I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of state pension age equalisation on women born in the 1950s.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who was the first MP to raise this issue in Parliament in this Session. The debate is about the effect of the changes to the state pension age imposed on women born in the 1950s by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011, and I will focus on three areas: the acceleration of changes to the state pension age; the lack of appropriate notification from the Government; and the impact of the changes.
State pension age equalisation started with the 1995 Act. The then Conservative Government set out a timetable to equalise the pension ages for men and women at 65. From April 2020, women born in April 1955 or later would get their pension at 65. In May 2010, the coalition agreement stated:
“We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”
That pledge was broken when the coalition Government decided to accelerate the planned changes, a move that would particularly hit women born in the 1950s.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the people who are treated most iniquitously are those born in 1954? My constituent Michele Carlile of Hanger Hill says that an extra six years were hiked on to her pension age with no warning. That generation did not have the equal opportunities that created independent pension funds, and they did not have free nursery places; they had bad divorce settlements from men. This is another example of how this Tory Government have treated women shoddily.
I agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for making those points so early in the debate.
The changes brought about by the 2011 Act affect the lives of millions of women born in 1954 and throughout the 1950s who are unfairly bearing the burden and the personal costs of increasing the state pension age. The changes were controversial at the time, and there was great debate about the need to address the unfair consequences of the Act. Speaking to Channel 4 News in May 2011, the director general of Saga said:
“Men won’t have any increase before 2018 and no man will have his pension increased by more than one year. Half a million women will. We accept that the pension age will have to rise but it is the timing and the broken promise that we feel is unfair. No money will be saved during this Parliament, so it’s got not about cutting the deficit. We don’t need to hurry this through to have a sustainable pension system…Many women are furious and desperate about how they are going to manage, particularly the more vulnerable women who may already have retired, who may be ill or be caring for someone. They may have made careful plans for retirement, only to have the Government pull the rug from under their feet. They can’t just work for longer, because they may have retired already.”
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this important issue, which has crept up on many of us and affects many more women that many hon. Members will have appreciated. Does she agree that, whatever one thinks about raising the pension age, probably the most scandalous thing is the lack of notice given to women? The 650,000 women most affected by the speed-up were born between April 1953 and 1955, and they have effectively been told between the ages of 57 and 59, a matter of months ahead, that their pension age is now no longer 60. For them, planning is just not possible.
The hon. Gentleman was here in 2011, when some of the affected women lobbied their MPs about the proposals in the then Pensions Bill. Saga commented:
“Putting pensions on a sustainable long-term footing does not justify the sudden increase being imposed on one group of women at such short notice”—
that is exactly the point he raises—
“especially when the Government knows that these particular women are more vulnerable than men and have little or no private pension wealth. Also, many are already out of the labour market and have made careful plans for their future, which are now in disarray.”
Ironically, the then director general of Saga is now the Conservative Minister for Pensions in the other place. When I wrote to her on behalf of a constituent earlier this year she told me:
“I tried hard in 2011 but there is nothing more I can do I’m afraid. It is not in my power.”
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. At the time, many of us pointed out the iniquities of the proposals. I commend her on continuing to try hard and on not giving up as quickly as the noble Lady appears to have done.
My hon. Friend spoke on Second Reading of the 2011 Pensions Bill, which I will address later.
Perhaps the Pensions Minister would benefit from understanding her powers. She was appointed after the general election, but her powers include the power to argue for changes needed to remedy injustice. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will focus on that injustice. The changes made in the 2011 Act were controversial, and hon. Members from all parties raised the particular impact that the changes would have on women born in the 1950s. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly referred to transitional arrangements on Second Reading, including, I think, in answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). The Secretary of State said:
“I recognise the need to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly…I say to my colleagues that I am willing to work to get the transition right”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 50.]
The changes were not managed fairly, and the Secretary of State did not put transitional arrangements in place, which is why I applied for this debate to discuss the issues caused by the changes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and every day now we are seeing issues that disproportionately affect women in this country. I spoke to two wonderful people from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign in my office on Friday, and they explained that they have not had any confirmation of any changes at any time. Surely that cannot be the case in this day and age. They should have received notification of the changes. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I am proud that my hon. Friend is continuing the fight on behalf of the Opposition to seek justice for these women.
I agree that a great injustice is being done. The lack of notice has been mentioned, but there is also a lack of information for pensioners’ groups. The pensioners’ parliament of Northern Ireland has recently visited the House of Commons, and it has held joint meetings with its equivalent in Scotland. The information is very light, and more consultation is needed. We need to do something about this.
The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the key points in the debate is that women born in the 1950s who are affected by the 1995 and 2011 Acts have had neither transitional protections nor appropriate notification of the changes that are now having such a significant impact on their lives.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In relation to people affected by the 1995 Act, Steve Webb said that
“I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time. Although it was all over the papers at the time”.—[Official Report, 8 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 54WH.]
Inadequate notice was given, which is totally unacceptable.
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for applying for this debate with me, so that we could get time allocated for it.
I turn to the conclusions of Paul Lewis, a financial journalist, on the notification of the changes undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions, because notification is a key issue. He has investigated it thoroughly, alongside campaigners from Women Against State Pension Inequality. He has written:
“Millions of women had their state pension age delayed—in some cases twice and by up to six years in total—without proper notice. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the details of how they were informed of the changes which have now been obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions.”
Paul Lewis reveals quite a detailed list of those changes, writing:
“The Government did not write to any woman affected by the rise in pension ages for nearly 14 years after the law was passed in 1995.
More than one million women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 were told at age 58 or 59 that their pension age was rising from 60, in some cases to 63.
More than half a million women born 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1955 were told between the ages of 57 and nearly 59 that their state pension age would be rising to between 63 and 66.
Some women were told at just 57½ that their pension age would rise from 60 to 66. Women were given five years less notice than men about the rise in pension age to 66”.
He goes on to say:
“The Government now says that in future anyone affected by a rise in state pension age must have ten years’ notice.”
Indeed, the Pensions Commission has said:
“We have suggested a principle that increases in SPA”—
that is, state pension age—
“should be announced at least 15 years in advance.”
However, Paul Lewis concludes that none of the 1950s-born women had even 10 years’ notice,
“nor did the men affected by the change.”
