Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • UKParliament
      Verified User verified user
    • By UKParliament Verified User verified user 28th Nov 17, 1:08 PM
    • 698Posts
    • 555Thanks
    UKParliament
    MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases
    • #1
    • 28th Nov 17, 1:08 PM
    MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases 28th Nov 17 at 1:08 PM
    On Wednesday 29 November, MPs will debate the subject of women affected by state pension age increases.

    The motion to be debated is:

    That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.

    You can watch the debate live or catch-up later on Parliament TV.
    Official Organisation Representative
    I’m the official organisation rep for the House of Commons. I do not work for or represent the government. I am politically impartial and cannot comment on government policy. Find out more in DOT's Mission Statement.

    MSE has given permission for me to post letting you know about relevant and useful info. You can see my name on the organisations with permission to post list. If you believe I've broken the Forum Rules please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. This does NOT imply any form of approval of my organisation by MSE
Page 2
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 29th Nov 17, 12:10 PM
    • 6,195 Posts
    • 2,929 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    By that I mean both SP and private pension.
    Originally posted by DairyQueen
    What GRASPI are after, are a wholesale change to women's state pension entitlements to a very specific group of women, regardless of personal circumstance, all of whom already (without a further changes to rules) are already going to be better off than any men in their cohort.

    This has nothing to do with private pension provision, the patriarchy (sorry - "paternalism",) or any of the other confounding issues to which you allude to in your post, which are clearly raised to confuse the issue.

    It seems to me that the WASPI campaign has focused media and public attention to such an extent on the justice of equal SPA...
    They were harping on about the alleged injustice of equalisation of the SPA, but they took a detour via "fair transitional arrangements" which doesn't sound quite as much like "we still want our pension earlier than men, and carry on having it later" as before, but boils down to the same thing.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 29th Nov 17, 1:57 PM
    • 10,803 Posts
    • 7,100 Thanks
    bigadaj
    This topic is like catnip.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 29th Nov 17, 2:02 PM
    • 6,195 Posts
    • 2,929 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    This topic is like catnip.
    Originally posted by bigadaj
    Only because new ones keep cropping up
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 29th Nov 17, 7:15 PM
    • 10,803 Posts
    • 7,100 Thanks
    bigadaj
    Only because new ones keep cropping up
    Originally posted by Paul_Herring
    In which case many are easily trolled, by the House of Commons in this case.
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 1st Dec 17, 3:21 PM
    • 2,396 Posts
    • 1,563 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    Presumably nothing came of this WASPE nonsense?
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 1st Dec 17, 3:43 PM
    • 6,195 Posts
    • 2,929 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    Presumably nothing came of this WASPE nonsense?
    Originally posted by ffacoffipawb
    TL-DR: Correct.

    Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-29/debates/721D593D-7E54-4E69-ADCB-CBCA73618FCD/StatePensionAgeWomen

    Probably best summarised by Caroline Dinenage: https://goo.gl/AYY9QE
    I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He made criticisms in relation to the Budget and the Chancellor, but he went on to speak for a considerable time today, taking more than 40 minutes for himself and depriving Back Benchers of the chance to have their say. I will make some progress—[Interruption.] I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by SNP Members, so if the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen, I will do so.

    As has previously been stated—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) pointed this out—if the Scottish National party disagrees with any of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, it has the power to do something about it in Scotland.

    The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has mentioned on several occasions that the Scottish National party’s Westminster parliamentary group published a report by Landman ​Economics, which modelled—[Interruption.] I thought he would be keen to listen to this. The report modelled the impact of a number of options for compensating women affected by the 2011 Act. Of these, the Scottish National party’s preferred option was to abandon that Act entirely, returning us to the timetable under the Pensions Act 1995.

