MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

missbiggles1

cannyshopper wrote: »

The Equal Pay Act might have been in force for 40 years but women's pay is still lagging behind men's for several reasons. I worked in the IT industry during the 1980's so it wasn't a question of whether the work was equal or equivalent. I was working alongside men who were getting at least 10% more than I was. It was a choice of accepting the status quo or looking for another job. [Incidentally, that is one reason I do not have any significant personal pension: my average stay with any one employer during this period was 18 months] If I said "I'm not working for that salary because Mr X is paid more" my earnings would have been zero.

I DID start to complain in 2011 but I was a voice in the wilderness. No-one seemed to appreciate the issues. At least the WASPI campaign has brought the issues to a wider public.

I repeat - I'm not against equalisation. My main gripe is that due to the 2011 Act the phased implementation has been speeded up with very little notice. MPs and senior civil servants have been given 10 years notice of changes to their own pensions. Furthermore, the Govt has said that future increases in state pension age will be given 10 years notice before implementation. (Not sure if this is law, policy or just an advisory notice) The effect of the 2011 Act was to defer my State Pension Age by a further 18 months in addition to the delay due to the 1995 Act. That is, I was given barely 5 years notice of the additional wait. Others of a similar age have had less than 3 years notice. One rule for MPs and senior civil servants and another rule for the rest of us. That cannot be regarded as fair whichever way you look at it.

Incidentally, my former husband was eligible for pension credit & concessionary travel etc when he was 60. (This was the retirement age for women at the time) So in some respects men WERE treated more favourably to bring them into line with women.

When State Pensions were first introduced, it was expected that most people would only receive a pension for about 5 years, due to the average life expectancy of the time. I do not know why the age was set 5 years earlier for women, but of course far fewer women would have earned a pension in their own right in those days. As husbands are generally a few years older than their wives, perhaps this was a way of allowing them to enjoy their retirement together?

It ensured that most wives would retire at the same time as their husbands so they could look after them and the men wouldn't have to do the housework!

JezR

The official reasons from the DWP for the drop in pension age for women enacted in 1940 are:

• There was a desire to improve pensions generally and this provided an opportunity which was less costly than other options;
• The fact that wives tended to be younger than their husbands mean that a common pension age was seen as problematic. It was felt that wives should qualify for their pensions at the same time as their husbands;
• Women’s domestic responsibilities on top of their paid work were felt to leave them ‘tired’ at 60.

This 'official history' ignores the contributory factor of the campaigning through the 1930s of the National Spinsters' Pensions Association who were demanding women's pensions at 55.

State Pensions back then were very different - the insured scheme was based on contributions made 5 years before being 65, and not a lifetime record. The majority of those represented by the NSPA were textile workers in the Midlands and North who as their 50s and 60s went on were no longer physically capable of the work, and failing the contribution test had no pension and only public assistance to fall back on (the institution formally called the workhouse) until qualifying for the non contributory pension at 70 - which wouldn't support them either on its own anyway.

The first point though is interesting in that it was seen as a way of increasing money for some older couples without increasing the basic rate.

monkeyspanner

OldBeanz wrote: »

Another who agrees with equalisation as long as they are not affected. Some are more equal than others.
What company scheme were you not allowed to join?
Women have had equal pay for more than 40 years so you were not forced to accept lower pay.
Surely the time to complain was in 2011.

Perhaps the equalisation of pension age should have been linked to progress implementing in the equal pay act which after 40 years has left a gender pay gap of 19.7% in the UK as opposed to the EU average of 16.3%. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/gpg_eu_factsheet_2015_en.pdf
The government have used the EU to excuse the rapid and accererated transition to SPA equalisation. This assertion has been challenged by several MPs during debates. There is no doubt, however, that there is legislation in place to assure equal pay across genders.

zagfles

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Perhaps the equalisation of pension age should have been linked to progress implementing in the equal pay act which after 40 years has left a gender pay gap of 19.7% in the UK as opposed to the EU average of 16.3%. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/gpg_eu_factsheet_2015_en.pdf
The government have used the EU to excuse the rapid and accererated transition to SPA equalisation. This assertion has been challenged by several MPs during debates. There is no doubt, however, that there is legislation in place to assure equal pay across genders.

