WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

xylophone

You seem to have very little else to occupy you - which in itself is worrying. Have you tried getting a real job?

Now I've enjoyed our little tete a tete but must be off - things to do, people to see, places to go. How about you?

Oh, crumbs! I'm taking up the cudgels again - Jem had a very real job - a working lifetime in the classroom (which must give her vast experience in dealing with puerile arguments)!

And as far as anyone on the board can gather, she has found more than enough to do in retirement....:)

Incidentally, may I draw your attention to Post 242 here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5474992&page=13

which you thanked......there's irony for you!:)

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Oh - do give it a rest. You 'know' MissBiggles in the way you 'know' all the other 'experts' on these forums. I don't suggest you know her personally - heaven forbid.

Actually, it is relevant to the discussion on pensions because my mother wouldn't have been able to have had the conversation that Silvertabby was fortunate enough to have had. In other words - we inhabit different worlds. We are all different and our life experiences shape our lives.

I'm flattered that you keep describing me as an expert (despite being corrected several times) but I'm just a retired 1950s woman, nothing more.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

9 fewer years contributions for a few years and then just 4. In my case, by 2011, a total of almost 6 years added to my SPA. As for bringing women nearer to the financial position of men - not significantly enough I would contend.

I can't imagine why a government would wait 14 years before informing women about the 1995 Act either (more than a bit stale by then, eh?).

Steve Webb himself has been very critical of some of the state pension age changes in recent years so maybe, in hindsight, he might agree that article wasn't the complete picture?

Why should a government inform anybody about pension changes any more than they inform them about changes to unemployment, illness or housing benefits.

If I'd stayed at work for an additional 6 years my pension would've gone up by around 10% - not to be sneezed at!

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

can you explain WHY was there no mention of changes to state pension age by Steve Webb in an article on the BBC website seven years after the Pensions Act 1995? It was very relevant and it was very important - but it wasn't mentioned! Remember, DWP had not yet begun their 'extensive' information campaign

Because it was irrelevant to his advocacy piece, which was promoting future changes that he wanted made, not looking back at changes that had been made and widely promulgated many years earlier.

The DWP's extensive information campaign had started years earlier and by the time of the advocacy piece you linked to included notices in all state pension forecasts being issued to affected women as well as the mass media campaigns:*

"The 1995 Act did not place any particular requirements on the Department regarding the communication of the changes to those affected. However, in July 1995 the department issued leaflet EQP1a, Equality in State Pension Age: A Summary of Changes, to advise the general public on the changes.

Parliamentary Written answers in 2001-02, explain that the Government’s approach was to inform women through leaflets and a publicity campaign:

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that women born after 1955 are informed of the forthcoming increase in retirement age. [146348]

Mr. Rooker: The Pensions Act 1995 affects all women born after 5 April 1950. Between 2010-20 women's state pension age will rise gradually from 60 to 65. Publicity for this change started under the previous administration.

We have taken action to inform women of the changes through leaflets and in the letters from the Department forecasting State Pension entitlement and displays in local BA offices. We have publicised the changes through advertising features in women's and general interest magazines. A national newspaper and magazine advert on the issue is due to feature in March as part of the wider pensions education marketing campaign. Also there is an interactive table on the Internet at https://www.pensionguide.gov.uk where a woman can type in her date of birth and learn the date she reaches State Pension age. The Department will periodically review the effectiveness of the approach.
[…]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I refer the noble Baroness to the Answer I gave her on 31 January 2002 (WA 57). Changes to the state pension age for women are publicised as part of the current marketing campaign on pensions education for people of working age. This is a multi-million pound campaign which encourages people to plan for retirement and consider the full range of pension options and issues.

The campaign includes a press advert specifically about the change to state pension age for women and we have undertaken direct marketing activity, which includes press inserts and direct mailings targeted specifically at women. These materials all highlight the fact that the state pension age for women is changing.