Women who have planned for their retirement suddenly find that they have to wait up to another six years before they can retire. Many find themselves without a job, without a pension or pensioner benefits, and without money to live on. Many of the 1950s-born women affected by the changes are living in real financial hardship, and they feel betrayed by the Government.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am staggered to hear of the abject failure in notification and even more staggered to hear that the Pensions Minister does not feel able to do anything about it. Surely at the very least the Government should be able to ensure that these kinds of mistakes are not repeated in the future?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this incredibly important matter. Does she agree that actually a political choice has been made? That political choice is that it is the women who will have to carry the entire burden of arranging their own transitional arrangements. For example, she mentioned that a comparatively small number of these women might have small pension pots. I have already had a number of women say to me that what they will do is use their pension freedoms to wholly draw down their pension, compromising their long-term future so that they can put in place their own transitional arrangements. That cannot be right.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right and I will come on to cases of how people are managing, citing my constituents and other people I have heard from.
Some of the women affected have been hit twice: by the original proposals in 1995 and by the acceleration of the changes through the Pensions Act 2011. Now they are angry and feel that they are bearing a disproportionate burden, as the hon. Gentleman has just said.
The acceleration of the changes to the state pension age can mean that women born just months apart, and who were possibly in the same class group at school, receive their state pension at very different ages. In some cases, a one-year difference in date of birth can mean a woman will receive her state pension three and a half years later than other women. The campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality tells me that it is not campaigning against the equalisation of the pension age in itself; I think hon. Members will understand that that equalisation was going to happen. It is opposed to the way the changes have been enacted and to the lack of transitional protection for the women born in the 1950s who are hit hardest by the changes.
The women affected put their faith in a state pension system into which most of them had paid all their working lives. They expected that they would be treated fairly and that they would be told about major changes with sufficient notice. However, most of them were given short notice of these changes and some of them have received no information at all. The women affected believe that the Government have failed in their duty of care by not taking reasonable steps to ensure that they were notified individually and in a timely way. They have been left with inadequate time to plan for a major change to their financial circumstances, which has caused great uncertainty and worry for those who have been planning for retirement.
A number of constituents have given me examples that show the significant impact these changes are having on their lives. One of them has worked for more than 44 years and raised two children. She suffers with osteoarthritis. She tells me she that she suffered the indignity of having to attend the jobcentre, only to be told that she was entitled to just six months’ jobseeker’s allowance. Now she is unable to find work and has to use her hard-earned savings, which is a similar point to the one that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) made earlier. My constituent told me:
“I must watch my savings dwindle on living costs rather than enjoyment, I wish I had not bothered being frugal all my life, as by the time I get my pension I will be broke or dead.”
Another constituent, Christine, is 61 and has worked since she was 15. She has osteoarthritis in both knees and has had a knee replacement. She cannot apply for her pension until 2019 and she told me:
“I am one of those women you would say is ‘old school’. Worked hard all my life, no maternity leave, no help with child care, just got on with it. Carrying on working thinking you will retire at 60, but since then my retirement age has changed 3 times. There is no guarantee it will not change again. I will probably be dead before I am able to retire.”
Another told me:
“At the age of 61, I find myself unemployed…If the Government had not moved the goalposts, I would have been able to retire last year. How are you supposed to live on £75 a week?”
She tells me that she has a mortgage and her outgoings are double the size of her income.
A constituent of a colleague told me that she was born in 1954, which is similar to the case already raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), and that she was given only two years’ notice of the changes to state pension age. She is supported by her husband now, as she has no income of her own. She suffers mental ill health and has been unable to cope with the assessment process for employment and support allowance.
Case after case that I have been told about show how many women in their early 60s have health problems that stop them working, or that they need to give up work to care for someone else.
In an article on the gender gap in pensions, the Fawcett Society points out that the Chancellor appears to be delighted with the savings he made from his policy on state pension age equalisation, despite the really negative effects on women born in the 1950s, which I have been outlining. Speaking of the Government’s changes at the Global Investment Conference 2013, he said:
“These changes…the savings dwarf almost everything else you do, I mean they are absolutely enormous savings. You’re not necessarily reducing the entitlement of people who are retired, you’re just increasing the age at which that retirement entitlement kicks in”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government need to stop seeing people as just anomalies on a spreadsheet? The cases that she has highlighted are those of real-life individuals, and apparently there are 300,000 people born between 6 December 1953 and 5 October 1954 who have been hit twice by Tory pension changes, and these issues need addressing.
Indeed, and as I was just saying, the Chancellor made the comment:
“You’re just increasing the age at which that retirement entitlement kicks in”.
He went on to say:
“It was actually one of the less controversial things we have done”—
“and yet it has probably saved more money than anything else we have done.”
That relates to the point that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made about “choice”.
In view of the fact that in the autumn statement we heard the Chancellor crowing about all the money he had found down the back of the sofa, should we not just learn lessons for the future but demand that something is done for these women, particularly those who have been hit multiple times and who have had their retirement extended by six years?
I agree with the hon. Lady.
As with the tax credit cuts that the Chancellor has just been forced to abandon, it is clear from a comment such as the one I have just quoted that he does not understand the impact of his policies on those affected by them. He does not understand what it really means to
“just increase the age at which that retirement entitlement kicks in”.
I have a constituent who is now forced to live off her savings after working and paying national insurance for 44 years, and another who is unemployed at the age of 61 and trying to live on £75 a week. Another constituent aged 61 has paid into national insurance for 44 years. She has been on sick leave, and when she moved on to half pay she was told that she had to start going to the jobcentre, where the staff treated her without dignity or respect. After 44 years, she still has to pay national insurance even though she is only on half pay. I have spoken to women who in their early 60s have been forced on to the Work programme. They find that demeaning after putting in a lifetime of work and contributions.
Other women have raised other important issues. Moving the pension age means missing out on pensioner benefits—even such things as a bus pass. That is difficult when an older partner has a bus pass and the 1950s-born woman does not and has to wait six years to get one. There is also no uniformity about concessionary bus travel, which is available at 60 in London, but not in other areas. The woman who told me that has to pay £7.50 to travel by bus to hospital. The women forced to wait until 65 or 66 for their state pension do not get free prescriptions either, and I have talked about the many health conditions which make that a key issue. Waiting up to six years for a state pension and other pensioner benefits will also hit carers who give up work to care. Carers UK tells me that women approaching pension age are much more likely to have caring responsibilities than men. One in four women aged 50 to 64 has caring responsibilities, compared with one in six men. A significant number of women with caring responsibilities decide or feel forced to retire early.
