Women's state pension age - what do you think?

I was born late April 1951 and had to wait 13 months to get my Pension and bus pass i dont see why some people think the bus pass is free when we are still paying Tax.

My birthdate is 14 April 1954 from an original increase to 64 to get my state pension the last changes put this at 66 There was following protests a reduction of 6 months so now 65 and a half but still very unfair. A friend l born just 6 months earlier gets hers at least 18 months before me. The first increases were bad enough but at least were phased in more fairly the latest ones were not! Having worked in some capacity since I was 16 I do feel hard done by!
Also no bus pass or heating allowance till then!

Totally agree with so much said ,I was born april1954 and have been greatly affected by the changes have 37 years worth of NI stamps and all my working live I thought I was I a contract with the GOVERMENT to draw my state pension at 60 ,had a letter in 1998 I think to say my pension was altering to 63 yrs 5 months, was furious but had no idea how to get this changed ,the GOVERMENT bought this change in very quietly and got away with it .

When this GOVERMENT came in to power they promised not to touch this group of women again but we're in power about 9 months and we were hit again this is a disgrace .

I had to take ill health retirement at the age of 58 and can not get other employment due to the nature of my illness, I have had my ESA stopped after going to court twice and fighting the judgement,have been told I cannot have any other benefits so I am supposed to live on thin air until 65. And 4 months .

why were we not given more warning !!! I have written to my 'MP , Stephen Webb ,ian Duncan smith but all useless they are on a different planet to all of us.

As much as I can see the complaints about the timing of the changes, it would seem to be a lack of communication from the DWP which is or has been the problem. So they should make adjustments for their lack of thought about the timescale of change and effect on the ladies of each year that would be affected.
Further to that though is the Frozen Pension issue which some newspapers have written articles on, Government must have a mountain of correspondence on as well but it never gets a proper hearing in parliament.
This is where Gransnet could help those pensioners discriminated against by successive government's freezing policy.
There is a skit which explains the situation in a humorous way but the effect is far from funny. See : t.co/jVEcp5Enan
There is a pensioner resident in South Africa, Annie Carr whose pension is
£6.95 per week and another WWII veteran who gets about £10 per week and they never see any increases ever which has been the way since they retired due to this policy.
There are about 560,000 pensioners worldwide affected by this who never get the annual increases even though they have paid into the N.I under the same terms & conditions as the majority 96% who do get the increases without a problem bearing in mind that there are about 650,000 if those also abroad.
Just 4% of UK state pensioners are discriminated against by government and even WASPI must realise that some of the ladies affected by the age changes to the system will be frozen also.

I agree with all that has been said. Dragon gran I too was born in 1953 but won't get my pension until 64 5mths! yet others born only a few months before me will get it years before me! I think is so unfair, and futher to that I won't be eligible for the full new state pension. so double whammy. Like many, I donlt object to the equalisation of pension age , but it should have been phased in much more gradually.

I fully accept that the female state pension has to be brought in line with the male pension of 65. However it has been done too quickly and is discriminatory against women who are in the same school year. My three college friends and I are all in the same year 1952/3 and yet receive our pensions over a three year period. The Government has effectively stolen thousands of pounds from women who had very little warning. Some women have had to change their whole retirement plan. It should have been phased in much more carefully. They should think again and make it fairer.

Maggiemaybe please don't apologise for long posts on such an important topic. And thank you for reading the detail and responding to it. Like most of us I just haven't had a chance to do the same. Hopefully it will add to Gransnet's formal response.
Could we add to your points and others, the thing about having to continue to pay NI after 60 and after the full required contributions have been made over a lifetime of working please? An alternative would be to allow women to continue to pay their NI but it adds more value to their SP.

We haven't just found out Maries. Gransnet are giving us an opportunity to put our thoughts to the government. So thank you Gransnet for that.

So, you have all finally wised up?

I first mentioned this in 2013 - and was told variously I waswrong, I should accept it ( "suck it up" as it was put) and to get on with it. I sobbed my heart out at the time over the callous comments (not all were so awful, I accept) but it hurt. Now you are all finding out. .

It seems a whole raft of you ( how many of the Im alright Jacks are amongst you?) are in the same position. I feel sorry for you and I wont say "suck it up". Others in government have said that far moreeffectively than I ( that lovely Baroness in charge of pensions now for one) . Funnily, it now seems I may well manage a full " new pension when I retire as I have to go to 66 now (another year extra) and I dont have any "contracted out".

Sorry if I sound bitter - I am.

Very well put Granpammy.

I was promised a pension at age 60, I've worked towards that, I have my 40 years contributions, I found out by accident about the changes and I feel robbed. I'm going to be 65 and 10 months, so I'm having to wait nearly six years to get what is rightly mine.

