MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases

molerat

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/22/schedule/3

Terron

molerat wrote: »

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/22/schedule/3

Looks like whereever it was I checked my previous pension age before 2010 was wrong. Still it is 66 now, and allowing a woman born on the same date to retire at 60 would be unjust,

jem16

Terron wrote: »

Looks like whereever it was I checked my previous pension age before 2010 was wrong. Still it is 66 now, and allowing a woman born on the same date to retire at 60 would be unjust,

Very unjust and hopefully should never see the light of day. If it does by any miracle happen, then I hope all you men will complain. Perhaps you should all be complaining now to the likes of Carolyn Harris, Chair of the WASPI APPG.

Mortgagefreeman

I’m sure you’ll all be delighted to hear, there’s yet another WASPI debate in the HOC tomorrow!

colsten

Hooray. More MP time wasted . This debate will go the same way as all the previous ones have gone - lots of blustering by Labour and SNP, sloping shoulders by Govt, the end.

Paul_Herring

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-14/debates/94129EFF-1C16-4FA7-90A9-1B78B93E327A/PensionEqualityForWomen

That this House calls on the Government to publish proposals to provide a non-means tested bridging solution for all women born on or after 6 April 1950 who are affected by changes to the State Pension age in the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts.

Can't wait.

redux

Non means tests bridging solution against changes from 1995?

As above, some of the later changes are effectively shorter notice, and can do with some attention, but announcing in 1995 something that will gradually taper in from 2010 to 2020 is surely early enough.

If Waspi succeeds in letting my 2 year younger sister retire 4 years before me, I'd say good luck to her, but that would be an increase not decrease in age difference, and the against inequality concept in the name of the organisation a charade. Perhaps they might rename it.

I can see other organisations setting the discussion up by explaining what it is about - women born in the 1950s face an unexpected wait of the best part of a decade before they can get their State Pension.

How is it that even the changes announced in 1995 can be described now as unexpected, and for which they have not had time to prepare?

ffacoffipawb

Paul_Herring wrote: »

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-12-14/debates/94129EFF-1C16-4FA7-90A9-1B78B93E327A/PensionEqualityForWomen



Can't wait.

That has naff all to do with equality!

redux

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

That has naff all to do with equality!

Several of the comments are not about pensions.

colsten

redux wrote: »

How is it that even the changes announced in 1995 can be described now as unexpected, and for which they have not had time to prepare?

Minor correction: the changes were actually announced in November 1993, in the Autumn Statement, delivered by Ken Clarke, the then Chancellor.

Kenneth_Clarke wrote:

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.

In the next century, the ratio of working people to retired people will fall sharply, and the burdens on taxpayers will rise. The Government's decision will moderate those burdens, eventually by some £5 billion a year, and so help to ensure that they are sustainable. The basic pension is, and will remain, a cornerstone of the welfare state. The Government are committed to it and to retaining its value.

Full budget speech: http://johnmajor.co.uk/page4283.html

This obviously pre-dates the 2011 Pensions Act, which accelerated the equalisation to end of 2018 rather than 2020. It still gave us a minimum of 17 years notice of equalisation. It's beyond me how anyone can describe this as unexpected, or as sudden.