linked to earnings. Labour’s 2007 Pension Act, as well as pushing forward with the equalisation timetable, established this principle and set out a timetable for increasing the state pension age for both men and women (to 66 by 2026, 67 by 2036 and 68 by 2046). This is a principle we continue to back to ensure people don’t just have longer retirements on lower incomes.
But the fact is, there is an alternative to these rushed and ill-thought-through changes. The key issue is timing, giving men and women a chance to plan for their retirement – not moving the goalposts just before the whistle will blow. Our alternative would address the issue of increasing longevity, but in a fair and just way. No change before 2020, followed by an increase in the state pension age for men and women to 66 between 2020 and 2022 affecting 1.2 million fewer people than under the plans, and affecting men and women equally. Yet it would still deliver £20bn of savings for the government. Under these changes, no single person would be put in the unacceptable position of having an increase in state pension age of more than a year, and everyone would be given at least nine years’ notice.
So as the bill comes back before the Lords next week, we will be strong in our opposition to the acceleration of the equalisation timetable. We will urge the government to rethink, and address increasing longevity in a fair and rational way that does not rob women aged 56 and 57. In order to achieve this, Unions Together have today launched a petition, with Barbara Bates, one of the women directly affected. Please show your support for her and the 499,999 other women affected by signing this petition to oppose these ill-thought-through proposals.
Women get punished again. But then we wouldn’t expect anything less from a Tory Gvt that expects us all to be little married women at home raising children eh? Disgusting. So unfair for those hit by this ruling after all they’ve put into the system.
Well done to Rachel Reeves MP and the Unions together and to Barbara Bates for launching their petition to stop this unfair proposal. Women in this age group, paricularly those born in 1954 have already been hit hard, they have worked from age 15 and contributed, there was no equality of pay nor private pensions for poorly paid women workers. Yes the age has to rise to be equal with mens retirement age but not at the expense of the women who have already faced one age hike and have no time to prepare for another. Let them retire, free up their jobs for young unemployed people living on benefits for all they have paid nothing in. Hitting the same age group twice would be very wrong !
I was glad to be given the opportunity to help with this petition and I’m grateful to Unions Together for fighting for me and all the other women in this position, everything Rachel Reeves says is well thought out, well researched and indisputable. Women of my generation did not have the same advantages, we left school and started work in junior positions and we were not able to save for retirement other than by faithfully paying our contributions from every wage packet and trusting that when the time came we would receive our pensions paid for in advance by those contributions. The way that the raise in SPA was worked out was fair, of course everyone agrees that it is no longer right that men should work longer than women, and yes it’s unavoidable that the SPA has to rise, but expecting women born in 1953/54 to bear the brunt of this savage raise after already adding up to 4 years to our retirement age and assuring us that it wouldn’t happen again until 2020 is just plain dishonest, to put it bluntly we are being robbed of several thousands of pounds by a government who promises one thing and does another. Hands OFF my pension, I have worked hard for it! Please click on the link at the top of the page to sign the petition
The above comments say it all. It is a spiteful proposal I don’t understand why they have targeted women born in 1954. Perhaps one of us run over Cameron’s cat. Rachel Reeves and the unions are working so hard on our behalf. The Government must surely see that it is unfair we are not asking for a complete U Turn just some fairness. The Labour Party have an excellent alternative lets hope that the Government will listen.
I have two older sisters and one younger. The eldest already gets her pension. My sister who is three and a bit years older than me will recieve full pension at 60. Myself, born in December 1953, (what bad luck!!) and my sister 2 years younger than me will get nothing until we are 65 and a half, and 66 respectively. ITS INSANE! I just cannot come to terms with the mathematics of these proposals tables. It seems to me that we have a pensions minister who wants to save money by sweeping under the carpet a group of women will not ‘make a noise’. According to my maths he owes me AT LEAST the total no. of N.I. Conts. I have paid over the new total of 30, and an apology for planning to take this money from me under false pretences! I am heartened by hearing about Barbara Bates’ petition, and am so grSateful to Rachel Reeves and her efforts so far.
