3,000 Yorkshire women facing timebomb of ‘lost’ pensions

Another 18,000 in the region will have to wait at least 18 months longer according to figures revealed today, prompting claims they have “had the rug pulled from under them” by Ministers.

Plans have been in place for some time to raise the women’s pension age from 60 to 65, in line with men, by 2020, giving them plenty of time to make preparations.

But in order to save more money from the spiralling pensions bill, the Government is now planning to raise the pension age to 66, starting from 2018 – despite having promised in the coalition agreement between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats not to do so for at leas two years beyond that.

The change leaves thousands of 56-year-old women born between March 6 and April 5, 1954, and who were expecting to have to work until they were 64 now having to stay on until they are 66 before they can draw their pension.

Labour Shadow Pensions Minister Rachel Reeves, the Leeds West MP who obtained the figures, accused the Government of “making a mockery” of the coalition agreement, which pledged to hold a review into when the pension age should be raised to 66 “although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women”.

Ms Reeves said: “The Government promised in the coalition agreement there would be no further changes to women’s state pension age before 2020, but their draft legislation makes a mockery of that.

“Instead, 21,000 women in Yorkshire will be forced to work an extra 18 months, with only seven years to prepare.

“The reality is this group of women have far less put by in savings and pensions because many have taken time out to bring up families and weren’t even allowed to contribute to many occupational pension schemes until the 1990s.”

Pensions expert Dr Ros Altmann, director-general of over-50s organisation Saga, has also called on the Government to rethink its plans, which are outlined in the draft Pensions Bill.

Dr Altmann said: “Women accept the need to equalise pension ages, but the timetable proposed is unfair. The outrage is clearly demonstrated in the countless letters that we have received from our members.

“Saga’s survey of more than 12,000 men and women over 50 reveals that 74 per cent said that even though the Government needs to raise money, the change in women’s pension age as proposed is not the right way to proceed. The Government urges people to plan carefully for their retirement. Yet women who did exactly that have had the rug pulled from under them by the Government itself.”

A total of 5.1 million people are set to be affected by the plans to increase the state pension age to 66 between 2018 and 2020, but women born between March 6 and April 5, 1954, will face the longest wait of two years – some 30,000 women nationally.

The change will cost them more than £5,000 a year in pension payments at the current rate of £97.65 a week. The poorest, who will also miss out on pension credit, could be £15,000 worse off after two years.

Labour had planned to raise the pension age to 66 by 2026, to 67 by 2036 and to 68 by 2046. It now says it can understand the first increase being introduced by 2022, though it argues there should be no changes before then.

Dr Altmann accused the Government of “suddenly moving the goalposts” and Saga is calling for the increase in pension age to 66 be delayed by two years until 2020, giving people more time to prepare.

“At the very least, surely the Government must limit rises in women’s pension age to ensure nobody suffers a rise of more than one year in pension age within ten years of their expected pension date,” she added.

Minister for Pensions Steve Webb said: “In a country where 10 million of us will live to be 100, we simply can’t go on paying the state pension at an age that was set early in the last century.

“Although women will experience the rise in the state pension age more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the state pension for longer, and our ‘triple guarantee’ means someone retiring today on a full basic state pension will receive £15,000 more over their retirement than they would have done under the old prices link.”