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

LXdaddy

UKParliament wrote: »

• 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?

Echoing many others:

The first debate was derailed by conflating 1995 and 2011 changes.

The second debate should clearly rule discussion of 1995 changes out of order.

The second debate should consider the notice that was given in the 2011 changes and how realistic it was for those impacted by the change to adjust their plans.

Any discussion of further mitigation of impact or compensation must clearly indicate how these will be paid for and who will be impacted by those changes.

colsten

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

• MPs seemed to consider anything WASPI women said without verifying facts.
  
  
• The case seemed to mainly centre around the fact that affected women had not received letters telling them about the increases. There was no such complaint about men not having received any letters about the 2011 increases (so much for equality). Also nobody asked how women established that their state pension age would be 60.
  
  
• MPs seemed to think that the pension age changes are disastrous for all women born in the 1950s
  
  
• MPs seemed to take the opinion of Paul Lewis on publicity for the 1995 changes as gospel.
  
  
• Not sure all MPs understood that state pension isn't an investment scheme (like private / occupational pensions) but is paid for by ongoing NI contributions.
  
  
• None of the MPs seemed to realise that WASPI effectively ask for state pension at 60 for all women born in the 1950s (as per their original "ask" on their Facebook), thereby creating a massive and sudden jump in pension age increase of 6 years for women born after 31/12/1959
  
  
• Unless I am mistaken, Barbara Keeley MP, born 26 March 1952, didn't declare a potential conflict of interest when making her strong case in support of WASPI. Not sure whether other MPs also have personal interest in undoing existing pension legislation for a select group of women based on their date of birth.

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

• Clarify what the WASPI campaign which has been taking up a lot of Parliament resources, is actually asking for. There are at east 3 versions:
  1. their petition, asking for "fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s women", without specifying what these arrangements should look like
     
     
  2. their original Facebook "ask", asking for all 1950s women to get state pension as if they had been born before 1950 (i.e. at age 60)
     
     
  3. their current Facebook "ask", which is highly confusing and illogical but uses the same words WASPI used in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee. It requests that all women in their 50s, born on or after 6 April 1951, should be treated as if they had been born before 1950, i.e again age 60.
  EDIT: a further version of the "ask" has appeared on 26 January. It looks like an effort to correct version 3 and now reads a bit more like version 2 used to read.
  
  
• Split the 1995 and 2011 issues.
  
  
• Dispel that "nobody was told about 1995 changes".
  
  
• Dispel that WASPI are representing all 1950s women. They are not.
  
  
• Discuss 2011 only
  
  
• Distinguish between those women who are put into hardship (clearly define "hardship") and those for whom the delay is at worst little more than a minor inconvenience (I myself am in the latter category)
  
  
• Use facts - how many women will be in hardship, how much would it cost to pay these women their pension from age 60, how would it be funded - i.e. what other planned expenditure could not take place and what the impact of that would be. Please spare us magic money tree theories.
  
  
• Remind people that it's about pension age equalisation. Women want to be treated as equals so we have to give up unfair advantages over men

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

That's a bit of a hypothetical question as we haven't yet heard the Minister's response to the debate!

But I would hope the Minister addresses the following:

Make it clear [again] that the 1995 changes are no longer up for discussions.

What can be done for women in genuine hardship?

What are lessons learnt - how are we going to educate our younger people about pensions, and specifically how state pensions work?

jem16

colsten wrote: »

None of the MPs seemed to realise that WASPI effectively ask for state pension at 60 for all women born in the 1950s (see the WASPI "ask" on their Facebook), thereby creating a massive jump in pension age of 6 years for women born after 31/12/1959

Facebook "ask" has changed slightly in that it is asking for all ladies in their 50s ( as opposed to 1950s ) to effectively have a state pension at age 60. This ask was also clearly stated at the Work & Pensions Committee meeting on 16th December so should have been brought up in the first debate.

Transcript from that meeting http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/understanding-the-new-state-pension/oral/26407.html

"WASPI ask the Government to put all women in their 50s, born on or after 6 April 1951 and affected by the state pension age in exactly the same position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950"

This should be included in the briefing paper for MPs to ensure that they understand what is being asked as there is no mention of this ask on the petition which is very misleading, if not disingenuous.

WASPI repeatedly deny that this is an "effective" return to age 60 for the women supporting their campaign, but despite numerous calls for clarification they refuse to reply.

This needs to be addressed in the debate.

colsten

Excellent point, jem16, I have edited my post to add this. Thanks!

bmm78

Additional point is that Barbara Keeley and Caroline Flint both made reference to the court case in the Netherlands. Judging by their remarks it did not appear that either had an intimate knowledge of the case in question, or what relevance (if any) it could have to the situation in the UK.

It seemed that both were trying to use a vague reference to the case as some kind of political leverage, rather than as anything constructive to add to the debate.

Kattaddorra

saver861 wrote: »

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.



We the 'Protest Against the 2011 Accelerated State Pension Age Rise' did do something, we actually helped achieve the 6 months concession in 2011 along with Rachel Reeves, Unions Together and Age UK. But it wasn't enough, the worst affected women born 1953/1954 still have an extra 18 months on top of the 1995 age rise to work. This is the unfair part of it all, a difference of a few months in age can mean a difference of years extra to work.

Kattaddorra

The 2011 accelerated age rise kicks in this April, it would be quite simple to return before then to the 1995 rolling scale age rise table which was worked out fairly to equalise womens state pension age with mens. The 20l1 table is unjust, unfair and discriminating! Take for example my widowed sister, born April 1954, she accepted the rise to 64 and adjusted her plans but the extra 18 months at too short notice has devastated her. She has osteo arthritis which is worsening as time goes on, she was prepared to struggle on to 64 but is seriously worried about managing to work to 65 and 1/2. She has no financial support so no choice but to work. OK the government say women who can't work can claim sickness benefit or if they lose their job they can claim JSA. But how can a woman alone survive on either of those whilst also being harrassed to return to work? Why should they beg for benefits instead of receiving their rightful state pension? My sister has worked from 15 years of age, long before equality of wages with men and long before women could save for a private pension. Like other widows and single women being targeted twice and the second time unfairly has shattered their lives!

mystic_trev

SnowMan wrote: »

Personally I think the 2011 changes were made with too little notice of an up to 18 month increase.

I don't think many here will disagree with that?

The problem with WASPI is they have now decided to move the Goalposts and decided that changes made in 1995 are wrong, unfair and they never knew blah, blah blah....

hyubh

Kattaddorra wrote: »

She has no financial support so no choice but to work. OK the government say women who can't work can claim sickness benefit or if they lose their job they can claim JSA.

You've just contradicted yourself.

Why should they beg for benefits instead of receiving their rightful state pension?

She can apply for means-tested, working-age benefits. If she feels so appalled by that idea having bought into tabloid rhetoric about 'benefit scroungers', then perhaps she shouldn't be so judgemental about others.

My sister has worked from 15 years of age

All the more reason not to feel ashamed at the idea of taking means-tested benefits.

long before women could save for a private pension

What do you mean exactly? Workplace pensions? Personal pensions...?

Like other widows and single women being targeted twice and the second time unfairly has shattered their lives!

Your flowery rhetoric will convince no one who is not already convinced.

atush

Esp given widows have benefits esp those of working age?

I have to agree with hyubh, load of rubbish? Or flowery rhetoric if we are being polite/