Indeed. As we are living longer, so the number of carers is increasing. A Carers UK survey this year found that nearly a third of the female carers who responded and who were aged 60-plus said that they had retired early to care. The problem for women who fall into that group is compounded because, as Carers UK knows, retiring early in itself has a long-term impact on family finances. Of female carers aged 60-plus who retired early to care, 36% said that they were struggling to make ends meet, and of those struggling 40% were using their own savings to get by. Marian, a campaigner from Women Against State Pension Inequality—or WASPI; it is remarkable how that is abbreviated—contacted me yesterday. She has given up work at the age of 62 to care for her mother and brother, both of whom have dementia. Her only source of income is a small private pension of £2,500. Her husband will have to support her until she is 65. Marian tells me she only found out about her changed state pension age when she looked it up online.
That is absolutely true. The two years’ notice is clearly an issue when someone is deciding to retire to care for two people with dementia, particularly when looking after two people with dementia saves the state a great deal of money.
There are many such stories and examples. By not providing adequate notice of the change and by speeding up the process without putting in place any suitable transitional protection, the Government are failing to support the women born in the 1950s who are affected by their policies. Having promised much during debates, the only concession the Government made was to ensure that the additional increase in the state pension age could not be more than 18 months, but that small concession is of little comfort to those women who were not even informed of the change until very close to the age at which they expected to retire. They have worked hard and contributed to the system.
Throughout their lives, this generation of women has been disadvantaged in the workplace in terms of pay because of their gender. Even now, women in their 60s earn 14% less than men. Many of the women do not have private pensions. Until 1995, women who worked part-time were not allowed to join company pension schemes, and others did not qualify because they took time away from work owing to ill health or a caring role. Very many have no other sources of income, and they now find that once again they are being treated unfairly because of the way changes to the state pension have been enacted and because they are women.
I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and to look at ways of providing adequate transitional protection —the transitional protection that his ministerial colleagues repeatedly mentioned in the debates on the Pensions Act 2011.
Thank you, Mr Davies. I was not expecting to be called quite so early. It is a pleasure to join this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing it. The key issue today is communication. I do not think anyone is arguing about the general move towards the equalisation of pension ages. Indeed, most of the decisions were made in 1995, as the hon. Lady pointed out. The issue is about how the women affected were communicated to and when.
The hon. Lady is right to say that women born after April 1953 had their state pension age increase accelerated under the previous Government. Paul Lewis referred to the three waves of women affected by the changes. Nothing changed for the first wave—the 1950 to 1953 group—but things changed for women born after April 1953. It is correct to say that the state pension age was accelerated for them.
Coming back to the point on communication, it is interesting that in recent evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the previous Pensions Minister said that it was unclear to him at exactly what stage people affected by the 1995 Act were written to. The Minister here today referred at DWP questions to a letter writing campaign from 2009 to 2010. Can he say more about that? For example, does his Department believe that that was the first stage at which women affected were written to, or was there an earlier campaign before 2009? That would be interesting to know. To some extent, the decision in December 2013 to give people affected by future pension changes,
“at least 10 years’ notice”,
shows that the DWP has taken on board the point the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South made on lessons learned.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the principle of equalising the pension age is not what is at stake in this debate. Given the clear confusion on who was told what and when, and the fact that such changes could not be made in such an accelerated fashion now for the very reason that he just mentioned, does he not agree that some form of transitional relief should be looked upon favourably? As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, it is not just the amount of pension, but the delay in other benefits, such as bus passes and free prescriptions, that negatively impacts on those women who happen to have fallen foul of the changes, simply because of when they were born.
That is a perfectly valid point that is clearly part of the WASPI campaign, and the Minister will want to comment on it. “Transitional arrangements” is both a comfortable phrase and something with significant financial implications, and he will want to discuss that.
If the hon. Gentleman looks back at Second Reading of the Pensions Act 2011, he will see that the Secretary of State promised transitional protection again and again. It was not just mentioned in passing; it was how he dealt with a lot of the interventions about the issues.
I want to reiterate the communication issue, which is exactly what people were annoyed and fed up with on the doorsteps and when I spoke to women in my constituency in Eastleigh. They had worried and planned and made provision for their future, but the change to their future had not been communicated to them. They had not expected to face hardship because they were women and had been subjected to poor communication. I hope the Minister will tell us what we can do for this group of women who are very much affected by the multiple hit.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Communication is at the heart of the matter. Part of the issue is about this almost impossible question: who really did receive what? I know that part of the WASPI campaign is about the many people who have said they never received the letter at all, and that will be a hard thing for the Minister or the Department to quantify. Paul Lewis, whom we saw at the Select Committee recently, said of the letters in his paper:
“Even those which did reach the correct destination may not have been read–‘more bumph from the government’ is a common reaction to such things.”
If a communication arrives at the destination but is not read or is swiftly recycled, that is a hard thing for the Government to deal with. Whether there are more effective electronic ways of communicating now that can be recorded, I do not know, but the Minister may wish to comment on that.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the point about the situation that women born in the 1950s find themselves in. There are some really difficult situations. There is no doubt about that. I can see that there is quite a good team here today in the Public Gallery to testify to that. Indeed, a lot of my own family are directly affected. None the less, because pensions are fiendishly complicated, it would be useful if the Minister could share with us some aspects of the current pensions situation, which might in a curious way help women born in the 1950s.
For example, there is a very generous rate of deferral under the old state pension system that would be applicable to women born in the 1950s. This advantageous rate means that someone can increase their pension by more than 10% a year if they defer taking the state pension. A woman born on 6 April 1951 could defer taking her state pension until the same date as her male twin by deferring for four years and thereby add more than 40% to her state pension for the rest of her life. Given the subsidised nature of the deferral scheme, many women who defer would end up with a better state pension than their male twin for the same national insurance record. That is quite a complicated thing to explain, but perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is correct and how it might benefit some of those affected.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that presumes that the female in question is physically able to put off taking the pension and continue working? Although females on above average incomes will have some difficulty in adjusting in such a short timescale, the females on an average or below average income would find it impossible to make the adjustment to which he refers.