The legislation is designed to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. It does not reflect behavioural differences which can lead to different outcomes.

Not accounting for behavioural differences would be as stupid as complaining that justice isn't equal as men are 20 times more likely to be sent to prison than women, ie there are 2000% more male prisoners! Makes 19.7% look pretty trivial!

monkeyspanner

zagfles wrote: »

The legislation is designed to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. It does not reflect behavioural differences which can lead to different outcomes.

Not accounting for behavioural differences would be as stupid as complaining that justice isn't equal as men are 20 times more likely to be sent to prison than women, ie there are 2000% more male prisoners! Makes 19.7% look pretty trivial!

The behavioural differences are the result of social norms and biological differences. If you argue on that basis you open up the arguments about gender based medical problems and life expectancy in retirement. Perhaps you consider women should retire later (2.5years difference for 65 year olds in 2012-14 gov stats http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23. ). You either have to consider the genders equal or not.

However we digress. The 2011 changes to accelerate the introduction of SPA equalisation were introduced with less than 10 years notice. 10 years notice had been afforded to government employees and MPs on their occupational pension schemes. The acceleration affected women more than men and therefore was gender biased and represented unequal treatment.

zagfles

monkeyspanner wrote: »

The behavioural differences are the result of social norms and biological differences.

Quite. The point is, do you attempt to influence the outcome to take account of behavioual differences, or do you try to design a framework of rules which don't discriminate while accepting that behavioural differences can result in different outcomes?

The latter seems sensible to me. An employer should treat a man and woman equally. The criminal justice system should treat a man and woman equally. But we have to accept that a framework which doesn't discriminate, even if implemented completely fairly, can still result in vastly unequal outcomes.

Anyone who complains about a 20% gap in pay but doesn't complain about a 2000% gap in the prison population is quite frankly a hypocrite! They're either both a problem, or neither are.

If you argue on that basis you open up the arguments about gender based medical problems and life expectancy in retirement. Perhaps you consider women should retire later (2.5years difference for 65 year olds in 2012-14 gov stats

People do make arguments on that basis, but then where do you stop? Some people think the state pension age should depend on other life expectancy factors eg socio-economic group.

I'd prefer - as above - a framework of rules which is equal while accepting that equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome. Men will still die younger. Men will sill be much more likely to get sent to prison. And men on average will earn more.

However we digress. The 2011 changes to accelerate the introduction of SPA equalisation were introduced with less than 10 years notice. 10 years notice had been afforded to government employees and MPs on their occupational pension schemes. The acceleration affected women more than men and therefore was gender biased and represented unequal treatment.

As would of course any recompense which only the women affected would get, not the men affected! Which I've heard proposed!

But yes the 10 years notice really is the point I think a lot of people would have sympathy with. I'd certainly be annoyed if my SPA was increased with less than 10 years notice. It was even a govt stated aim to provide 10 years notice. Unfortuntately WASPI have completely buried this issue in their ridiculous stance of wanting compenastion for all 1950s women (only women - note the "gender bias"!) some of whom were not affected by the 2011 change and have had 15-20 years notice of their SPA change!

cannyshopper_2

zagfles wrote: »

<snip>

But yes the 10 years notice really is the point I think a lot of people would have sympathy with. I'd certainly be annoyed if my SPA was increased with less than 10 years notice. It was even a govt stated aim to provide 10 years notice. Unfortunately WASPI have completely buried this issue in their ridiculous stance of wanting compenastion for all 1950s women (only women - note the "gender bias"!) some of whom were not affected by the 2011 change and have had 15-20 years notice of their SPA change!

The 1995 Act aimed to equalise the retirement age & therefore ONLY affected women. I think even WASPI agree that this 1995 Act is untouchable, even though its effects were not publicised for many years (I only found out by accident around 2005). The 2011 Act increased the SPA for everyone in stages up to age 68 and also speeded up the implementation of the increase in SPA for women. Therefore only those who were affected by the 1995 Act have had TWO increases.

