MPs to debate pension age rise for women


Members of Parliament will debate the proposed increase to the women's pension age today in the House of Commons.

Under government proposals, the age women are entitled to start receiving their state pension will go up from age 60 to 65 by 2018 and then both the male and female pension age will rise to 66 by 2020.

The accelerated increase has been criticised by pensions campaigners and MPs alike.


Ros Altmann, director-general of Saga, is asking both women and men to sign Saga's petition against the plans. 

"We have so many women who are saying 'we have never been so angry, we cannot believe the government has let us down and in fact they are saying we will never vote for either the Tories or Lib Dems again because they have lied to us. They promised us in the coalition that they wouldn't do this and suddenly they are imposing it on us'," says Altmann.

More than half a million women already aged over 55 could face a shortfall of more than £10,000 each into their retirement income, according to Saga.

For more read: Women hit hardest by state pension changes

There are also concerns that many women are unaware of the pension reforms and still expect to collect their state pension at age 60. A survey by the charity Age UK reveals that thousands of women don't know the state retirement age has changed. It also reveals that 68% of women are worried about the plans.

"The government is asking people to plan their retirement, but it's difficult to see how women can plan properly when the government keeps moving the state pension age goalposts," says Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK.

She says many women, facing the increase have either worked in low-paid jobs all their lives, had to stop working due to health problems or to care for others and have relied on receiving the pension at an earlier age.

"They have already had their state pension age changed once and this latest proposed change is one step too far by this government. Telling these women, at short notice, that they now have to wait up to another two years to collect their state pension is unfair."


More about

Your Comments

I understand that the government has to find the money to pay for pensions when, medical research is finding ways to keep people alive for longer, but it all seems to be aimed at women of a particular age group - i.e. those born after 1955. I feel exhausted now and would cheerfully retire at 60, but alas could not afford to do so, but to now be told that it will be not just 65 but 67, is a real insult. Is it possible to make a claim against the government for sex discrimination of those of us who are being selectively attacked by this appalling and unscrupulous government ? I also have a 25 year old son who can't find any type of work, mostly because people are not retiring, or are working part time to supplement their pensions. Talk about returning to Victorian times ...........

I was born 1958 thus making 53 and have paid into a private and state pension since I was 18. I am not against the retirement age being bought inline with the men making it 65 but what I do disagree with is the rate of change and raising the age to 66+.

It would be interesting to see the facts relating to us living longer and how this is affected by peoples income. I would assume that those in the higher earning brackets live the longest. My private pension is in no way enough for me to retire on at 65 and without a state pension I will have to claim state benefits.

Alot of women from 50+ have worked part-time having raised there children and have been unable to have established a well paid career. We are the generation that did not have the government sure start nursery and the support that children with parents get today.

What the government is doing is changing the terms of the agreement I went into for my pension.

I do not want to live off the state I along with many other women in my position need to receive a state pension at 60 to 65.

Our age group is being discriminated against. This coalition have clearly lied regarding this matter when promising no changes until 2020. Duncan-Smith should hold his head in shame.

I had always worked in well paid work until I had my son. Went back to college when he was 10 (I was then 38) to have a relevant qualification to get a well paid job again after such a gap) Started temp job - no perks low pay when I was 40 - and then gradually moved jobs to get better permanent employment with better pay - so no building of works pensions here as I had to move jobs so much. Somewhere around this time - the 5 years were added on to us (I even thought that this was a bit much as we were at home unable to get full time work due to family restrictions etc) but many of us did just gulp and get on with it.
At the age of 53 found myself unemployed - 6 mth contract - then unemployed again at age 54. I am now back into work but the job I have managed to get so far is part time and low paid. I still planned to save save save to retire at 65. AS I AM STILL TRYING TO RECOUP THE 5 YEARS LUMPED ON MY EXPECTED RETIREMENT AGE. If I was under 25 years old when they added this five years on I don't think it would have eaten at me at all. But when struggling back to work and all that comes with it after bringing up children - its a tall order.
have been saving (very little) over the last few years and savings now have little interest - after being a single parent (always worked but not always paid for work as took on voluntary as no-one to care for child and I could do when I felt I could manage to and keep my skills base up).
NOW ANOTHER YEAR - I AM SO ANGRY I FEEL LIKE GIVING UP. MY COMMENTS HERE ARE NOT SELFISH - I FEAR THAT THIS IS A LIKE SCENARIO FOR MANY MANY WOMEN. We are still looking after our own children - or putting them through education - our generation have still (many of us) our elderly parents and we have to work to survive - our chance to make our own choices is severely hampered as we generally still have other commitments and restrictions on where and how we work. This very much encroaches on our ability to provide for the choice to retire early. To give people less that 10 years to cater to have the choice element is wrong.

Three years ago, when I was 54 I was made redundant and although I can find and keep charity/voluntary/unpaid work, I cannot find paid employment.

So being of a generation where I believed that I would retire at 60, was then informed I'm in that "grey area" of where I'm to retire around my 64th birthday. I'm 57 years of age and so with the Government adding another 2 years until my retirment until I'm 66 years old, or thereabouts - if I wasn't employable for the last 3 years - I'm at a loss as to my employability now.

Having said that, surely the Government would want to free-up jobs so that those leaving schools, universities etc., can find employment and not start their "working life" unemployed !?!

I would dearly love to know if the MP's have had any publicly voiced debate on their own very lucrative, and early paid-out pensions that we, the tax payer will be providing for them. Are they going to see their pension rights diminished in the same way that they are voting for us to lose ours?

I worked from leaving school at 15 until 48, due to health problems, and never payed into a Pension, as when I was 19 got married and payed a married persons stamp which was what could be done at the time, until it changed and you had to pay a higher NIS rate.
I am 56 now, 57 in July and was due a pension in July 2014 - To be told now I have to wait until I am 66, which will make a wait of 9 years before I can claim my pension, this does not seem fair? I stopped working in 1998 due to MS, and only claim Disability Living Allowance which is not means tested, which pays for the car I drive, I do not claim Incapacity Benefit and therefore I live on my husband's wage, and have done for all those 13 years. It does not seem fair that someone in my position has to wait another 6 years before claiming a pension. I am not sure how we will cope when my husband retires some years prior to when I will be able to claim a pension, that is if I am still here then?

I have been monitoring the recent activity and debate around the change in the Pension age and in particular the effect on the group of females who were born in the crucial window 1953/54.
I am one such female. I like many others do not argue with the basic premise that the retirement age should be increased and like many others it is only the timing that I object to. The strongest argument has to be the 'equality' argument.
Interestingly, a major part of the pension age change surrounds the equalising of the retirement age between men and women - again something that seems perfectly sensible and logical - until one looks into the detail.
Equality as a principle has been with us for some years now - however, the social and work changes necessary to enable true equality have lagged behind the drive to reach equality. Hence women have not been able to get into positions which enable them to take advantage of 'equality' and gather the necessary funds inside pensions schemes to match the equality - particularly if you look at the crucial group born in 1953/54.
Only a few years ago I had looked to retire at 60 and had planned around this. In many ways a part of my plan was to allow my husband to maintain his career - I would run the 'home' - in many ways a work life balance choice.
Within a very short period I now have to look at retiring at a much later date. I was into my 'retire at 60' plan when all of the changes came about. There is simply not enough time to change course and establish another plan.
I would ask if you can consider this argument and put it into the debate to support this group of women.