    The SNP-commissioned report put the cost of this option at £7.9 billion for the period between 2016-17 to 2020-21. As it stands, that is simply unaffordable, but it has the double misfortune of also being wrong. The Landman report significantly underestimates the full costs of returning to the 1995 Act’s timetable. The Government estimate that the cost over that period would be about £14 billion—nearly double—and that figure includes the impact of lost revenue from tax and national insurance, which the Landman report does not fully take into account.

    What is worse is that the SNP’s position applies the costs only to the five-year window between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The costs beyond this horizon are simply not included in the option put forward. If the changes we are implementing did not happen, the actual costs to working-age people would be more than £30 billion over an extended period, which is equivalent to over £1,100 per household. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to justify that to his constituents.

    The Scottish National party has also suggested using the national insurance fund to pay for the cost of scrapping the Pensions Act 2011. However, that is not the intended use of the fund, and it is worth reiterating that today’s national insurance contributions fund today’s pensions, with an excess of only two months’ outgoing payments at any given time.

    The new state pension is actually much more generous for many women, who were historically worse off under the old system. By 2030, over 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 extra per year as a result of these changes. The acceleration of the increase in the state pension age for both women and men is necessary to ensure the state pension system’s sustainability in the light of increasing life expectancy and more pressure on public resources. In fact, by 2035, there will be more than twice as many people aged 100 and over as there are now.

    Failure to act in the light of such compelling evidence would be reckless. Given the increasing financial pressure that I have described, we cannot and should not unpick a policy that has been in place for 22 years. It is simply not affordable, especially when we take into account the fact that the average woman reaching state pension age will get a higher state pension income over her lifetime than an average woman reaching state pension age at any earlier point.

    It is important to appreciate the modern lived experience of later life in the 21st century, which has altered significantly since the inception of the state pension in the 1940s. Longer life, better health and continued activity in later decades are reshaping the profile and participation of older people in our society. This includes sustaining work and other economic activity as those over 60 continue to learn, earn, contribute and participate.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • OldBeanz
    • By OldBeanz 1st Dec 17, 4:40 PM
    • 703 Posts
    • 546 Thanks
    OldBeanz
    So the SNP will now raise income tax and re-imburse, in the name of equality, the money to Scottish women instead?
    • molerat
    • By molerat 1st Dec 17, 5:06 PM
    • 17,483 Posts
    • 11,715 Thanks
    molerat
    The first part is probably correct
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 2nd Dec 17, 7:39 AM
    • 10,803 Posts
    • 7,100 Thanks
    bigadaj
    The first part is probably correct
    Originally posted by molerat
    What reimburse?
    • IanSt
    • By IanSt 2nd Dec 17, 10:35 AM
    • 152 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    IanSt
    I think molerat means they'll raise taxes.
    • molerat
    • By molerat 2nd Dec 17, 10:38 AM
    • 17,483 Posts
    • 11,715 Thanks
    molerat
    What reimburse?
    Originally posted by bigadaj
    No, that is the second part, the part that will not happen The SNP only support this as they will not have to pay it, SP is currently a Westminster cost, and it is a stick to beat the Conservative government with.
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • OldBeanz
    • By OldBeanz 2nd Dec 17, 8:26 PM
    • 703 Posts
    • 546 Thanks
    OldBeanz
    They do have the right to make extra payments which could be the equivalent of the GRASPI demands but they decided that it was for Westminster to pay the money. Perhaps their support for GRASPI is not as strong as they would have you believe.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 2nd Dec 17, 9:16 PM
    • 1,936 Posts
    • 2,452 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    They do have the right to make extra payments which could be the equivalent of the GRASPI demands but they decided that it was for Westminster to pay the money. Perhaps their support for GRASPI is not as strong as they would have you believe. Posted by OldBeanz
    Westminster = English taxpayers.
    • mark5
    • By mark5 3rd Dec 17, 1:08 PM
    • 1,203 Posts
    • 817 Thanks
    mark5
    I’m Welsh and have a serious dislike of devolution, am I alone in this or do others feel the same way?
    • Terron
    • By Terron 3rd Dec 17, 2:24 PM
    • 114 Posts
    • 122 Thanks
    Terron
    I’m Welsh and have a serious dislike of devolution, am I alone in this or do others feel the same way?
    Originally posted by mark5
    My father was English and my mother Welsh (native Welsh speaker). I dislike any separation of the the two countries.
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 3rd Dec 17, 5:03 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 921 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    I’m sure you’ll all be delighted to know they’ll be yet another WASPI debate in the HOC on the 14th December! This will be followed (next April) with an APPG EDM debate, again in the main chamber of the HOC.