I'm a cancer survivor, so if my illness comes back I might never see my pension.

What is the government going to do, to put this travesty right?

I actually want to know, I don't want to be fobbed off, I want something doing, I'm very angry.

I can accept that change is needed, but think changes should have been introduced MUCH MORE GRADUALLY and with more notice. The speed of the changes in my view unfairly penalises women like me, (born mid 1954).

My lifelong expectation was that in return for paying into the State Pension I would receive a State Pension on reaching 60. I now have to wait nearly SIX extra years, which is not an insignificant change, and it leaves me feeling cheated.

I have worked my whole life, apart from a one year 'child gap', and have made more than enough contributions, yet I am still considerably worse off than people I consider to be my peers, just because they are slightly older than me.

I also agree with points already made about the consequential deferral of other benefits which may hinge on pensioner status.

Clearly this is most difficult for those without other resources to fall back on, but even where financial hardship is not an issue, it is unfair to people whose rightful expectations are a long way from having been met.

The government should find a way to smooth the effect of this somehow, as it is unjust as it stands.

Sorry for the very long posts, but I've spend this very rainy day reading through the debate and getting more and more annoyed!

On a personal note, my husband and I were due to retire the same week, and this is what we based all our financial plans on – he was born in January 1950, I was born in January 1955. Not only have I lost 6 full years of my state pension after paying into the system for 41 years so far, but other benefits are lost too. He has had his free bus pass since he turned 60, I will get mine when I am 66. If I lived in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, I would still have been given my bus pass at 60. If I lived in London or several other English cities I would have free travel there. Where is the equality in any of that?

What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

Firstly, I would like to say that stating that women were informed at all stages of the process is not correct. Like many others, I received one letter regarding one rise to my pension age. I learnt about the second change from the financial pages of the national newspapers. Others did not.

You state that the Government carried out extensive analysis of the impacts of bringing forward the rise to 66 when legislating for the change (impact assessment available at Gov.uk). Was this analysis based on the “very poor” information you were given by civil servants which, according to Steve Webb, led to your “bad decision”? I am unable to find the impact assessment data mentioned, and if I could, I doubt that I would easily understand it. Would it be possible for you to publish a summary of the assessment used so that the people affected could evaluate it?

Your response states that all women affected by faster equalisation will reach State Pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension, and the new State Pension will be more generous for many women. As I have discovered by requesting a pension statement, the new State Pension will in fact be less generous for many, as any years during which we opted out (as encouraged by the Government of the time) will not count towards this pension. For my 41 years of NI contributions, my forecast is £88 under the new system, £115 under the old system. Transitional arrangements are in place, so I will be paid the £115, but to suggest the new pension is more generous gives a misleading picture.

Only 2 Conservative MPs attended the debate, as opposed to 102 Labour MPs, and 54 from other parties. Is this indicative of the concern felt by Conservative MPs for their constituents, as many of them will have been contacted directly about this issue and surely they should all be aware of it?

What points do you think a second debate should focus on?

The fact that the Government broke its promises on the timescale and procedures to be used for implementation and acted on bad advice, as admitted by prominent members of the government, and yet shows no sign of being willing to correct these major mistakes. Steve Webb: “Basically we made a bad decision. We realised too late - it had just gone too far by then.” Ros Altmann: “Manifestly unfair” “the Government needs to rethink its plans” www.rosaltmann.com/women_spa_briefing_oct2011.htm As Caroline Flint said during the debate “would it not do the world of politics a very positive service if, when we get it wrong, we say we got it wrong and put it right?”.

After the debate, a very convincing (unanimous) vote (158 to 0) was taken on this very specific motion calling for the Government to introduce transitional arrangements. What notice will be now taken of this vote?
“That this House, while welcoming the equalisation of the state pension age, is concerned that the acceleration of that equalisation directly discriminates against women born on or after 6 April 1951, leaving women with only a few years to make alternative arrangements, adversely affecting their retirement plans and causing undue hardship; regrets that the Government has failed to address a lifetime of low pay and inequality faced by many women; and calls on the Government to immediately introduce transitional arrangements for those women negatively affected by that equalisation”.

Other EU governments have put in place long, slow and fair transitional arrangements for pension equalisation. Why did our Government feel the need to implement our changes in the way it did, putting an unfair and discriminatory burden on one small (and arguably already disadvantaged) sector of the population?

If privileged people, such as MPs, judges and civil servants, have had their occupational pensions protected if they are within 10 years of normal retirement age, why are the WASPI women not being treated in the same way? Why are they not afforded the same protection? Ten years’ notice will be given for any future changes to the state pension age so that people can cope with the change in circumstances. Is that not an admission that what has happened is wrong?