I will, Mr Davies. I was just taking as many interventions as possible.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is absolutely right. The deferral scheme depends on the individual’s circumstances. None the less, the actuaries would tell us that, on balance, most women will live longer than us men and that the four-year deferral may therefore be extremely advantageous for some people. It is just one example of the technicalities that are worth thinking about.
In conclusion, today’s debate is really important. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South was absolutely right to have secured it. Women in their late 50s and early 60s are affected. There is a serious issue of communication. A lot of this will be hard to untangle, but if the Minister can shed more light on what did or did not happen between 1995 and 2009, that would help. There is a generic issue about what happens when Government communicate, but that communication is not read or is recycled. How can Government respond to that position of professed ignorance? Clearly, it would be fantastic if transitional arrangements could be delivered, but the financial cost may be considerable.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I do not want to repeat everything that has been said. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for securing this really important debate. I know that my constituents would want me to pass on their thanks to her for ensuring that their problems are discussed here. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who cannot be with us today, but whose contribution on this issue has been valuable. He was the first to raise the issue in Parliament—he has done so persistently—and he is doing a great job of representing his constituents.
I want to tell the story of one of my constituents. She is one of the many women born in the 1950s who have contacted me to ask for help with the financial dilemma they face with regard to state pension provision. My constituent’s story is typical of many women, and I want to tell Members how she has suffered because of the 1995 and 2011 Acts. She was never informed in 1995 that her state pension age was changing from 60 to 65. From her own reading and from information picked up from various sources, she was led to believe that she would receive her state pension at 62. She was not happy with the two-year deferment of her state pension, but, as she said to me, she was fit and healthy at the time and did not understand the magnitude of the changes. Her view is that we lived in a different world at that time. She says that the welfare state had not been mauled, and the safety nets that were there to assist the poor and the sick have now been removed.
Like a lot of working-class, low-waged people at that time, my constituent was dependent upon her state pension as her main source of income at retirement, although she hoped to be able to save a little bit of money to supplement that. Unfortunately, as time progressed, she began to suffer serious health issues and was forced to give up work. She was born in 1957 and is doubly unhappy that she will now have to wait until she is 66 before she receives her state pension. She has very little in the way of private pension provision. She is forced to live on a minimal income, suffering from ill health, with the prospect of having to wait until 2023—eight more years—before she qualifies for her state pension.
My constituent is just one of many women who have contacted me about women’s pension inequality. It affects so many women born in the 1950s. It has been a common issue raised with me on the doorstep, in my postbag and by email, and no answers seem to be forthcoming. The Government justify the increase in pension age by saying that life expectancy is increasing, yet there is a real north-south divide in life expectancy. It is predicted that by 2030, women living in Kensington and Chelsea will have a life expectancy of 91.2 years, but for women in Manchester, in the north-west, it will be 84.7. Yet no consideration is given to those inequalities in the national imposition of increases in the state pension age.
The women affected deserve to be treated fairly. I call on the Government to consider the unequal treatment of women born in the 1950s and the inadequate notice they were given of the increase in the state pension age, and to revisit the transitional arrangements for those women.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Indeed, it is a pleasure to follow the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), in which she cited examples of her own constituents who are affected.
I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), whose contribution touched on much of what she rightly said in a previous Westminster Hall debate on women and low pay, in which I had the privilege of summing up for the Scottish National party. She also touched on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) in a debate on guaranteed income for retirees led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). She made a great speech and set out the issues well. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the SNP agree with equalisation, but we do not support the unfair manner in which the changes have been made, and we want to see action on that. A transitional period is required to protect retirement plans for women. I thank the WASPI campaign and constituents in Airdrie and Shotts who have contacted me about this issue by email and on social media.
There are now three categories of people who are affected by the two legislative changes: women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 will, under the 1995 Act, have a pension age of between 60 and 63 by March next year; women born between 6 April 1953 and 5 December 1953 will, under the 2011 Act, have a pension age of between 63 and 65 by November 2018; and men and women born between 6 December 1953 and 5 April 1960 will have a pension age set by the 2011 Act of between 65 and 66 by October 2020. What a guddle.
The 2011 Act has affected around 5 million people in total—approximately 2.6 million women and 2.3 million men, who now have to wait longer to reach pension age. It is clear that women did not get a fair notice period and were not allowed enough time to prepare. Most of those affected by the 2011 Act have had only about five years to prepare. Pension planning should be lifelong and should not be made on the hoof as people approach retirement.
I am afraid I do not have time.
The lack of time to prepare is simply unfair. Age UK has said that the revised timetable for retirement allows
“insufficient time to prepare for retirement”,
as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) also said during the passage of the 2011 Act. With all due respect, it is for that reason that I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). These women are being financially penalised and let down on what they were promised for retirement.
Another issue is that women will be worse off than men, yet again. According to the Pensions Policy Institute, only 65% of women in the 55 to 59-year-old range and only 34% of women in the 60 to 64-year-old range are currently economically active. That means that women are in a poorer position to compensate for the changes through work, and it will be more difficult for them to save and plan for their retirement. More women are excluded from the scope of auto-enrolment, as well, so women will lose out further. Based on Department for Work and Pensions analysis published in 2013 and 2014, we can estimate that setting the threshold at £10,000, rather than the 2014-15 earnings limit of £5,772, excludes about 1.6 million people from the scope of auto-enrolment.
I sincerely hope that the Government will revisit the inequalities currently experienced by women born in the 1950s. The Minister can take steps today by agreeing to the terms of the WASPI petition and bringing forward the review from 2017 as a matter of urgency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate.
All the facts are in the briefing note from the House of Commons Library, “State Pension age increases for women born in the 1950s”, so I need only repeat them. The Government said that the acceleration in state pension age equalisation would
“reduce the advantage currently enjoyed by women over men as a result of a lower pension age and higher life expectancy”,
but, because of their higher average earnings, men may be in a better position than women to offset any loss by paying higher additional contributions. The people whose lifetime pensions will be most affected are men and women born in 1954 who are on low incomes and would have been entitled to pension credit, for which the qualifying age has also risen.
