Spending Review 2010 - Treasury Contents

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

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 26 November 2010