This activity has taken place since research undertaken in March 2000 which showed that 30 per cent of women aged 18-55 were aware that changes to the state pension age had been made. Since then, as outlined above, there has been considerable further activity to publicise these changes and we have distributed more than 2 million pensions information guides. The effectiveness of the pensions education campaign is measured on an ongoing basis.

State Pension statements sent out on request from 2001 included women’s new SPA, as determined by the 1995 Pensions Act."

In spite of all that work and spending on publicity and related media advocacy there was still a lamentably high level of women not knowing that the changes were happening so more work was done after the piece you linked to, to try to reach people who apparently weren't paying much attention to things.

*Commons Library Briefing Paper Number CBP-07405, 15 August 2016 State Pension age increases for women born in the 1950s

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

Because it was irrelevant to his advocacy piece, which was promoting future changes that he wanted made, not looking back at changes that had been made and widely promulgated many years earlier.

The DWP's extensive information campaign had started years earlier and by the time of the advocacy piece you linked to included notices in all state pension forecasts being issued to affected women as well as the mass media campaigns:*

"The 1995 Act did not place any particular requirements on the Department regarding the communication of the changes to those affected. However, in July 1995 the department issued leaflet EQP1a, Equality in State Pension Age: A Summary of Changes, to advise the general public on the changes.

Parliamentary Written answers in 2001-02, explain that the Government’s approach was to inform women through leaflets and a publicity campaign:

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that women born after 1955 are informed of the forthcoming increase in retirement age. [146348]

Mr. Rooker: The Pensions Act 1995 affects all women born after 5 April 1950. Between 2010-20 women's state pension age will rise gradually from 60 to 65. Publicity for this change started under the previous administration.

We have taken action to inform women of the changes through leaflets and in the letters from the Department forecasting State Pension entitlement and displays in local BA offices. We have publicised the changes through advertising features in women's and general interest magazines. A national newspaper and magazine advert on the issue is due to feature in March as part of the wider pensions education marketing campaign. Also there is an interactive table on the Internet at https://www.pensionguide.gov.uk where a woman can type in her date of birth and learn the date she reaches State Pension age. The Department will periodically review the effectiveness of the approach.
[…]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I refer the noble Baroness to the Answer I gave her on 31 January 2002 (WA 57). Changes to the state pension age for women are publicised as part of the current marketing campaign on pensions education for people of working age. This is a multi-million pound campaign which encourages people to plan for retirement and consider the full range of pension options and issues.

The campaign includes a press advert specifically about the change to state pension age for women and we have undertaken direct marketing activity, which includes press inserts and direct mailings targeted specifically at women. These materials all highlight the fact that the state pension age for women is changing.

This activity has taken place since research undertaken in March 2000 which showed that 30 per cent of women aged 18-55 were aware that changes to the state pension age had been made. Since then, as outlined above, there has been considerable further activity to publicise these changes and we have distributed more than 2 million pensions information guides. The effectiveness of the pensions education campaign is measured on an ongoing basis.

State Pension statements sent out on request from 2001 included women’s new SPA, as determined by the 1995 Pensions Act."

In spite of all that work and spending on publicity and related media advocacy there was still a lamentably high level of women not knowing that the changes were happening so more work was done after the piece you linked to, to try to reach people who apparently weren't paying much attention to things.

*Commons Library Briefing Paper Number CBP-07405, 15 August 2016 State Pension age increases for women born in the 1950s

'Advocacy piece'? Interesting choice of wording there...

Oh dear jamesd...I fear you are in the early stages of apoplexy - you seem to have regurgitated (again) some more 'government approved research findings'.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Why should a government inform anybody about pension changes any more than they inform them about changes to unemployment, illness or housing benefits.

If I'd stayed at work for an additional 6 years my pension would've gone up by around 10% - not to be sneezed at!

Of course you're right MissBiggles - why should the government inform anyone about anything? We elect a government to serve the people - not vice versa.

