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

ChrisSS

Most important points in first debate: The EU directive to equalise did not set a timetable but the Conservative government did and then accelerated the changes much faster than promised. Lack of prior understanding of just how severely this group of women have been impacted by successive changes. FOI requests which showed no individual notification letters were sent for 14 years+ and some never had any. Current thinking is that there should be 10 to 15 years informed notice of pension age changes. Current governments intransigence in failing to address issue fairly taking into account 1995 and 2011 changes.
Points second debate should focus on: Were politicians aware when they brought in the 2011 changes that women had not been individually notified of 1995 changes and were therefore not able to use that time to plan ahead. The issue that women of the 50s generation did not have equality in pay, prospects or pension schemes nor the current advantages of decent child benefit or maternity leave. It should be a legal requirement that individual notification is sent when changes affecting personal pension finances are changed, especially as individual NI contributions are made (banks notify when changes made to interest rates!) That it should also be a legal requirement to give 10/15 years notice to allow planning. The fact that the new flat rate state pension is misleading and that the majority will not get it. The 2011 Act should be rescinded and compensation given to those who did not receive 10 years notice plus a hardship fund for those facing especial need.
Questions to ask minister: Would you now accept that 50s women did not have only 18 months extension to their state pension age but in fact up to six years? Would you acknowledge problems and put forward constructive suggestions instead of denying that there is a problem and be willing to discuss instead of stone-walling? Would you also accept that this impacts husbands and families of this generation and not just women?

Figgerty

saver861 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

I agree with all of the above comments.

Until #Waspi started their campaign many of us grumbled and complained but did little more than writing in a few forums like this. #Waspi took action.

xylophone

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.

Not so. http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm


"2011 - Pensions Bill sets out the planned changes
In February 2011 the detailed timetable for change was announced in the Pensions Bill 2011. Women's state pension age would rise to 65 by November 2018 and then men and women's pension age would rise together to reach 66 by 5 April 2020. Five million men and women would face a later state pension date.But while men would have to wait at most another year, 500,000 women would have to wait longer than a year. The wait for 300,000 would be 18 months or more and 33,000 would have to wait for two years.

Widespread protests and rebellions in Parliament - which the Government defeated - led to promises by the Secretary of State Iain Duncan-Smith to introduce some 'transitional' changes to help the most severely affected women. But the Pensions Bill went through almost all its stages in Parliament with no details of what the Government would actually do.

On Thursday 13 October 2011, the last possible date, the Government announced its plans. It would cap the delay for women at 18 months. It kept the rise to 65 by November 2018. But would then stretch out the transition from age 65 to 66 for both men and women by an extra six months. It will now be completed in October 2020. The concession will cost £1.1 billion (at 2010/11 prices), half of which will be spent on stretching the timetable for men, none of whom had complained.

On Tuesday 18 October 2011 the House of Commons accepted these changes and despite a further attempt in the Lords to amend them the Pensions Act 2011 became law on 3 November 2011."

April 2011

saver861

xylophone wrote: »

On Tuesday 18 October 2011 the House of Commons accepted these changes and despite a further attempt in the Lords to amend them the Pensions Act 2011 became law on 3 November 2011."[/B]

April 2011

I think you miss my point. It is clear there was an initial two years extension for some people and that was reduced to eighteen months as a result of objections.

I have said before, its likely the government had already factored that in. Its usual in these cases that they put out the worst case scenario knowing that there may be objections and then, as in this case, 'reduce' the two years to eighteen months to appease the objectors.

My point is the matter then closed effectively. There was nothing done by anybody until WASPI came along. That has then stirred the whole thing up.

If those who are unhappy with the current eighteen months, had kept the pressure on at the time, or anytime since, then WASPI would not exist!!!

xylophone

its likely the government had already factored that in.

Not according to Steve Webb....he blames a rushed decision after inadequate briefing?

saver861

xylophone wrote: »

Not according to Steve Webb....he blames a rushed decision after inadequate briefing?

Well he would know better than most given that he was in the thick of it.

In any event, whatever the reasoning behind it and the eventual outcome at the time, there was no further discussion or any further objection of merit until the WASPI thing.

Pollycat

:hello::hello::hello::hello:
Hello?

Is there anybody there?

Just to point out that the deadline for comments passed almost 12 hours ago. :rotfl:

UKParliament wrote: »

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

There is a long-running thread about this topic on this board......

Figgerty

I support the general aims of this campaign but wish you to know what I believe would be a fair outcome for me.

I do not wish the 1995 Act to be reversed where my state pension age increased from age 60 to 63¾.

I do however want 10 years notice of the changes in the 2011 Act where my state pension age first increased by a further 2 years and later reduced to 18 months. Those of us born in 1953/54 were not given sufficient notice of this additional 18 months. This is what I want corrected. I want 10 years notice before this change takes effect. To be fair that must apply to men and women.

The 1995 Act gave 15 years notice of the changes, the Government now state that 10 years notice is fair so it would be grossly unfair if women who already suffered a 3½ year increase in their SPA should not be given fair notice of a further increase of 18 months under the 2011 Act.

A consequence of the changes means that someone born just 12 months earlier than me receives the state pension 42 months before me. That can't be reasonable or fair phasing of an additional change.

buggy_boy

Figgerty thats complete rubbish you say you support the aims but basically as long as it does not affect you, those affected should be thankful that it was not a complete halt from 2011... When the equality between women and mens pay came it was there a 10yr notice then? When women got the vote was there a 10yr notice?

Men and women should have the same pension age and the sooner this happens the better your unfortunate to fall on the wrong side of the line but whenever you draw a line in these sorts of things there will always be people that fall just to one side or the other... Thats life, you cant keep re-drawing the line for a few like you that are just one side of it or nothing will ever change.

Just embrace the thought that you will be one of the first people to have the equal gender pension age, a pioneer of equality...

OldBeanz

If anyone knows a woman being paid less than a man for the same job then they should report the matter to the appropriate authorities as it is against the law.