When the 2011 Act was before Parliament, Age UK expressed concern that the revised timetable could leave many with
“insufficient time to prepare for retirement”
and would cause particular hardship for certain groups. We have heard about many individual cases today. In general, 10 years’ notice of a state pension age increase is considered appropriate. The Pensions Commission suggested that 15 years’ notice should be given, and that was the amount given in the 1995 Act. In contrast, some of the people whose state pension age was increased in the 2011 Act received only five years’ notice.
What was done to notify people? In a House of Commons debate in October 2013, then Pensions Minister Steve Webb said that he recognised that not everyone affected by the 1995 Act had been aware of it. Information about the increase in the state pension age did not reach the group of individuals who arguably had the greatest need to be informed. Levels of awareness were even lower among women who were economically inactive or in routine and manual occupations—that fact comes from a 2004 Department for Work and Pensions research report. WASPI said:
“Significant changes to the age we receive our state pension have been imposed upon us with a lack of appropriate notification, with little or no notice and much faster than we were promised—some of us have been hit by more than one increase.”
What should happen now? WASPI says that the Government should make fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s. The Government do not agree. They believe that it was enough to revisit the state pension age arrangements for women affected by the 1995 or 2011 Acts and amend the original timetable to cap the maximum increase at 18 months rather than two years. WASPI does not accept that, those affected do not accept that, and I do not accept that. I urge the Minister to use what powers he has to review the matter urgently, in order to ease the hardship and desperate negative impact on those affected.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate. She and other Members have been comprehensive in their critiques and made many of the important points already, so I can be helpfully brief.
I, too, have been approached by a surprising number of constituents who were born in the 1950s and are affected by the changes to the state pension age for women. They make a number of complaints that have already been raised in the debate. First, they complain about the information that has been made available to them. A number have told me that they have never received any notification from the Government about certain changes to their state pension age, or, at best, very little by way of comprehensible information.
Secondly, they complain of unfairness in treatment because of the very sharp method of phasing in the changes. Their sisters, colleagues, or, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, even classmates who are not much older or younger end up with significantly different pension ages. Thirdly, some feel that they have received a double blow. Their pension age was changed back in 1993 and, having made adjustments, they have been stung again. They ask how that can be fair.
Finally, and most fundamentally, the speed of the changes is a serious issue. Having worked their entire lives under the impression that they would be able to retire on a certain date, instead many of my constituents are seeing that date getting further and further away. These women have not had a chance to plan for that change.
The Government reckon they will save some £30 billion between 2016 and 2026 thanks to the changes made in 2011. I urge them to use some of that money and to think creatively about how to resolve some of the complaints, smooth the transition, and tackle the injustice felt by many of my constituents and women across the country. It is important to state that my constituents are not asking the earth. They are quite realistic about what can and cannot be done and understand that there will always be winners and losers and that lines have to be drawn somewhere. Nevertheless, the reforms can be made fairer, and the Government should be doing much, much more to make them so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. There is not a great deal more that I can say, but I will try to add something. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who has campaigned assiduously on this issue and would have added greatly to the debate if he were here today.
There is no doubt in my mind that great hardship is being caused here. The unfairness and inequality stand out a mile. People have been hit twice—in 1995 and by the changes in 2011. One of the things that strikes me most clearly is that just because a person is born a few months either side of a particular date, they can lose out considerably. That patent unfairness is one of the key issues that my constituents have raised.
I have had numerous letters over the past few years about this issue. In October, a group of my constituents who support the WASPI campaign came to my advice surgery and set out starkly how the issue has affected their lives. That struck home to me how difficult and how much of a burden it is for women—particularly those in the 53 to 55 age group. They stressed that the main issue—some did not oppose the rise—is the way in which the change was implemented and the lack of personal notification in 1995 and 2011. Those aged 53 to 55 have been hit hardest.
My constituents also spoke about the financial hardship—we have heard examples of that today. Women in that period who became pregnant left work and, in many cases, never went back. That generation’s circumstances were different, in terms of the help and support they got and their ability to work. One of the key points that my constituents made to me is that they had no time to re-plan their lives; they reiterated that time and again.
The only available information was in the media, and that is not good enough. That seems to be part of the defence: the issue was discussed in the media and a few papers ran with it, so that is okay, but that is not good enough. The key issue for my constituents is not just that they are not able to plan, but that they have not been given enough time to add to their pension pots.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about the £27 billion leeway that the Chancellor found. This is a great example of how some of that money can be used, and if the money were used in that way, it would be reinvested back into the economy. The Government should look at that option and consider how they can recompense those women and make the change in a better way to ensure that they do not undergo financial hardship. I hope the Minister will revisit this issue.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Like others, I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for raising this important matter. The turnout in the Chamber reflects its importance.
This issue was first highlighted to me in my first surgery by a constituent who is very active with the campaign group WASPI. I pay tribute to WASPI for highlighting these concerns. Since then, I have been contacted by many other constituents. It is abundantly clear that many women were not properly informed about the Pensions Act 1995. This injustice was not caused just by the Pensions Act 2011; it was compounded by the Department for Work and Pensions’ earlier mistakes. Like others, I have constituents who face a delay in reaching the state pension age not of two years, but of what they feel is a six-year whammy, which clearly causes a lot of emotional distress.
I talk about the 1995 Act because it illustrates the seriousness of the predicament that many women face. They plan to retire at a certain age and work all their lives with that goal in mind, but at the last minute that is taken away from them and they are left with hard choices. Do they work longer, do they use their savings or do they use the pensions flexibilities to retire when they originally planned?
It is clear that this is another tax credit-type issue for the Government. The figures and numbers look good on paper, but behind the statistics are the personal stories of the people—in particular, women—who are affected by the legislation. Like tax credits, it is clear even in this Chamber that this is becoming a cross-party issue. The Government should take heed of it, and not continue to put their head in the sand.
