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

UKParliament

On Monday 1 February at 4.30pm, the Petitions Committee will be holding a debate in Westminster Hall on the petition 'Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s women'. Having seen the comments in a previous MSE thread on this topic, the Committee would like to ask for your help in informing this forthcoming debate.

The Committee would like to hear:

• What were the most important points in the first debate for you? What do you think should have been covered that was not?
  
• What points do you think a second debate should focus on?
  
• What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

Watch the first debate
Read the official report of the first debate

Your comments will be shared with MPs prior to the debate on 1 February. This is your chance to get involved and influence the work of Parliament.

Comments need to be posted by 10am Thursday 28 January.

Watch the debate from 4.30pm on Monday 1 February on Parliament TV.



Further information

The House of Commons Library has produced a research briefing for the forthcoming debate, 'Increases in the State Pension age for women born in the 1950s'.

For more general information, please take a look at the House of Commons Library research briefing titled 'The new State Pension - transitional questions.'

The House of Commons Library produces research briefings which provide in-depth and impartial analysis of all major pieces of legislation, as well as many areas of policy, or cover frequently asked questions and topical issues.

GibbsRule_No3

Concentrate on the 2011 change rather than the 1995 change. I agree with female age complying to a male age for retirement, it is just the 1953-1955 group that are impacted that concern me. Yes! I am one of them. I could supplement my living by my private pension for two years, if I went at 63 or earlier as planned under the 1995 amendment but not the added months.

PensionTech

There was an awful lot of misinformation in the first debate. A lot of it was just emotive posturing, and nobody seemed to be well-informed (least of all Ms Black herself). It's good to see you're asking for information here rather than just relying on WASPI themselves for their versions of the facts.

I personally would like to see:
1. A clear separation of the issues regarding the 1995 changes and those regarding the 2011 changes. They are very, very different, and they were largely conflated during the first debate. Many on here are sympathetic to those affected by the 2011 changes but not those affected by the 1995 ones.
2. Informed discussion about what kind of publicity the 1995 changes were given since they were first announced in the 1993 Budget, to dispel the fallacy that "nobody was told". The Minister has herself already given a decent speech about this in December, and Jo Cumbo of the Financial Times has done a search into contemporary newspaper articles, but WASPI's campaigning has apparently convinced many MPs that the changes were covered up and this has been repeated in many news outlets.
3. Consideration of using means-tested benefits like Pension Credit to compensate those affected by the (really quite abrupt) 2011 changes; this would ensure that those facing genuine financial hardship are helped, whilst keeping the taxpayers' bill down.
4. More discussion of the costs of any proposed compromise or compensation.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

I personally would like to see:
1. A clear separation of the issues regarding the 1995 changes and those regarding the 2011 changes. They are very, very different, and they were largely conflated during the first debate. Many on here are sympathetic to those affected by the 2011 changes but not those affected by the 1995 ones.

Yeah fully agree - except that should have happened in 2011. Because nobody sought to do anything its now the case that it is all brought up because of the current campaign.

PensionTech wrote: »

2. Informed discussion about what kind of publicity the 1995 changes were given since they were first announced in the 1993 Budget, to dispel the fallacy that "nobody was told".

Thats all red herring. If the majority agree there is no basis for changing the 1995 agreement then it's largely irrelevant. However, if you had noted the debate brought up by Mhari Black you will have seen the Conservatives accusing Labour, who were then in government, that the Labour government failed to communicate the changes effectively. Thus by doing so admitting the communications were not sufficient.

In any case, Mhari Black said in her conclusion that there was nothing that can be done about the 1995 changes and the communication other than to learn from it. She then said there was something that could be done about the 2011 changes.

PensionTech

Because nobody sought to do anything its now the case that it is all brought up because of the current campaign.

So what? I don't understand how this invalidates the suggestion that the two issues should be separated in debate. If WASPI are to be commended for bringing the valid argument about the 2011 changes to the fore, this doesn't give them carte blanche to demand an effective rollback of the 1995 changes (which they are effectively asking for by demanding compensation for those women) if that demand is in itself unreasonable. That is why it is important to consider each issue on its own merits. I understand you want to congratulate WASPI for bringing up the debate, and I couldn't care less about that, but what I don't understand is how you think it has any bearing on the validity of the issues being debated.

If the majority agree there is no basis for changing the 1995 agreement then it's largely irrelevant.

Not quite, as WASPI's demand for compensation hinges largely on the idea that it was difficult for women to be aware of the changes. It's therefore important to establish whether the claim that "nobody was told" is entirely credible in order to decide whether there is indeed any basis for compensating the women affected by the 1995 changes.

However, if you had noted the debate brought up by Mhari Black you will have seen the Conservatives accusing Labour, who were then in government, that the Labour government failed to communicate the changes effectively. Thus by doing so admitting the communications were not sufficient.