    Both will get kicked into the long grass.

    You couldn’t make it up.
    Remoaners. Embrace your inner Brexit and become a 're-leaver'
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 3rd Dec 17, 5:15 PM
    • 2,396 Posts
    • 1,563 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    I’m sure you’ll all be delighted to know they’ll be yet another WASPI debate in the HOC on the 14th December! This will be followed (next April) with an APPG EDM debate, again in the main chamber of the HOC.

    Both will get kicked into the long grass.

    You couldn’t make it up.
    Originally posted by Mortgagefreeman
    Getting more and more irrelevant. Female SPA is nearly 64 now.
    • redux
    • By redux 3rd Dec 17, 7:17 PM
    • 17,650 Posts
    • 22,664 Thanks
    redux
    I'm struggling to understand what tge problem is.

    In 1995 it was announced that the pension age for women would be equalised from 2010 to 2020.

    n 2007 it was announced that the pension age for men and women would be raised to 66 between 2024 and 2026.

    In 2011 it was announced that instead the transition to 66 will have happened by October 2020. And 67 by between 2026 and 2028, instead of by 2034-36.

    All other announcements were earlier than this.

    The only thing that might be contentious is that the equalisation of women's age 65 was speeded up to complete by 2018 instead of 2020, but even this had 8 years notice.

    Is that all that this is about, or am I missing something?

    If women havent had enough notice since 1995, 2007, 2010 or 2011, what about men? Are men also complaining about reduced notice of the rise to age 66?
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 3rd Dec 17, 7:44 PM
    • 18,574 Posts
    • 47,817 Thanks
    Pollycat
    I'm struggling to understand what tge problem is.

    In 1995 it was announced that the pension age for women would be equalised from 2010 to 2020.

    n 2007 it was announced that the pension age for men and women would be raised to 66 between 2024 and 2026.

    In 2011 it was announced that instead the transition to 66 will have happened by October 2020. And 67 by between 2026 and 2028, instead of by 2034-36.

    All other announcements were earlier than this.

    The only thing that might be contentious is that the equalisation of women's age 65 was speeded up to complete by 2018 instead of 2020, but even this had 8 years notice.

    Is that all that this is about, or am I missing something?

    If women havent had enough notice since 1995, 2007, 2010 or 2011, what about men? Are men also complaining about reduced notice of the rise to age 66?
    Originally posted by redux
    Not strictly accurate.
    At some point in 2011, I was expecting to get my state pension in April 2017.
    A little later in 2011, I was told it was put back to July 2018.
    That is not '8 years notice'.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 4th Dec 17, 10:24 AM
    • 3,460 Posts
    • 5,299 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Is that all that this is about, or am I missing something?
    Originally posted by redux
    WASPI want all women born in the 1950s to receive their State Pension at 60, with missed payments backdated. Their members think they are going to get a £30,000+ cheque in the post from DWP when the government caves in.

    All this stuff about notice and transitional arrangements is flim-flam. WASPI's modus operandi from the beginning has been to make specific promises in private and vague demands in public.

    Whether the further debates achieve anything is not a concern to the WASPI leadership; it just means more first-class train journeys to London, more appearances on TV, more donations and more champagne.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,215Posts Today

5,875Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • RT @thismorning: With his last deals of the year, @MartinSLewis wishes us all a 'very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a wonderful and?

  • Follow Martin