HMRC managed to 'inform' me that I had a shortfall on my NI contributions so why not bother to 'inform' me of my new state pension age? Remember, late 1953/54 born were not notified until 14 years after the legislation was passed with, for me, just 8 years notice of another 18 months. Unacceptable.

As for 'topping' up state pension by working an additional 6 years - er, I have well in excess of the required 35 years NI so not an option. If you are talking about private pensions - I have my own arrangements thanks and I don't discuss these on forums or social media.

bowlhead99

What else would you call it. He was a member of parliament who was from an opposition party and was advocating certain actions, e.g. "conduct a study of pay and pension provision that women receive" ; have women "contacted and alerted to their current pension position" ; allow women to buy back missing you seem to have regurgitated (again) some more 'government approved research findings'.

If we want to know what people were saying on the public record about what was being done about something, we can go and pull out the public records. As things such as Parliamentary Written Answers from 2001/2 are published records, then it's true that to display them here is just 'regurgitating' what is on record. jamesd is letting you see some examples of things that have already been pulled out and given to people who deny that anything was done about informing people.

I welcome people like jamesd taking an interest in events and pulling out some historic evidence of cross-party government discussions so that I don't have to go and find it for myself. I don't really care if it is 'government approved' information being fed to him, or original research. At least it is borne in fact.

It is certainly more credible than the other side of the argument which simply says that women couldn't be expected to know that retirement age was going to increase above 60 in the future because anecdotally that information was not made available in a way that a 40-year old woman would have come across it.

Honestly, your argument "No-one, to my knowledge has detailed which newspapers/magazines nor which TV channels this vital and life-changing information was featured on/in." is a terrible one. I can tell you what TV channel and national newspaper had it in. All of them. What program? "The News". You know, the program that tells you about key events happening in the world that might affect you.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Of course you're right MissBiggles - why should the government inform anyone about anything? We elect a government to serve the people - not vice versa.

HMRC managed to 'inform' me that I had a shortfall on my NI contributions so why not bother to 'inform' me of my new state pension age? Remember, late 1953/54 born were not notified until 14 years after the legislation was passed with, for me, just 8 years notice of another 18 months. Unacceptable.

As for 'topping' up state pension by working an additional 6 years - er, I have well in excess of the required 35 years NI so not an option. If you are talking about private pensions - I have my own arrangements thanks and I don't discuss these on forums or social media.

There you go, just like Waspi, it doesn't benefit you, so you don't care.

For many of the women they purport to support because they had shorter working lives, the cut from 39 years to 30 years for a maximum SRP would've made an immense difference and yet they insisted that they wanted to turn back the clock on the 1995 act and leave thousands of women worse off through their whole retirement. This was never once mentioned by Waspi - nobody ever knew whether this was out of ignorance or spite, could've been either.;)

As for your pension, I really couldn't give a tuppenny damn - the fact remains that for the vast majority of women, paying in for more years will leave them better off rather than worse.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

There you go, just like Waspi, it doesn't benefit you, so you don't care.

For many of the women they purport to support because they had shorter working lives, the cut from 39 years to 30 years for a maximum SRP would've made an immense difference and yet they insisted that they wanted to turn back the clock on the 1995 act and leave thousands of women worse off through their whole retirement. This was never once mentioned by Waspi - nobody ever knew whether this was out of ignorance or spite, could've been either.;)

As for your pension, I really couldn't give a tuppenny damn - the fact remains that for the vast majority of women, paying in for more years will leave them better off rather than worse.

Give it a rest MissBiggles. It doesn't apply to me so it's not something I would be taking up. Subtle but important difference.

xylophone

Finally xylophone - yes, I did thank you for that post because you agreed 2011 was wrong.

See post 246 (same page) from Jem (aka "Miss Rottweiler")

Most people on here have already said that the 2011 Act was unfair in terms of notice, including me.