I did indeed follow the debate and commented on this very thing. I don't agree that this amounts to admitting that the communications were not sufficient - I think it amounts to playground tactics and a failure to inform themselves of the facts. But here I shall agree to disagree since I don't think it's anywhere near relevant. Even if both of those MPs really were admitting that the communications weren't sufficient doesn't mean that they would be correct in doing so - this is why I think some proper objective research and facts are necessary.

Please do not derail this very valid thread from the Committee with pointless infighting; if you are going to comment, make it on something that answers the questions in the original post.

dunstonh

What were the most important points in the first debate for you? What do you think should have been covered that was not?

Too much focus was given on the 1995 changes and not the 2011 It seems some in the debate were not very knowledgeable on these time-scales of the changes and why they happened. They also mixed some of the 2011 issues and 1995 issues. Some MPs seemed to believe everything that WASPI told them without checking the authenticity of the information first. This led to some incorrect statements being made.

The WASPI campaign is flawed and focuses on a return to age 60 for women. If you read the discussions on this site, you will see the WASPI campaign had very little support here. The general consensus was that the 2011 changes were rushed and unfair whilst the 1995 changes were fine and had plenty of time and media coverage did exist back then. However, women now affected by that change would have been in their mid to late 30s with a few in their early 40s. Plenty of time to plan for retirement changes and that was back in the day when the majority of people had insurance agents/financial advisers and only bought their financial products via them. I was a financial adviser at the time and we were telling everyone. We had cards printed showing the date of birth and revised state pension age. The pension companies were marketing to women to fill the gap.

What points do you think a second debate should focus on?

The 2011 changes didnt give anywhere near the notice of the 1995 changes. The speed of implementation was very quick and for some, it would not have given enough time to plan for. Unlike the 1995 changes which had two decades to plan for. The 2011 changes should be the focus.

What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

I would like the minister to close the 1995 issue as that is just a distraction and focus on the 2011 increases. I would like to see some knowledge of the situation being shown and even some criticism of the side issues that have distorted and taken focus away from the key issues. Ministers and MPs should not just go by popular campaigns and support the side that is most popular when it is clearly wrong. Other changes happened over the years too. SERPS/S2P, NI qualification periods etc. These things are constantly changing. Some for the better, some for the worse. Most logical people understand the need to increase the state pension age. The key question is whether the changes in 2011 gave sufficient notice to certain groups of women born between certain dates?

Goldiegirl

As everybody says - the 2011 changes are the issue


The 1995 changes to equalise the state pension age are fair, and plenty of notice was given


The statements I heard from a certain MP, that nobody knew about the 1995 changes, are ridiculous and totally incorrect

DaveMcG

Fine if you want to review the 2011 changes, but just be certain that you won't be reversing the changes just for women. As it would be quite blatant discrimination to further increase the retirement dates of men alone. So that should be made crystal clear before any debate.

molerat

The debate, as above, should focus purely on the 2011 changes and consider the effects and fairness of those changes on all involved, both male and female.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

So what? I don't understand how this invalidates the suggestion that the two issues should be separated in debate.

Yes - I am agreeing with you. If there is a exclusive debate on the 2011 changes that would be a good thing. The 10 year rule will also pop up in that debate.

PensionTech wrote: »

I understand you want to congratulate WASPI for bringing up the debate, and I couldn't care less about that, but what I don't understand is how you think it has any bearing on the validity of the issues being debated.

I'm not particularly wanting to congratulate WASPI as such. What I am saying is that so many people have stated they think the 2011 changes were unfair 'but' there was no action from anybody from any corner until the WASPI thing sprung up.

If there had been an existing campaign to look at the 2011 changes and the WASPI thing came along and derailed it then that would be a totally different matter.

PensionTech wrote: »

Even if both of those MPs really were admitting that the communications weren't sufficient doesn't mean that they would be correct in doing so - this is why I think some proper objective research and facts are necessary.

One thing you might agree on is if a politician admits a mistake then there definitely has been a mistake - on that you can put your house as a politician would sooner cut off his right arm and left leg than admit they are wrong.

PensionTech wrote: »

Please do not derail this very valid thread from the Committee with pointless infighting; if you are going to comment, make it on something that answers the questions in the original post.

You seem to be of the view that I intend to derail threads - however I am one of the few that puts forward a contrary opinion when I disagree. Many of public forums follow the mass and unfortunately that stifles debate rather than encourage it. However, I am of my own mind and thus put forward my own views rather than being of the herd mentality.

Linton

saver861 wrote: »

.....
Thats all red herring. If the majority agree there is no basis for changing the 1995 agreement then it's largely irrelevant. However, if you had noted the debate brought up by Mhari Black you will have seen the Conservatives accusing Labour, who were then in government, that the Labour government failed to communicate the changes effectively. Thus by doing so admitting the communications were not sufficient.

.....

A bit odd that seeing as the Tories were in power until 1997.