IMHO saying that WASPI is asking for gender bias is missing the point. WASPI do represent women, but obviously any changes to the 2011 Act would have to apply to both sexes. The problem has arisen in the first place because of an inadequate assessment on the impact of speeding up the implementation (as per the 2011 Act) for a relatively small number of people, all of whom (coincidentally?) happened to be women.

Or perhaps that was the Govt's intention: perhaps they thought they could ignore us because collectively we are too small in numbers and too widely spread to affect any election results.

There is a small group of men born in late 1955 and 1956 who will also have had less than 10 years notice of the increase in their SPA. However, the maximum time they will have to wait for their pension is one year. There are many women born before 1956 for whom the 2011 Act has resulted in an increase of more than one year over & above the age calculated by the 1995 Act. Is that fair?

jamesd

cannyshopper wrote: »

Is that fair?

Yes.

To them, to the men who are being discriminated against still and to those not reaching state pension age now who would be having a larger than desirable inter-generational tax cost if it wasn't done. To contain that inter-generational subsidy it's necessary for most of the increase to happen well before around 2035 when most of the baby boom generation will have retired*, and the earlier the better.

*See for example page 14 of the executive summary of the Second Report of the Turner Pensions Commission. The increase options chosen have been more rapid than the range considered by the Commission, with that method being used to contain the cost, rather than limiting the relative generosity of the state pension.

zagfles

cannyshopper wrote: »

The 1995 Act aimed to equalise the retirement age & therefore ONLY affected women. I think even WASPI agree that this 1995 Act is untouchable,

Well they've changed their tune then! Maybe they're entering the real world at last!

even though its effects were not publicised for many years (I only found out by accident around 2005). The 2011 Act increased the SPA for everyone in stages up to age 68 and also speeded up the implementation of the increase in SPA for women. Therefore only those who were affected by the 1995 Act have had TWO increases.

Not true. My SPA was initially raised to 66 by the 2007 act, then to 67 by the 2014 act. That's two rises.

IMHO saying that WASPI is asking for gender bias is missing the point. WASPI do represent women, but obviously any changes to the 2011 Act would have to apply to both sexes.

That may be obvious to you, and yes I'd agree that would have to be outcome, but it's not what WASPI were arguing for. They were only arguing for compensation for 1950's women. They even made a point of highlighting what the W stood for.

The problem has arisen in the first place because of an inadequate assessment on the impact of speeding up the implementation (as per the 2011 Act) for a relatively small number of people, all of whom (coincidentally?) happened to be women.

Again not true. It was speeded up for men as well. As above.

Or perhaps that was the Govt's intention: perhaps they thought they could ignore us because collectively we are too small in numbers and too widely spread to affect any election results.

There is a small group of men born in late 1955 and 1956 who will also have had less than 10 years notice of the increase in their SPA. However, the maximum time they will have to wait for their pension is one year. There are many women born before 1956 for whom the 2011 Act has resulted in an increase of more than one year over & above the age calculated by the 1995 Act. Is that fair?

I don't think it is, like I said above. The "10 years notice" issue I think is the big issue, but as I said WASPI have buried this in their dubious tactic of trying to extend the scope of the complaint to include everyone affected by the 1995 act. Even if they've eventually seen sense, it's probably too late.

cannyshopper_2

Thank you for your reply Zagfles. I was unaware of the impact of the 2007 Act.

I have stopped supporting WASPI since I realised they had no positive suggestions to make. I dislike any group who complain just for the sake of it without being able to offer any constructive remedies. They are not even open to any sort of discussion about what "transitional arrangements" means. I prefer to argue with facts and logic rather than hot air.

Incidentally, I don't think the W in WASPI was supposed to indicate they were only interested in seeking compensation (or whatever) just for women. I thought it indicated that the group's founders were all women. They have acknowledged (albeit in a fairly low-key manner) that there are men adversely affected by the 2011 acceleration.