The 2011 Act breached the Department’s guidelines, which state that increases should have a 10-year lead-in or warning. That lead-in period was halved in the 2011 Act for most of the people it affected. People of both sexes, but perhaps more women, were affected by the economic crisis and the 2008-09 recession. For many people at that time, early retirement seemed like the right thing to do, but they now have to wait longer to reach to state pension age. They thought they were doing the right thing. They planned and felt comfortable, but they face potential financial hardship and emotional distress. A crumb of comfort for those who live in Scotland is that the Scottish Government’s policy on bus passes and free prescriptions means that our constituents are slightly insulated. They are not affected by the state pension increase.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government are looking after pensioners with the triple-lock system and the new single-tier pensions. But believe me, that is of no comfort to the 5 million people affected by the 2011 Act, and in particular to women born in the critical period in the early 1950s.
The last-minute changes to the 2011 Act cost an estimated £1 billion. Considering the surplus that we hear the Chancellor has got, I suggest that another few billion pounds would not go amiss in rectifying this wrong. I strongly urge the Minister to look at concessional arrangements for the future.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate. She spoke with passion and demonstrated the human and social impact of the changes that will affect women in her constituency and throughout the United Kingdom. I thank all the speakers who have contributed to this debate. There has been a lot of passion and appreciation of the challenges that women face as a consequence of these changes.
I say respectfully to my colleague on the all-party group on pensions, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is passionate about pensions and knows a lot about them, that we accept that there are issues of communication here, but this is about not communication, but fairness. The Government must recognise that the transitional arrangements are not right, and, on the back of this debate, they must reflect on that and make changes.
Members on both sides of the House agree that it is important that we deliver fairness in pension provision. To that end, there is no doubt that the significant historical gender issues with pension provision need to be tackled. Although we have made progress, there are still substantial shortfalls in pension provision for women, and the challenge of securing dignity in retirement is affected by women’s longer life expectancy.
We have talked about communication and the women who have had multiple hits, but this issue is also about the fact that, during their working lives, those women had such difficulty in accruing a strong pension pot in the first place. Women who worked part time, as my mother did—my father died when I was quite young—were not able to contribute to a significant pension at all. My mother worked for the civil service in Belfast and was made to stop when she got married and had children. Women who got divorced, as she eventually did from my stepfather, got no decent share of a pension pot at all. Those women have faced prejudice through their whole lives, and now we want to solve the problem of equalisation on one tiny cohort of women. That is an unfair burden.
I absolutely agree. We are talking about the state pension, but my hon. Friend is right. That is why I referred to the gender issues in pensions. We must address not just this issue, but some of the other challenges that we face, such as the fact that women who work part time do not participate in auto-enrolment. There are many things we have to look at to ensure that women have dignity in retirement. Much has to be done.
The SNP warned about state pension age equalisation in the last Parliament, and it is disappointing that our concerns were not taken on board. I should state that we agree with equalisation, but we do not support the unfair manner in which the changes were made. A longer transitional period is required to protect women. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)stated in this chamber in May 2011:
“The issue is not only the pace of change. It is the context of a lifetime of low pay and inequality faced by many women, and the old-age problems that are a cumulative effect of that. The Government had an opportunity here to tackle women’s inequality in old age, but so far they have, instead, arbitrarily targeted women born in 1954.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 436WH.]
What created this injustice that many woman born in the 1950s are facing? Let us go over the facts. The Pensions Act 1995 provided for the state pension age for women to increase from 60 to 65 over the period April 2010 to 2020. The coalition Government legislated in the Pensions Act 2011 to accelerate the latter part of this timetable, so that women’s state pension age will now reach 65 in November 2018. The reason cited was the increase in life expectancy since the timetable was last revised. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, some people in the north of England, and indeed in Scotland, have a much lower life expectancy and will not receive the full benefits that the legislation mentions. It had initially been intended that the equalised state pension age would then rise to 66 by April 2020. However, due to concerns expressed about the impact on women born in March 1954, who would see their state pension age increase by as much as two years, it was decided that that should happen over a longer period, with the state pension age reaching 66 in October 2020. We must go further.
A shifting of the entitlement by six months was wholly inadequate. Indeed, I would say it was a mean-spirited move by a Government who have failed the test of fairness in treating the women caught up in the changes. With this Government, it is not about doing the right thing but about doing what they can get away with. No doubt the Minister will trot out the line that the money could not be found to create a longer transitional period, but it is all about priorities. When they can find £167 billion to spend on nuclear weapons, they can find the money to do the right thing and look after their pensioners. On this and so many other issues, the Government have a faulty moral compass.
Women affected by the 1995 and 2011 Acts fall into the following groups. Women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 have a state pension age under the 1995 Act of between 60 and 63 and reach state pension age by March 2016. Women born between 6 April 1953 and 5 December 1953 have a state pension age under the 2011 Act of between 63 and 65 and reach state pension age by November 2018. Men and women born between 6 December 1953 and 5 April 1960 have a state pension age set by the 2011 Act of between 65 and 66 and reach state pension age by October 2020. The 2011 Act affects around 5 million people—2.6 million women and 2.3 million men—who will now have to wait longer to reach state pension age.
Women did not get a fair notice period. The periodic state pension age reviews established by the Pensions Act 2014 seek to give 10 years’ notice. In 2005, the Pensions Commission suggested that
“a policy of significant notice of any increase (e.g. at least 15 years) should be possible”.
Why was that not delivered? The 1995 Act gave 15 years’ notice, did not take effect until 2010 and did not affect anyone aged 44 or over at the time of the announcement. However, some of those whose state pension age was increased by the 2011 Act received only around five years’ notice. That is simply not good enough. Those with the largest increases—18 months—got less than eight years’ notice. Age UK argued that the revised timetable could leave many with
“insufficient time to prepare for retirement.”
The previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, said that he accepted that the period of notice being given to some women was “the key issue”. He also said in a debate in October 2013 that he recognised that not everyone affected by the 1995 Act had been aware of it:
“I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 54WH.]
Is it not an obligation of Government to ensure that people are aware and can take action? Will the Government accept responsibility for that?
In a submission to the Work and Pensions Committee on the impact of the Government’s pensions reforms on men, the Pensions Policy Institute said:
“The previous changes legislated in the Pensions Act 2007 gave men an effective 17 years notice from the year in which the changes were legislated to the year in which the SPA increase started (2024). The current proposals are giving men just over 7 years of notice (2018).”
