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

princeofpounds

I know very little about this debate, but I do think it's great that there is some kind of interest taken from official bodies into public forum discussions (which can be really informative, on some topics).

atush

UKParliament wrote: »

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.

Further information

The House of Commons Library has produced a 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.

The most important thing for me about the debates, was how poorly understood the facts were by the MPs. What do their personal assistants do if they dont have time to look up the facts for their employers? And provide them with a proper briefing?

The 1995 changes were fair, well discussed (affected me and i knew about it because I read newspapers) and there was plenty of time to do something about it. So they should no longer be discussed. There was over 20 years warning of the changes.

I would like the second debate to discuss only the 2011 changes for both sexes, which are not fair, and too fast w/o enough time to prepare.

I would like the minister to dismiss WASPI and their ill informed campaign, and concentrate on the members of the public affected by the 2011 changes.

jem16

UKParliament wrote: »

What were the most important points in the first debate for you?

Too much focus was paced on 1995 Pension Act and not enough on 2011 Act.

Some points made by MPs were not correct - ie nobody knew about 1995 changes, age from 1995 Act wrongly stated.

What do you think should have been covered that was not?

Costings for proposed solutions.

Cost for WASPI's "ask" of putting all women back in same financial position as if born before 1950.

What coverage there was of 1995 increases.

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

2011 changes only and specifically the acceleration for 1953/54 women. It was too quick and too soon with huge differences between Jan 1953 and November 1953 state pension age.

Changes need to be fair to both men and women, not just 1950s women.

Making it clear that 1995 is not open to discussion and that it is 2011 changes that should be considered.

If considering the 10 year notice, then anyone born after April 1956 has had this notice as revised spa for women was 2021. Make this point clear.

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

Will 1995 be officially dismissed as something to consider.

Could the acceleration be slowed for 1953/54 women and at what cost?

saver861

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

2011 Changes:
- The speed of implementation
- The smoothing process

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

- When the DWP recommended a minimum of 10 years notice for future pension changes in 2013 - was there any consideration given to the 2011 changes, just two years earlier, when many had considerable less than 10 years? If not, why not? If yes, what were the conclusions?

- What were the predetermining factors for the smoothing process that created such disparity for such a small group, particularly given that the initial disparity was even greater for some, with 24 months extension? Were there other alternatives considered at the time - if so, what were these?

- Will there be an independent review of the 2011 changes?

- Why was there such sparse representation on the government side of the house during the initial debate?

p00hsticks

I would like them to concentrate on exploring what cost-effective options there are for helping out those women (and men) who were given relatively short notice of additional rises in State Pension Age and are likely to suffer hardship as a result.

I believe that one proposal suggested in the original debate was to slow the rate of increase of the age of eligibility for Pension Credit back to the original 1995 timetable. This would ensure that any of those whose pension age was impacted by the 2011 changes will be able to claim Pension Credit at their original 1995 pension age if they satisfy the other eligibility criteria.

As it's a means tested benefit, it should be relatively cheap to put into place and will target those impacted by the 2011 changes.

zagfles

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

Rubbish. That's not what they said at all. For a start, the Tories were in power in 1995, not Labour.

The point the Tories were making was that if all these Labour MPs who spoke in the debate, including some ex cabinet ministers, thought the comminication about the change in 1995 was insufficent, why did they do absolutely nothing about it during their 13 years in power between 1997 and 2010.

zagfles

atush wrote: »

The most important thing for me about the debates, was how poorly understood the facts were by the MPs. What do their personal assistants do if they dont have time to look up the facts for their employers? And provide them with a proper briefing?

The 1995 changes were fair, well discussed (affected me and i knew about it because I read newspapers) and there was plenty of time to do something about it. So they should no longer be discussed. There was over 20 years warning of the changes.

I would like the second debate to discuss only the 2011 changes for both sexes, which are not fair, and too fast w/o enough time to prepare.

I would like the minister to dismiss WASPI and their ill informed campaign, and concentrate on the members of the public affected by the 2011 changes.

It sounds like WASPI are changing tack completely - though they don't seem to know what to. It seems they are now campaigning on behalf of women in their 50's not those born in the 50's. So they've ditched those born pre 1956 and included those born in the early 1960's!!!

As said in the other thread - it's a shambles...I'm sure it'll change again before the day's out...

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

Rubbish. That's not what they said at all. For a start, the Tories were in power in 1995, not Labour.

The point the Tories were making was that if all these Labour MPs who spoke in the debate, including some ex cabinet ministers, thought the comminication about the change in 1995 was insufficent, why did they do absolutely nothing about it during their 13 years in power between 1997 and 2010.

For clarity see quoted exchange below. Clearly Labour were in from 1997 to 2010 - not at the time of the 1995 policy. The conservatives defence was that Labour done nothing during its time in Government to communicate the changes more effectively. Thus by doing so makes an admission that better communication was required.


Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)

Share this contribution
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has said that in 2011 the Government made a policy decision to accelerate and that they failed to communicate the effects of that decision to the many people affected. Why does he therefore conclude that the Government do not have a moral obligation to put that mistake right?

​

Richard Graham

Share this contribution
Actually, what I said was that the communication issue goes back to 1995, when I certainly was not in this House. For the bulk of the period from 1995 to 2010, the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. There is no point in pointing fingers at different parties, but that period is at the heart of the issue of communication, which the motion addresses.

On the question of what good advice we can now give those of our constituents who are not sure what they are going to receive in retirement, it is important that they ask for a statement. That is what the Pension Wise campaign, which is available to everybody, free of charge, is there to do. People should ask for their statement. Some 500,000 people have already taken advantage of that. It is the most effective communications tool and we should be using it to make sure that everybody—women and men—approaching retirement knows what they will receive.

jem16

Can we please stick to the topic of this thread which is to inform the debate.

WASPI has changed their main "ask" on Facebook.

Why was this done at such a late stage and after people have put their name to the petition? This is hugely detrimental to the whole campaign as people don't know what they're signing up to.

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

For clarity see quoted exchange below. Clearly Labour were in from 1997 to 2010 - not at the time of the 1995 policy.

So why did you write

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

The conservatives defence was that Labour done nothing during its time in Government to communicate the changes more effectively. Thus by doing so makes an admission that better communication was required.

Maybe WASPI should better comminicate just what it is they want, and who the current people they are supporting are. Because at the moment they don't seem to have a clue.