INEQUALITY is never a good thing in any area, and pensions are no different. However, while the idea of equalising the state pension age for women and men is in itself welcome, the way the government has gone about it has penalised hundreds of thousands of women who happened to be born in the 1950s, leaving many facing financial hardship.
The introduction of the changes started in 1995 and, although the Turner Commission recommended that affected women should be given 15 years’ notice, many have reported receiving none – a complaint highlighted in the case of Carol Inglis, which we report on today.
She had planned to retire when she reached 63, but then had to budget to finish work at 66. When she did the sums she discovered she would be losing around £24,000 – a shocking amount in anybody’s book.
In one sense she was lucky in that she had her health and a part-time enterprise which she turned into a full-time occupation, but others are not so fortunate.
There are countless cases of women caught in the “birthdate trap” who have been unable to make alternative financial arrangements after finding out their retirement age had risen by four, five or six years.
Some have reported working at three part-time jobs just to make ends meet, while others are losing precious time with grandchildren or other loved ones.
One thing they all have in common, though, is that none of it is their fault.
It is not unreasonable for the government to personally notify women about the pension reforms and give them enough notice to take action to avoid hardship.
The subject will be debated in the Commons early next month when a motion in the name of Westminster’s youngest MP Mhairi Black will call on the government to immediately introduce transitional arrangements for women who have been negatively affected by the pensions equalisation.
In a statement to us, the DWP said the abolition of the “discriminatory situation” of pension inequality was long overdue.
What we would prefer to see is a commitment to a course of action that would avoid the women involved being forced into financial difficulty.
95,000 back calls to help women affected by change to state pension age
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here