MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

missbiggles1

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, 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?

To correct the bit I've bolded.

The 1995 changes were perfectly adequately advertised from when they were announced in the 1993 budget statement onwards.

The fact that some people may not have been aware of them at the time (or in the years following) doesn't prove that this wasn't the case, it's just indicative of the fact that they don't always take notice of things that won't happen for many years or that they don't relate news items to their individual situation.

cannyshopper_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

To correct the bit I've bolded.

The 1995 changes were perfectly adequately advertised from when they were announced in the 1993 budget statement onwards.

The fact that some people may not have been aware of them at the time (or in the years following) doesn't prove that this wasn't the case, it's just indicative of the fact that they don't always take notice of things that won't happen for many years or that they don't relate news items to their individual situation.

Women who were affected by the 1995 Act were not individually notified and there was very little in press reports of the time about the impact it would have. There was no Govt media campaign to notify people about it either. The lack of publicity about the changes has been highlighted several times in the various debates and the Govt has acknowledged that the process was flawed.

In contrast, I did receive a letter notifying me of my revised SPA resulting from the 2011 changes.

bmm78

cannyshopper wrote: »

there was very little in press reports of the time about the impact it would have

This myth has been completely debunked by the evidence provided to the Work and Pensions Committee by Jo Cumbo of the Financial Times:

"I used the Financial Times “Factiva” database to look for mentions of women’s state pension age equalisation in articles starting from 1993, when the policy was mooted, to 2006. The search covered the National Press, including broadsheets and tabloids.
Over this period, I found more than 600 mentions.

The mentions were on the front pages, News and City sections as well as personal finance pages. Mentions could be also found in the Letters section and Comment pages as the state pension age changes were highly controversial at the time. The coverage was most concentrated in 1993-95 and again from 2005-06, when Lord Turner proposed raising the retirement age for all from 65 to 67"

The initial policy intention to equalise state pension ages at 65 was announced live on television in the budget in 1993, which is just about as prominent and visible a platform for political announcements that exists outside of a general election.

The WASPI refusal to acknowledge these facts, and the attempts by some prominent supporters to smear Jo Cumbo and/or the FT, are yet another reason why many people are repulsed by the campaign.

There are obviously areas where the communications could have been better, but the notion that there was little out there about the changes is equally as wide off the mark as any suggestion that they were perfectly communicated.

missbiggles1

cannyshopper wrote: »

Women who were affected by the 1995 Act were not individually notified and there was very little in press reports of the time about the impact it would have. There was no Govt media campaign to notify people about it either. The lack of publicity about the changes has been highlighted several times in the various debates and the Govt has acknowledged that the process was flawed.

In contrast, I did receive a letter notifying me of my revised SPA resulting from the 2011 changes.

I think it's just daft to expect every single woman born after April 1950 to get individual letters about this or any other benefit changes - apart from anything else, it would cost a fortune.

I'm one of the women affected by it and I remember exactly when and where it was announced as do many others here. The coverage of the budget is very thorough across all print and broadcast media, you have to make an effort to avoid it if you're not interested and that's quite apart from the publicity when the legislation was implemented two years later.

missbiggles1

bmm78 wrote: »

This myth has been completely debunked by the evidence provided to the Work and Pensions Committee by Jo Cumbo of the Financial Times:

"I used the Financial Times “Factiva” database to look for mentions of women’s state pension age equalisation in articles starting from 1993, when the policy was mooted, to 2006. The search covered the National Press, including broadsheets and tabloids.
Over this period, I found more than 600 mentions.

The mentions were on the front pages, News and City sections as well as personal finance pages. Mentions could be also found in the Letters section and Comment pages as the state pension age changes were highly controversial at the time. The coverage was most concentrated in 1993-95 and again from 2005-06, when Lord Turner proposed raising the retirement age for all from 65 to 67"

The initial policy intention to equalise state pension ages at 65 was announced live on television in the budget in 1993, which is just about as prominent and visible a platform for political announcements that exists outside of a general election.

The WASPI refusal to acknowledge these facts, and the attempts by some prominent supporters to smear Jo Cumbo and/or the FT, are yet another reason why many people are repulsed by the campaign.

There are obviously areas where the communications could have been better, but the notion that there was little out there about the changes is equally as wide off the mark as any suggestion that they were perfectly communicated.

You've put it much better than I have.

Waspi have only managed to get away with these lies because the 1993/5 period is before most news media was digitised so it's impossible to show individuals how much coverage there actually was. Also, the later development of social media has made people expect the minutiae of news (much less the major events) to be ground into their faces at every turn with no letout.

In the world as it existed 20 years and more ago, the equalisation of women's pension ages was well publicised, as you say, across both print and broadcast media and those who managed to miss it would have been likely to have binned any letter sent as irrelevant to them because too far in the future.

Pollycat

cannyshopper wrote: »

Women who were affected by the 1995 Act were not individually notified and there was very little in press reports of the time about the impact it would have. There was no Govt media campaign to notify people about it either. The lack of publicity about the changes has been highlighted several times in the various debates and the Govt has acknowledged that the process was flawed.

