Campaigners raise £65,000 for legal challenge to women's state pension changes

JezR

Budget speech 30 November 1993:

State pension age

Finally, I can announce one further decision which will have little immediate effect, but will certainly make a considerable difference to the affordability of the modern welfare state in the next century.

After careful consideration, the Government have decided that the state pension age should eventually be equalised at the age of 65. The change will be phased in over ten years, starting in the year 2010, so it will not affect anyone currently aged 44 or older. By the year 2020, the state pension age in Britain will be broadly in line with that of most of our industrial competitors, although we will still have more generous arrangements than in the United States, where the pension age is to be equalised at the age of 67. All developed countries are making similar changes for similar reasons. Women nowadays tend to spend more of their lives in paid employment. They also live longer than men. Pension schemes need to recognise this, and end the current discrimination between the sexes.

The announcement of the reduction in women's pension age in 1940 didn't get much publicity, but there was a war on. Even then the decision was considered to lead to a 'growing burden on the Exchequer', and insured women were required to pay more per week than men as part of the cost of paying for it.

One-Eye

Why not use the current "deferred pension" calculations to allow people (of any gender) to take their state pension at any time from age 60. Under existing rules, pension is increased by 5.8% for every year you delay taking your pension. For someone entitled to the full £155.65/week this is £9 per week. It could then be:
Retirement Age (Weekly Pension): 60(101), 61(110), 62(119), 63(128), 64(137), 65(146), 66(155), 67(164), 68(173)

Living_proof

One-Eye wrote: »

Why not use the current "deferred pension" calculations to allow people (of any gender) to take their state pension at any time from age 60. Under existing rules, pension is increased by 5.8% for every year you delay taking your pension. For someone entitled to the full £155.65/week this is £9 per week. It could then be:
Retirement Age (Weekly Pension): 60(101), 61(110), 62(119), 63(128), 64(137), 65(146), 66(155), 67(164), 68(173)

I am sure something like this arrangement would help a lot of people in very difficult circumstances. It would be a long-term and maybe detrimental solution to a short-term problem though and might leave people with insufficient to live on, particularly if the triple lock is ended and inflation becomes rife.

JezR

The difficulty with that concept is that the new state pension is supposed to be set at a level above pension credit - would someone taking an early reduced pension be excluded for ever more from means-tested benefits?

Silvertabby

The difficulty with that concept is that the new state pension is supposed to be set at a level above pension credit - would someone taking an early reduced pension be excluded for ever more from means-tested benefits?

Jez - that's why I think this proposal will never happen - only those of us with private/occupational pensions taking us over the means test limit would be able to take our reduced State pension early, as we wouldn't be able to claim the minimum income top up back to £155 at State pension age. Cue screams of 'one law for the 'rich' , one law for the poor'.

badmemory

JezR wrote: »

The difficulty with that concept is that the new state pension is supposed to be set at a level above pension credit - would someone taking an early reduced pension be excluded for ever more from means-tested benefits?

I would certainly expect that - just as if they had given savings away would reduce pension credit. Then once those (supposed) savings could be deemed depleted then the pension would return to the full level. So it probably wouldn't mean a reduced pension for life. They can't expect to have their cake and eat it and expect the rest of us to pay (although I expect they will).

atush

Just think what good that 65K could do (even be put aside for the women who are extremely affected and destitute as a charity).


But really, they dont want to spend money on the women who would be so affected as to need benefits. Not when they could spend it on those who dont need it- tilting at windmills.

OldBeanz

A lot of mention of women born in the fifties. Women born after April 1962 are having to wait until they are 67 for their pensions and may be affected further by a review in 2017. Waspi ignoring those more impacted fifteen months after their cut-off date.

LHW99

I do think its a pity there wasn't a single larger change introduced in 1995, rather than making mainly the same group of women have two successive changes.
However the change needed to be made, and IMHO it would be very wrong for the government to consider reversing it.

p00hsticks

OldBeanz wrote: »

A lot of mention of women born in the fifties. Women born after April 1962 are having to wait until they are 67 for their pensions and may be affected further by a review in 2017. Waspi ignoring those more impacted fifteen months after their cut-off date.

But those women have more than ten years notice of that year increase and plenty of time to adjust their retirement plan accordingly if necessary.

For the cohort of women born in 1953-54, the rise introduced in the 2011 act increased their SPA by up to 18 months with only a few years notice. There is an argument (accepted by many) that ideally they should have been given more notice of this second increase.