What a muddle. What a way to treat people who need to plan ahead for their old age. Within five years of the current state pension age of 65, only 54% of the male workforce is still economically active. It would be desirable to give 10 years’ notice because around 76% of men are still economically active within 10 years of the current state pension age of 65 and could therefore respond to the policy change by delaying their retirement if they need to.
The Pensions Act 1995 gave women an effective 15 years’ notice of the year in which the state pension age increase started, but the current proposals have limited that to five. Only 65% of women aged 55 to 59 are economically active, compared with around 76% of men, and only 34% of women aged 60 to 64 are currently economically active, compared with 54% of men. Quite frankly, those women do not have the time to put in adequate provision to compensate for the changes. The evidence suggests that policy makers should ideally give women more than 10 years’ notice of any future state pension age changes to allow them sufficient time to adjust their retirement plans or to save more while still working. The National Centre for Social Research stated in 2011:
“In 2008, fewer than half (43%) of the women who, at that point, would not be eligible for their state pension until they were 65 were aware of the planned change.”
Women cannot simply have their retirement age increased by four or six years without even knowing about it. Ultimately, it will lead to hardship, shattering retirement plans with devastating consequences, including poverty and ill health.
The change throws up the question of the position of women with multiple low-paid jobs in relation to automatic enrolment. Women will disproportionally suffer further under new changes to the state pension under the single tier when they have multiple jobs. More women are excluded from the scope of auto-enrolment and will lose out further. Employers are required to auto-enrol workers who are not already in a workplace pension scheme, are aged between 22 and state pension age and earn more than a minimum threshold. The earnings trigger for auto-enrolment was initially set at £5,035, with contributions paid from the same level. However, it has since increased on a number of occasions and is now £10,000, with contributions paid from a lower level—the national insurance lower earnings limit, which was £5,824 in 2015-16. Based on Department for Work and Pensions analysis, we can estimate that the threshold of £10,000, rather than the 2014-15 lower earnings limit of £5,772, excludes some 1.67 million people from auto-enrolment, 77% of whom are women. The Government must revisit the inequalities felt by women born in the 1950s and they must do so immediately.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. The degree of interest in it and the number of contributions are testament to its importance.
My hon. Friend spoke well both about the transitional arrangements and the importance of notice, highlighting the fact that some people had to wait 14 years for notice under the Pensions Act 1995. The human stories that she put forward are extremely important. She also pointed out one of the supreme ironies that we face in this debate: the Pensions Minister in the other place, Baroness Altmann, campaigned on this issue in 2011 and showed some ability to bring about concessions. Now she is actually in a position of power, however, she claims that she does not have the power to do anything about it. I will return to her in due course.
There were a number of other contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the issue of communication, and I hope that the Department and the Minister will be able to answer in detail about what steps have been taken in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) spoke passionately about her constituent and highlighted what I am afraid is the growing problem of the gap in life expectancy between the wealthiest areas of our country and the less wealthy areas. She pointed, too, to the issue of those born in the 1950s, the very generation that should have been able to benefit from the cradle-to-grave welfare state introduced by Clement Attlee’s Labour Government of 1945 to 1951.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) set out precisely the categories of people who are affected by the changes. He spoke well about the unfair manner of the notice that was given and about the issue of transitional provisions. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) also spoke well about notification and fairness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) highlighted well the issue of the generation born in the 1950s and the importance—which I will come back to—of people being given the time to plan their lives when changes in provision are made.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) brought out the point about emotional distress extremely well. I echo his compliments to WASPI and other campaign groups that are trying to do so much for women born in the 1950s and about the unfairnesses that they face.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) highlighted well the hardship for certain groups. She also made an important point about levels of awareness, which vary up and down the income scale.
We need look at the central issues of this debate: first, transitional provisions, and secondly, notice. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made the point about transitional provisions, but let us be absolutely precise about what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill on 20 June 2011:
“Let me simply repeat what I said earlier—it is a bit like a recording, but I shall do it none the less: we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]
I repeated that direct quotation to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a debate here in Westminster Hall on 17 November 2015. She promised that the noble Lady Baroness Altmann would write to me about it. The next day I tabled a written parliamentary question, and I received an answer from an Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). He said:
“Ministers discussed and considered transitional arrangements during the passage of the Pensions Bill 2011.”
Sadly, at the end of his reply he added:
“The Government will not be revisiting the State Pension age arrangements for women affected by the 2011 Act.”
I had that answer on 23 November.
In a letter dated 25 November, I received my answer from the Pensions Minister:
“To clarify, the Secretary of State made this comment when Parliament was considering the Pensions Act 2011. You will wish to note that, later on in that process, the Government made a concession to reduce the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their State Pension as a result of state pension age changes to 18 months.”
Sadly, she also added:
“The policy was debated and passed into law, and there are no new arguments to consider.”
Can the Minister understand the intense disappointment that there will be about that response? The concession mentioned will come as little comfort to those affected by the changes. I urge the Minister not to give up, but to look at what can be done on transitional provisions. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made the point well in his intervention—do not slam the door shut on the women affected, who were born in the 1950s, as the Pensions Minister appears to have been doing in her letter.
Deeper matters are at stake in this debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said that there is an issue about the ability of the affected generation of women to contribute to pension pots throughout their lives. Women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 are not eligible for a single-tier state pension; a man born on exactly the same day will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South brought out the dual impact of the increase introduced in the 1995 Act and the subsequent ineligibility for a single-tier pension—women have been affected not once but twice.
I put it to the Government that the issue of notice is fundamentally important. We talk about notice periods of 10 or 15 years because once people retire, their ability to top up their income is extraordinarily limited. Therefore, when we make changes to the pension age, it is vital that people are told about such changes in good time, so that they may change their lives to adjust to the new reality. That is the fundamental issue at stake. There is incredibly deep anger about the fact that appropriate notice was not given. I urge the Government not to turn their back on transitional provisions.
We have talked about the availability of money. I am one of the first people to say that there has to be an appropriate publicity campaign on auto-enrolment, but I raised my eyebrows slightly when I learned that in recent months the Department for Work and Pensions has spent £8.45 million on a multi-coloured teddy bear called Workie, which will apparently deal with the auto-enrolment awareness problem. It must be one of the most expensive teddy bears in British history.