In contrast, I did receive a letter notifying me of my revised SPA resulting from the 2011 changes.

My opinion is that a lot of women jumped on the 'I didn't know' bandwagon' in the hope of getting the 'compensation' WASPI were asking for.

I don't recall how I knew about the 1995 changes but I most certainly was aware that I wouldn't receive my pension at age 60 many years aso.

JezR

missbiggles1 wrote: »

In the world as it existed 20 years and more ago, the equalisation of women's pension ages was well publicised, as you say, across both print and broadcast media and those who managed to miss it would have been likely to have binned any letter sent as irrelevant to them because too far in the future.

In the same manner the 'direct' communication was of its age, such as leaflets in Benefit Offices, which were available around a month after the 1995 Act became law. These were available online with accompanying information by 1998.

In the future changes will be probably be transmitted via individual's tax accounts.

There are a large number of people affected by the 2007 and 2011 Acts who have never been sent any personal communication to date.

cannyshopper_2

to answer all the comments about lack of notification of the 1995 changes:

How many women read the financial and business pages in national newspapers? Other than on a very ad-hoc basis, I can't remember the last time I read a daily paper [it was probably getting on for 40 years ago when I moved house & couldn't find anyone willing to deliver] Nor do I read women's magazines. I have not been in a benefits office since 1991.
I use the TV to keep up with the news, and in common with most people any 5-second segment about something "boring" like pensions that doesn't have any immediate impact just goes straight over my head. I do not watch political debates so if there were any in-depth discussions about the financial impact of changing my pension age I would not have been aware. I do not think I am particularly unusual in this.

bmm78, if you are going to quote from the Work & Pensions Committee Report published 14 March you should at least acknowledge that the Committee - having taken evidence from many sources - did conclude that
" 2. We will never know how many women did not know, or could not be reasonably expected to know, that their state pension age was increasing. What is apparent with hindsight is that previous governments could have done a lot better in communicating the changes. Well into this decade far too many affected women were unaware of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 legislated for in 1995. While the last and current Governments have done more to communicate state pension age changes than their predecessors, this has been too little too late for many women, especially given increases in the state pension age have been accelerated at relatively short notice. Many thousands of women justifiably feel aggrieved. "

Of course WASPI - and others - have chosen to emphasise cases where women were completely unaware until almost the last minute: this is a standard tactic in arguments where you don't have hard facts. It does however divert attention away from the appallingly short notice of the changes that the 2011 Act would have on people born before 1956.

I don't want compensation: I want my pension to be paid from the date the 1995 Act calculated.

monkeyspanner

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think it's just daft to expect every single woman born after April 1950 to get individual letters about this or any other benefit changes - apart from anything else, it would cost a fortune.

I'm one of the women affected by it and I remember exactly when and where it was announced as do many others here. The coverage of the budget is very thorough across all print and broadcast media, you have to make an effort to avoid it if you're not interested and that's quite apart from the publicity when the legislation was implemented two years later.

I disagree with the assertion that it is unreasonable to expect an individual letter. These changes were extremely important and should have been communicated individually. If the government can communicate individually regarding child benefit payments after each change to each recipient informing them of the new amount and start date I see no reason why the pension changes could not have been communicated individually. In the private sector I was informed in writing no less than 4 times that the monthly fee on my bank account was increasing in addition to it appearing on my statement. Why? - because the private sector can be held accountable and the government cannot.

missbiggles1

cannyshopper wrote: »

to answer all the comments about lack of notification of the 1995 changes:

How many women read the financial and business pages in national newspapers? Other than on a very ad-hoc basis, I can't remember the last time I read a daily paper [it was probably getting on for 40 years ago when I moved house & couldn't find anyone willing to deliver] Nor do I read women's magazines. I have not been in a benefits office since 1991.
I use the TV to keep up with the news, and in common with most people any 5-second segment about something "boring" like pensions that doesn't have any immediate impact just goes straight over my head. I do not watch political debates so if there were any in-depth discussions about the financial impact of changing my pension age I would not have been aware. I do not think I am particularly unusual in this.

bmm78, if you are going to quote from the Work & Pensions Committee Report published 14 March you should at least acknowledge that the Committee - having taken evidence from many sources - did conclude that
" 2. We will never know how many women did not know, or could not be reasonably expected to know, that their state pension age was increasing. What is apparent with hindsight is that previous governments could have done a lot better in communicating the changes. Well into this decade far too many affected women were unaware of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 legislated for in 1995. While the last and current Governments have done more to communicate state pension age changes than their predecessors, this has been too little too late for many women, especially given increases in the state pension age have been accelerated at relatively short notice. Many thousands of women justifiably feel aggrieved. "

Of course WASPI - and others - have chosen to emphasise cases where women were completely unaware until almost the last minute: this is a standard tactic in arguments where you don't have hard facts. It does however divert attention away from the appallingly short notice of the changes that the 2011 Act would have on people born before 1956.

I don't want compensation: I want my pension to be paid from the date the 1995 Act calculated.

No wonder women get treated like fluffy headed idiots when a mature woman can post something so shameful as a justification for their ignorance!