I was born in October 1954 and I was under the impression that there were transition arrangements in place and I was given an age of 63 and a few months as the date I would receive my state pension. It was only during a conversation with a friend that I found out that the pension age had been put up to 66 for everyone, even those in the so called transition; I was completely unaware of the change. Why weren't the women already in the transition period ring fenced? I've worked full time since I was 18 and only taken maternity leave for my three children. There are a group of women of a certain age who are caught in the middle between the old pension rules and the new pension rules and are being treated very unfairly indeed.

To address the questions asked in the OP.

What were the most important points in the first debate for you?

The concept of equalisation is fair and reasonable, and no one argued against the need to equalise the pension age of men and women. The issue is how this has been implemented.

The lack of reasonable notice given, falling far short of the government’s own guidelines, meant that the women affected were not given time to make adjustments to accommodate the major and far-reaching changes to their lives.

The lack of effective official notification of the above, which meant that some women had given notice to their employers only to find out afterwards that their pensions would not be paid for several years.

The lack of transitional arrangements, when strong hints had been given during briefings that these would be made.

The fact that former Pensions Minister Steve Webb admits that the pension age implementation decision was wrong - and that “very poor” briefing by civil servants about the full implications of it was to blame. The government had been told that the changes would not have a disproportionate impact on any group compared to another.

The fact that Baroness Altmann, now Minister for Pensions in the House of Lords, said when she was director general of Saga in 2011 that the Government’s changes to state pensions were “clearly discriminatory”.

The personal statements from women most affected, pointing out what hardship has been caused. The point made by many that they started work much earlier than young people these days and have in many cases worked for up to 45 years by the time they are 60

The contrast between our implementation timescale and the long, slow and fair transitional arrangements for equalisation brought in by other EU states.

Mhairi Black said that one of the reasons why people her age cannot get work is that it is being done by those trying to secure some income until they reach the pension age. Though of the 50% of women aged between 55 and 64 who are not in paid work, many are caring for children and elderly relatives.

Privileged people, such as MPs, judges and civil servants, have had their occupational pensions protected if they are within 10 years of normal retirement age. Ten years’ notice will be given for any future changes to the state pension age so that people can cope with the change in circumstances.

The fact that in 2007, the Labour Government decided to increase the retirement age for both men and women to 66, but included a caveat that no changes would be made until 2024. In 2011, the coalition Government reneged on that caveat and set a new timetable that broke a pledge that there would be no change until after 2020.

After the debate, a very convincing (unanimous) vote (158 to 0) was taken on a very specific motion calling for the Government to introduce transitional arrangements.

I like Sadiesnan was born in 1954. I will not get my pension until 2020!
It is so annoying when I go out with my friends that are a couple of years older than me and they have their free bus pass and are claiming their pension.
It is just so unfair!!!

I feel for all the women effected by this new ruling....but at least they will get their pension eventually....me on the other hand will still have my pension frozen at 2006 levels because I dared to leave the UK to live with my 3 children and grandchildren in Australia. State pension is NOT a benefit, I paid NI all my working life to ensure a decent pension when I retired and should be entitled to a full pension just like every other OAP. angry

Born Dec 53 so affected by both 1995 and 2011.
7th Jan debate covered many of the important issues but government did not answer many important questions including the point that everyone agrees that the pension age for men and women should eventually be the same. BUT
1)Why were long transitional arrangements not put in place such as those in Austria, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic?
2)Why were no letters sent out until at least 14 years after 1995 Act in spite of DWP research published in 2004 which showed that, "Only 43% of the women who will be affected by the increase in SPA could identify their SPA." These 43% were likely to be in managerial or professional roles and have occupational pensions. Thus 57% of women affected were unaware of the 1995 changes and these were mostly in lower paid jobs.
3)Why were most MPs unaware when they approved the 2011 Act that many women were unaware of the 1995 changes?
4)Why has Ros Altmann done a complete about face after her previous campaigning stance on behalf of pensioners?
5)Why were some letters sent out in 2005 with the amounts of expected state pension on but crucially omitting the date the state pension would be paid?
6)Is the DWP a complete shambles and not fit for purpose or was there a deliberate attempt by government to keep people in the dark?
7) Is it not misleading to say that the new state pension for April 2016 will help, as fewer than 1 in 4 women who qualify for it, will get the full amount.
8)Does this £30 billion pension grab justify losing hundreds of thousands of votes?
9)What action does the government propose to take now to help the hundreds of thousands of women who have taken life changing decisions based on receipt of their state pension?

