Losing half your state pension not far away.

[Robin-H]

And yet the parliamentary report concluded that many women were unaware of the changes.

 

There appears to have been a failure to contact many of the women affected.

 

Define many.

 

92% of women with high levels of education were aware of the changes. That drops to 80% for women with low levels of education.

 

That implies that the failure to understand the pension age change isn’t down primarily to the government’s failure to send out information, but the lack of some people in taking notice of that information, unless you’re suggesting that the government decided to tell women based on their education levels.

[Cyclone]

That figure seems pretty high to me, but lack of communication of the original changes in 1995 isn't the primary complaint is it.

 

The Waspi movement has been at the forefront of this campaign, claiming that while the 1995 Conservative government's Pension Act included plans to increase the women’s state pension age to 65 – the same as men's – the changes were implemented unfairly, with little or no personal notice.

 

The group also claimed the changes were implemented faster than promised with the 2011 Pension Act and left women with no time to make alternative plans, leading to devastating consequences.

 

The acceleration of the changes with little notice and leaving no time to prepare is the primary complaint.

[bendix]

And yet the parliamentary report concluded that many women were unaware of the changes.

 

.

 

 

The report lays out the development of the changes, the moves government and DWP made to communicate the changes and it also presented lots of views from WASPI.

 

If there was any failure, it was the Labour government of 1995 who failed to communicate properly, but even that is unfair. The 2011 changes were communicated by letter to every single person affected, and more generally by advertising and other messaging. I'm a 54 year old man. I was aware of it.

 

In 2015 the then Pensions Minister said:

 

The first thing I would say is it is abundantly clear that there are a set of women—such as your constituents—who did not know. There is no question about that. Nobody is arguing about that. In fact, I know that, because when we wrote to them to tell them about the changes we made in the 2011 Act, which increased pension ages by up to 18 months, for some of them it was the first time they had heard about the 1995 Act, which increased their pension age by four and a half years or something like that. We got the flak for six years of pension rise. We had actually done, maximum, the last 18 months. I was determined in 2011, when we did the 2011 Act, to write directly first to those closest, the earliest, write personally and explain where they stood.

 

 

The real issue is not 'do they know?'. It is 'were they told?' It's clear some people didn't know, but it's not true they were not told. There is a difference.

 

The UK public is woefully ignorant and disinterested in pensions. We are all guilty of throwing things out that dont interest us, or ignoring messages that seem boring because they are about our pensions 25 years hence.

 

It is wrong to say they were not told. They were. They just didn't listen.

[Cyclone]

The governments own reports

 

In a March 2015 report on Communication of State Pension age changes, the Work and Pensions Select Committee concluded that “more could and should have been done” to communicate the changes and called on the Government to “explore the option of permitting a defined group of women who have been affected by state pension age changes to take early retirement, from a specified age, on an "actuarially neutral basis”.

 

The body itself that is being criticised acknowledges that it should have done more, yet there are people here defending it and saying it did enough...

Have you just got something against women receiving a fair pension?

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 11:01 ----------

 

The report lays out the development of the changes, the moves government and DWP made to communicate the changes and it also presented lots of views from WASPI.

 

If there was any failure, it was the Labour government of 1995 who failed to communicate properly, but even that is unfair. The 2011 changes were communicated by letter to every single person affected, and more generally by advertising and other messaging. I'm a 54 year old man. I was aware of it.

 

In 2015 the then Pensions Minister said:

 

The first thing I would say is it is abundantly clear that there are a set of women—such as your constituents—who did not know. There is no question about that. Nobody is arguing about that. In fact, I know that, because when we wrote to them to tell them about the changes we made in the 2011 Act, which increased pension ages by up to 18 months, for some of them it was the first time they had heard about the 1995 Act, which increased their pension age by four and a half years or something like that. We got the flak for six years of pension rise. We had actually done, maximum, the last 18 months. I was determined in 2011, when we did the 2011 Act, to write directly first to those closest, the earliest, write personally and explain where they stood.

 

 

The real issue is not 'do they know?'. It is 'were they told?' It's clear some people didn't know, but it's not true they were not told. There is a difference.

 

The UK public is woefully ignorant and disinterested in pensions. We are all guilty of throwing things out that dont interest us, or ignoring messages that seem boring because they are about our pensions 25 years hence.

 

It is wrong to say they were not told. They were. They just didn't listen.

 

There are multiple reports of women not having received letters...

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 11:13 ----------

 

Looking at the spreadsheets linked at the bottom of the parliamentary report link, the complaint must centre on these changes.

 

The 2011 act meant that women born between Sep-53 and Oct-53 (yes, that's one month)

went from an additional 3.5 years (under the 1995 act) to 4.5 years. These women were 58 at the time.

Everyone born from that period (Sep-53 up to Apr-59) became worse off by between 1 and 1.5 years.

The oldest of them at that time though that they were 5.5 years from retirement and it increased up to 7 years.

[bendix]

The governments own reports

 

 

 

The body itself that is being criticised acknowledges that it should have done more, yet there are people here defending it and saying it did enough...

Have you just got something against women receiving a fair pension?

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 11:01 ----------

 

 

There are multiple reports of women not having received letters...

 

QUOTE]

 

 

 

Correction. There are multiple reports of women saying they have not received letters that they were likely sent a decade or so ago. That is NOT the same thing at all.

 

When is enough communication enough? At what point do we stop spoonfeeding people and tell them . you know what, your pension is the most important financial issue of your life. YOU should take some bloody interest in it yourself.

 

At what point are adults expected to behave like adults?

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 11:21 ----------

 

As for the comment about not wanting women to receive a fair pension. What, exactly, is unfair about a process designed to make women get their pensions around the same time as men?

 

I thought you guys were all about equality?

[Cyclone]

The government has itself concluded that it should have done better, and yet you're defending it...

[bendix]

The government has itself concluded that it should have done better, and yet you're defending it...

 

 

I am, because the government (and it was the Labour government that made the change and undercommunicated in 1995, by the way) has to say this sort of pandering nonsense. It can't say - be responsible yourselves.

 

It was widely reported in the media. It was on the news. If people took an interest in their pensions they would have known about it in more than good time.

 

As I said, you can't do enough for some people - they are like adult babies.

[Robin-H]

I am, because the government (and it was the Labour government that made the change and undercommunicated in 1995, by the way) has to say this sort of pandering nonsense. It can't say - be responsible yourselves.

 

It was widely reported in the media. It was on the news. If people took an interest in their pensions they would have known about it in more than good time.

 

As I said, you can't do enough for some people - they are like adult babies.

 

Was it Labour? The Tories were in power in 1995..

[bendix]

Was it Labour? The Tories were in power in 1995..

 

My apologies. You're quite right.

[Cyclone]

It's the 2011 changes that are the real issue though.