I am one of the women whose state pension age will rise by almost 2 years. I agree with the comments made by the women above. I feel that we have been unfairly targeted by the Government. They seem to think that if they ignore us for long enough we will simply put up with what they plan to do. I have both written to and been to see my MP about the proposed changes but feel I am being fobbed off as he has yet to tell me that he has taken any action other than to give it to his researcher. Time is running out before this proposal becomes law so action needs to be taken now, not when it is too late. The government seem to be forgetting that this age group are the women were paid less and denied career opportuniities simply because we are femaie. We campaigned until this was made illegal. This earlier inequality also affected paying into or even joining employers pension schemes so most of us have only small employers pensions making the state pension ivery important to us. Taking 2 years (or nearly) of it away from us when other people are only losing 1 year or even none at all is simply unfair. In 1995 when the government decided to equalize the pension age for men and women we did not have our pension age increased to exactly that of men but what the government felt fair – a 4 year increase – to take into account the fact that we had not had the full benefit of employment equality during our working life. it seemed a fair solution. Now they are going back on this agreement.
i agree with the people above let us retire at sixty and give the jobs to the young ones weve done our share most of us older people own our own homes so the goverment wouldnt have to p;ay our rent for us so they must benifit in the long run
Why is it that the Government think they can keep on getting away with these proposals , im 55 this year and like every one else who, s posted there comments . im am appaulled at these new proposals again moving the goal posts on our pensions , i was like everyone else hoping to retire when i was 60 having worked all my life from the age of 15 , when the last government put five years on this , they are now trying to put it up to 66 . most of us ladys have paid into the system for this right , we are now being told by these little up starts , that we have yet again to except these proposals lying down and everything been swept under the carpet , emily pankurst would turn in her grave , women of great or not so great britain rise up and stop these idiots ruining our lifes , why are we the ones to pay for the greedy bankers mistakes ? apart from these proposals has any one done the maths on what we loose out on financially over a six year period £24,000 + while these greedy twits at the top get pay outs worth millions , lets join the other ladys and revolt against this , we have earned our right to do this , yours one really peed off lady , put me on your petition . a,s,p.
I am also a woman impacted by the proposed pension changes and my state pension age will increase from age 64 to 66 years. I agree that women’s spa should change to match that of mens but I do not think enough consideration has been given to the impacts on women. I also believe we should not loose sight that this change impacts both males and females if the change to state retirements is increased from 65 to 66 years. I have done some research and established that people born between Dec 1953 and before Sept 1957 will have to work a year longer to claim their pension that people born after Sept 1957. How so? Well the school leaving age prior to Sept 1972 was 15. Therefore people born before Sept 1957 could leave school and start work at age 15 and if the state pension age is 65 their potential working life would be 50 years. If the state pension age is increased to age 66 then the potential working life for these people would increase to 51 years. Whereas for people born after Sept 1957, the school leaving age was increased to 16 and if the state pension age is 66 the potential working life for these people would only ever be 50 years. Increasing the state pension age to 66 for people born before Sept 1957 means they will have to wait up to a year longer to receive a state pension, therefore loosing the value of up to a year’s state pension. And also pay National Insurance up to an additional year. These people will therefore definitely be worse off than people born after Sept 1957 whose working life would be 50 years not 51 years. This is not fair treatment. To be fair to all, the Government should not increase the state pension age from 65 to 66 for people born before Sept 1957 to ensure these people do not have to wait up to a year longer than others to receive their state pension. Therefore the state pension age should be 65 until 2023. Then from 2023 the increase to state pension age to 66 could be phased in. This would ensure the state pension age is applied fairly based on a potential working life of 50 years for all ages and sexes and there would be no losers. This change is therefore impacts both sexes and iwe all need to band together to stop the Government introducing this unfairness into the pensions system.