Written evidence submitted by Jane Langfield
I am emailing you in your role as a member of
the Treasury Committee, to ask you to oppose, the gross injustice
being perpetrated on a small group of women, myself included,
announced in the Spending Review. This affects all women born
during the 12 months after 6 April 1953 some of whom will be your
constituents and many probably still unaware of the injury done
to them as there has been almost no TV coverage.
Until this week I was due to receive my state
pension on 6 March 2018, just two weeks ahead of my 64th birthday.
As from today I will receive my pension two years later—this
with less than seven and a half years to the date when I had been
due to collect my pension.
The acceleration in the state pension age for
women places an intolerable and wholly disproportionate burden
on women of my age. I will now receive my pension 6 years later
than women aged 4 years older than me, 3 years later than a woman
just 1 year older than me. This leaves little time, and given
the present economic situation, very little opportunity to recoup.
The right to a state pension should surely include
an element of certainty and predictability. The current transitional
timetable to increase the SPA was announced in 1995, giving the
first group of women affected by the change 15 years notice of
up to a year's delay in receiving their pension. This week men
were given nearly 10 years notice of a one year delay whereas
women born in 1954 have been given less than seven and a half
year's notice of a delay of at least TWO years. This is grossly
discriminatory and I call on you to oppose it vehemently and insist
the Chancellor rethinks this timetable.
I firmly believe that the Government have chosen
to accelerate the State Pension Age for Women in order to appease
the men involved in the Parity movement. Women aged 56 have been
sacrificed quite blatently and unfairly in order to avert a confrontation
with larger numbers of male workers, despite the unspeakable injustice
ensuing. It is scandalous and must be challenged by all right
thinking people, both men and women.
In fairness to myself and all other women in
this situation a better alternative would be to keep to the existing,
already draconian, transitional timetable for Women's pensions
and extend it until 2022 at which point both men and women would
receive the state pension at 66. If the Government fears litigation
then it could choose to delay the rise in SPA for men to 2022
as well.
I would appreciate knowing that you intend to
fight this injustice on behalf of the women, including your own
constituents, who will suffer this hideous injustice.
November 2010
| 