I was a 1954 Baby, I like many feel that I've had the 'rug' pulled from under my feet. I like many have worked all my life since 16yrs of age with a small break when my Son was born. Although it is appreciated that people are living longer, I feel that having 6 + years added to my work load is totally unfair. I don't have a life to call my own. I have to work to maintain my home, pay bills etc: Basically to live.
My Husband, worked was only able to do limited work due to ill health, so what we were able to save has been limited. We never claimed any state benefit. I now have to care for my elderly mother, I am so grateful my Mum is still with us, but I now have to balance work and caring. I'm totally worn out and weary. Apart from Women having to continue how can Gvt expect men to do real physical jobs until 67. What happens to all the unclaimed pensions of people who sadly don't make it to retirement for what ever reason. We really should be doing more on this front to highlight OUR plight

I agree with everything everyone else is saying. I was born in 1953 and at 57, I took early retirement as I have Addisons disease and the stress of working in the NHS was making me worse. I thought that I had 3 years to manage on my savings before I got my pension. How wrong I was.If I had knowI would have to wait until I am 64 years and 11 months I would have rethought my decision if I had had knowledge of the pension changes.
This is my argument, that I was not informed of the changes.
I would be happy to support the cause of taking the government to court if necessary.
This is definitely sexual inequality - and no bus pass.

I'm in exactly the same position as you GranJan60. When the 2nd hike in pensionable age for women such as us was announced in 2011 Age UK organised an event in the Houses of Parliament where we lobbied our MPs about the total unfairness of having to wait an extra six and a half years for our state pensions. This resulted in my pension date being brought forward by six months (wow!). I met my (Con) MP twice at his clinic and he admitted to me that his mother was in the same boat, but he still didn't feel that he could support our cause! I received several letters in which he toed the party line. I knew then that I was wasting my time in trying to get any kind of result. Like everyone in this thread has said, it is absolutely outrageous that one group of women have been treated in this way. I wonder if the situation would have been the same if it was a group of men!!

I was in the relatively fortunate group that was "only" 19 months late, but I was amongst the first to be affected (DOB 24.01.52) and friends whose birthdays are just 3 months later will have their pensions significantly later. My sister, born 1954, will be almost the full six years late. I suspect that 18 months was closer to the minimum delay than the average.
I was making Additional Voluntary Contributions into a private pension scheme when I retired and my pension providers would not have been allowed to change the terms of my contract with them at a later date, why should the government be allowed to do this?
As others have said, another unfairness is in the short notice given - as I understand it there were two separate decisions to change the pension dates, the second being after I had actually given up work.
People in London do still get free travel at 60 - no consolation to me as (after nearly 40 years paying London Council Tax) I left not long before that age.

I was born in July 54 and like many worked and paid tax and NI with the exception of time off for having my children and back working full time after.
Since 1988 I have run a small business and joined in 1991 by my partner/husband. We've kept our heads above water, occasionally employing others and paying them more than we could take ourselves, but following my husband's diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in 2008 (he was the ideas and sales person, I am developer/customer support/admin) we have had to let the business die down with the expectation that he could retire in 2015 and me in 2014 or maybe 2016 it seemed unclear. Luckily we have no mortgage, but we are now living carefully on his govt. pension whilst attempting to get money from his private pensions, which isn't proving easy.
I DID NOT get any notification from the government of the change in my pension age but earlier this year did get/find a link to a site where I could calculate my retirement date - May 2020 and it shows I already have 43 years of contributions.
I wrote to my MP (Forest of Dean) early in January, without the personal info above but with "Not only being unable to claim my state pension in 2014 instead having to wait until 2020 at a loss of approximately £56,000 over the six years and and even then I will get less pension because of the change to a fixed rate for everyone. I also cannot benefit from winter fuel allowance or free bus pass." and asking for him to attend the debate on 7th January and support me.

I got a reply dated 11th January, just a standard letter, making it clear that he didn't support me. I didn't vote for him before and won't do so in the future!

That £56,000 is my right, not a benefit to be begged for.

I was born February 1954 so in the main group of "losers". I have 46 years of NI contributions and yet will not get the full SP due to having been advised to opt out of SERPS and pay into a private pension many years ago. However, I still have to pay NI but this does not contribute to increasing my SP when my turn finally comes, over 5 years after I expected to receive it.
My husband is 65 and working. His employer has just told him that he no longer has to pay NI as he has reached SP age!! This feels like double robbery to me.

A couple of suggested specific requests for consideration to ease the passage to raised SP age (which I agree with in principle) -
1. NI should no longer be deducted for women aged 60 unless they choose to continue paying due to having insufficient contributions to get their full SP.
2. There should be a thorough investigation of the advice given to women years ago, to opt out of SERPS. This should look at whether there ere cases of misselling through promoting the opt out and selling private pension arrangements. It should also look at whether the government's later massive changes have created an unfair situation for people who took the advice to opt out and are now badly disadvantaged as a result.
3. Appropriate compensation should be agreed for those of us who are losing so much, whether that be a lump sum or increased SP.