The spending on the teddy bear is an indication of something deeper—the choices that the Government face. They can still make a choice to consider transitional provisions for those affected by the changes. I urge the Government to look again at transitional provisions, and not to slam the door on the 1950s women.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. I recognise that the subject is hugely important and I commend all the contributors, who have spoken eloquently and passionately. It has caused a huge amount of correspondence for all of us as Members of Parliament. In the course of my comments over the next 10 or so minutes, I shall address as many of the points made by colleagues as possible.
The debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government’s position on state pension age equalisation, in particular regarding women born in the 1950s. The acceleration of state pension age equalisation and the increase to the age of 66 under the Pensions Act 2011 achieved gender equality in state pension provision, while also saving more than £30 billion for the state, thereby ensuring the affordability and sustainability of our reformed pensions system. It is important to recognise that we must have a pensions system that is affordable and sustainable.
It is also important to remember that gender equality was one of the main purposes of the state pension age changes.
We have heard equality mentioned many times. The generation of 1950s-born women have not known equality in their lives, in pay or in pensions. Why should they carry the weight of the savings that the Minister has just lauded? Why should that group of women who have suffered so much inequality in their lives carry the weight?
I see that two or three Members are rising to their feet. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), but I have only seven or so minutes and I seek to address a number of points already raised. I therefore ask Members to be mindful of the fact that the more questions I take, the less I get to put on the record.
I will be brief. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but this is about fairness. It is about women having the time to make adjustments and the fact that the period for transitional arrangements is too short. Such changes have never taken place in such a short period in the past. That must be addressed and there must be fairness for women. That can only be done by lengthening the transition period.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about fairness and transition arrangements, and I will come to that, but I repeat the point that there is a cost to all of this. I am trying to make this apolitical, but given that so much political comment has been made against the Government and the previous coalition Government that my party, the Conservative party, led, I gently remind all colleagues not to forget that between the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 there was the small matter of a 13-year Labour Government, which seems to have been conveniently forgotten in everything said about communication, concessions and so on.
I do not know how the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government can be responsible for the 2011 Act, or indeed the 1995 Act. First, the Minister talks about equality in the present, but we are talking about inequality that has taken place in the past and been suffered by this generation of women. Secondly, transitional arrangements are transitional by definition, so they do not necessarily affect long-term sustainability.
The hon. Gentleman has said nothing that had not already been said, and I will refer to issues as I progress.
Equalisation was necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision. The five-year gap in men’s and women’s state pension age dated back to the 1940s and is not fair in a world where women’s employment opportunities have opened up and provisions are made for carers. I hope that all colleagues on both sides of the House agree with that.
The resources made available allowed the new state pension reforms to take place in the form that we have introduced, benefiting those women who would have had poor outcomes under the current system largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. About 650,000 women reaching state pension age in the first 10 years will receive an average of £8 a week more in 2014-15 earnings terms owing to the new state pension valuation of their national insurance record.
To encourage and enable those who want to work longer is a priority for the Government. That is the real solution to ensuring a comfortable and fulfilling later life. People having fuller working lives would not only help our pensions system to remain sustainable but could greatly benefit the economy. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that adding just one year to people’s working lives would add 1% to GDP a year.
Recent polling indicates that many people want to work longer. A YouGov survey has shown that 74% of people in their 50s who have not retired would like to be in work between the ages of 60 and 65. To help older workers in the labour market, the Government have extended the right of flexible working to all employees. In the same YouGov poll, more women than men said that they would prefer to work flexibly or part-time before retiring. Of course, working longer also provides the opportunity to build up a bigger retirement income.
We know that some people cannot work. For some, that is because they have caring responsibilities; others will suffer from disability, making the continuation of work difficult. We must remember that women affected will be eligible for the same in-work, out-of-work or disability benefits as men of the same age.
For those who cannot work because they have caring responsibilities, carer’s allowance will be available. Those who get carer’s allowance are also awarded national insurance credits automatically.
The Minister needs to understand that the question is not whether women born in the 1950s need more national insurance credits. Almost every WASPI campaigner I have met has 40 to 44 years of credits already. There is no question of their needing to pay any more national insurance.
I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for everyone. I am sorry that she derides the additional benefits that the Government have sought to introduce; I am sure that some women out there will appreciate the fact that, in 2011, credits were introduced to help grandparents and other adult family members who look after a child under 12 to help working parents. It is noteworthy that independent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the rise in women’s state pension age since 2010 has been accompanied by increases in employment rates for the women affected.
The reforms would leave more of those women, and their male counterparts, who really need the state pension better off than if we had retained the current arrangements. That is a better use of taxpayers’ money than spending on transitional arrangements, which will inevitably prolong gender inequality. I am minded to say that removing state pension age gender inequality is right.
When the first contributory state pension was established in 1926, men who reached 65 could expect to live for another 11.3 years. In 2014, however, a man who reached 65 could expect to live for another 21.5 years. Importantly, the Government listened to concerns expressed at the time of the 2011 Act and shortened the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension, relative to the 1995 timetable, to 18 months. That concession, which came after the speech by the Secretary of State on Second Reading that has been referred to, benefited almost a quarter of a million women who would otherwise have experienced delays of up to two years. A similar number of men also benefited from a reduced increase. The concession was worth some £1.1 billion in total, and, as a result, 81% of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less.
It is argued by some that these women were not given adequate notice of state pension age equalisation. I do not accept that. Following the 2011 Act, the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age, using the address details recorded by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the time.
I am conscious of time, I so will conclude. The decision to increase women’s state pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove the inequality. The achievement of this by 2018 was considered and approved by Parliament and there are no plans to make any policy changes.
I have only a minute to say what I want to say. A concession that affects only 250,000 women and saves £1 billion is nothing when there are £30 billion of savings and millions of women affected. A concession for 250,000 is not enough.
We have talked about the millions of women born throughout the 1950s living without pensioner benefits and often without income, so they are often working through their savings. Carers are hit very badly. Does the Minister think that he could live on carer’s allowance? I am sure he could not. There is opposition from all parties on the Opposition side, who will continue to fight this campaign. The Government must not close the door on 1950s-born women in the way they are seeking to do.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).