MPs debate the effect of the equalisation of the state pension age on women

patanne

I thought MPs had researchers. I would have thought it was part of their jobs to stop their MPs from putting their feet in their mouths. If so they should all be fired. I suppose we should remember, however, "If they had a brain they would be dangerous" & MPs can be dangerous enough.

bmm78

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Perhaps a legal challenge should now be expected. A similar case in Holland has been ruled as infringing human rights under article 1.
http://www.ipe.com/countries/netherlands/raising-retirement-age-could-violate-human-rights-court-warns/10011154.fullarticle
Of course the dutch equivalent of the DWP will appeal the decision

Links below give a bit more info about the case:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/12/court-ruling-allows-widow-to-claim-state-pension-at-65-not-67/

http://www.elsevier.nl/Economie/achtergrond/2015/12/Naar-de-rechter-voor-een-pensioen-op-65-heeft-het-zin-2730681W/?masterpageid=158493


From what I can gather the interaction between the dutch state pension equivalent and other benefits created a situation where the plaintiff suffered an unfair burden.

The articles do explain that the individual circumstances were crucial to the ruling, and that a similar case was previously rejected.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-110779&filename=001-110779.pdf

Above is a ECHR case from a British woman born in 1955 complaining about the rise in State Pension age. The application seems to be a bit half-assed to be fair, but the court's assessment and discussion of articles 1 and 14 make for interesting reading.


Based on the stonewalling today by the government, it seems inevitable that a class action will happen eventually. There's always a high degree of subjectivity with these kind of cases, but realistically it appears an uphill struggle to rule that the changes made to the state pension on the principle of equalisation are a violation for a large group of women.

mgdavid

monkeyspanner wrote: »

You may not be a salary slave anymore but you are still a slave as most of us are.

Machiavellian and wrong in equal measure.
Free as a bird, me.

PensionTech

bmm78 - I wish I could give more than one thanks for your post! That DWP case in particular really is fascinating.

I would still be surprised if the Dutch ruling stands, even taking into account the plaintiff's individual circumstances. It still appears to turn on the interpretation that the expectation of state pension is a possession, and it would still leave it open for people to claim that in being deprived of it they are suffering a "disproportionate burden" without that term being well-defined - which would be cumbersome for the courts whether or not such cases succeeded. That is, after all, what WASPI are generally claiming. But time will tell.

Pollycat

I watched most of the debate (whilst doing other stuff like cooking) and found it quite interesting.

One snippet stood out when a MP said one of her constituents had told her that she was originally due to get het state pension at age 62 + some months but woudn't now get it until she was 65.

That's a blatent lie.
I know because I - born Oct 1953 - was originally scheduled to reach SPA in April 2017 (aged 63 years and 6 months) and as a result of the 2011 changes my SPA will be July 2018 when I'm aged 64 and 9 months.

So anybody who was - as a result of the 1995 changes - expected to reach SPA before age 63 will definitely get their pension before age 65.

I shouted at the TV and brandished my wooden spoon at such misinformation/lies.

zagfles

Pollycat wrote: »

I watched most of the debate (whilst doing other stuff like cooking) and found it quite interesting.

One snippet stood out when a MP said one of her constituents had told her that she was originally due to get het state pension at age 62 + some months but woudn't now get it until she was 65.

That's a blatent lie.
I know because I - born Oct 1953 - was originally scheduled to reach SPA in April 2017 (aged 63 years and 6 months) and as a result of the 2011 changes my SPA will be July 2018 when I'm aged 64 and 9 months.

So anybody who was - as a result of the 1995 changes - expected to reach SPA before age 63 will definitely get their pension before age 65.

I shouted at the TV and brandished my wooden spoon at such misinformation/lies.

Do you really expect MPs to check the facts when they get a story that suits their agenda?

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

Do you really expect MPs to check the facts when they get a story that suits their agenda?

Not really (well, not at all, actually). :rotfl:

But I often have a one-way dialogue with the TV when someone says something that I just know is not true or inaccurate.

Maybe I should get out more....:D

greenglide

a MP said one of her constituents had told her that she was originally due to get het state pension at age 62 + some months but woudn't now get it until she was 65.

The constituent did claim this, the MP said that the constituent claimed this so the MP was perfectly correct to state that the constituent claimed this.

As long as the MP didnt claim that the claim was correct then the MP's statement was technically, correct.

Malthusian

A State Pension is not a possession but the redistribution of other people's possessions - those currently in work - to you. Just as your possessions were redistributed to pension recipients when you were of working age. I am not saying this is a bad thing, it isn't. But any legal case based on the concept of the right to a State Pension at age X being a "possession" will be chucked straight into the Senne. The State giveth and the State taketh away again.

Malthusian

The constituent did claim this, the MP said that the constituent claimed this so the MP was perfectly correct to state that the constituent claimed this.

As long as the MP didnt claim that the claim was correct then the MP's statement was technically, correct.

You surely aren't going to let them get away with that, it's the oldest trick in the book.

If the MP believed her constituent was full of fertiliser then she wouldn't have repeated their claim.