Citywire for Financial Professionals
Stay connected:

View the article online at

Government offers women concession on pension age rise

The government is to delay a rise in the state pension age (SPA) for women by six months to reduce the impact on those hit hardest by the plans.

Government offers women concession on pension age rise

The government is to delay a rise in the state pension age (SPA) for women by six months to reduce the impact on those hit hardest by the plans.

The decision follows a barrage of criticism from women and pensioners' groups that the reforms would result in around 500,000 women older than 55 having their pensionable age rise more than a year – and in some cases two years – overnight. The speed of the changes would not allow those nearing the end of their careers to make other plans to fund their retirement, critics said.

Welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith also announced today that the pensions bill currently before parliament would be amended to limit to 18 months the increase in the state pension age to which women will be subject.

Last year the coalition government accelerated previous Labour government plans that would have aligned the state pension age for men and women at 65 by 2020, and then raised it to 66 in 2026.

As part of measures to cut the country's budget deficit, the coalition said the SPA for women would reach 65 by November 2018 and rise to 66 for men and women by April 2020, six years earlier than originally planned.

Today's compromise will see the second date shifted back six months to October 2020.

Duncan Smith said: ‘We have listened to the concerns of those women most affected by the proposed rise in state pension age to 66 and so we will cap the increase to a maximum of 18 months. We have always made clear that we would manage any change fairly and ensure any transition is as smooth as possible.’

Pensions minister Steve Webb said: ‘We want to end the uncertainty for women waiting to learn what their state pension age is and we will be communicating with those affected so that they can properly plan for their future.’

State pensions will cost the government an extra £45 billion by 2025 because of the guarantee to uprate the basic state pension by whatever is highest out of earnings, prices or 2.5%.

11 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Linda Green

Oct 13, 2011 at 17:17

a slight concssion, but this is still crap. If we had paid into a private pension years, then the contract terms were changed at the last minute, we woould be taking the company to court.

report this


Oct 13, 2011 at 17:54


Now for the other angle. It's sex discrimination. Since the last case was to the government on the grounds they would change the rules, and now they are reneging on that, time perhaps for another court case. With back pension for men who have been discriminated against.

report this


Oct 13, 2011 at 18:18

I am with you Nickie.

The equality issue has been around for years, a couple of decades at least, but woman, who live longer, on average, still wanting to retire at 60, 5 years earlier than a man and even now they are bitching because they 'didn't' foresee this. Is this so that they can be more equal?

They have been getting an equal pension for years, but paying less to achieve it, that isn't equality, but discrimination.

report this


Oct 13, 2011 at 19:15

Linda, I TOTALLY agree - it has seemed like breach of contract, particularly for those of us who had made our 39 year+ contributions on the basis that we would get our pension at 60.

report this

Ann D

Oct 13, 2011 at 19:26

If this change had been forced on the male population with as little notice there would be outrage and definately a court case....whilst some of you feel that equality is needed, fine, but the break in period could be far more gradual and equitable, this change in the goal posts for women over the age of 55 leaves little chance of making meaningful additions to their pension funds, particularly in the present climate.....I suggest IDS try a sex change and see how he would cope with the new pension rules!!!....ah!!! silly me, on his income it wouldn't make any rule for the well off and another for the rest of us!

report this


Oct 13, 2011 at 21:53

The blob was dropped when women were allowed to retire at 60 & men were left to stew until 65.

Particularly when men die 5 years earlier, on average.

The rest is history, has anyones future plans not been disrupted?

report this

Araceli Gonzalez

Oct 13, 2011 at 22:45

And what about the existing discrimination about the pay rates, because it is a fact that men get paid more than women, so since women enter the work force and had demostrated over decades can perform better job than men, we still get screwed... and for what the comment about men dieing 5 year earlier tha women, those are statistics that does not change the mean of working time for life is still higher record in women then men, depite statistics who perform better and keep the conomy going?.. but still get discriminated in SPA and pay rate

report this


Oct 13, 2011 at 23:51

All they have to do is keep working for a bit longer just like men have to. No more put out than it is for men. If they wanted to be fair they would change the policy for men to be the same as women and allow men to retire earlier in the mean time.

report this


Oct 14, 2011 at 09:26

You can imagine the furore if it had been suggested that men retire at 60 because on average they die 5 yrs earlier. Which would have been fairer and had some logic unlike what happened.

The feminists would have been apoplectic.

You can see the weakness of their argument when they claim they are more productive, even when admittedly they work less in the economy

Poor mistake moving it to 60 because they created a problem moving it back and beyond

report this

Rose G

Oct 14, 2011 at 09:27

My fight for equality is to be like the hard headed barstewards who are currently determined to write off a whole generation of young people!

Really, there is no equality - life is unfair & the only thing guaranteed is that the same barstewards who make the regulations, are screwing every penny out of the public services, are doing the same to ordinary households - we ain't seen nothing yet of the cuts to our services to come, as Cameron mounts his high horse, steadfast in his belief that his ideology fed to him by his nanny together with his bottled milk, is the only way!

We are about to face even more changes than ever - our pensions are not guaranteed - they can change their minds whenever, wherever & the problems just mount up, but who is going to tell them about the elephant in the room - we will be bringing back rationing soon, when the eurozone eventually goes finally & irrevocably bust.

While on the one hand we are encouraged to live within our means, neither politicians nor their stooges seem to pay any attention to this - T Blair has never lived as royally as he is doing now & for what exactly? People are paying him thousands to speak at their seminars - seriously, anything he says, you should take with a large dose of salt, inspite of it increasing your blood pressure!

We are but tools for the government to bring about their ideology - we are but as nothing. As soon as this information permeates our brains, we will continue to be delusional.

We may not have a Mugabe fecking up our economy, what who needs Bob when we have King, sitting in his counting house, printing out his fake money to shore up a fake house of cards, about to meet its demise?

If QE1 did not do the trick as no conditions were attached to the monies before the banks were bailed out, why on earth should it work the 2nd time around? The little pension we can expect will be worth very little. I can see myself paying out tens for toilet paper, heaven knows what food will cost before this government are through with their austerity for the minions policy is completed!

report this


Oct 18, 2011 at 10:05

If QE1 did not do the trick as no conditions were attached to the monies before the banks were bailed out, why on earth should it work the 2nd time around?


What makes you think there were no conditions? There were. Vince Cable saw to that.

Banks could borrow from the government. However, Vince then says they have to have more capital. So the banks are forced to loan the money, back to the government, so it can carry on spending.

There were conditions, just not the conditions you wanted.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

The Citywire Guide to Investment Trusts

In this guide to investment trusts, produced in association with Aberdeen Asset Management, we spoke to many of the leading experts in the field to find out more.

Watch Now

Today's articles

Tools from Citywire Money

From the Forums

+ Start a new discussion

Weekly email from The Lolly

Get simple, easy ways to make more from your money. Just enter your email address below

An error occured while subscribing your email. Please try again later.

Thank you for registering for your weekly newsletter from The Lolly.

Keep an eye out for us in your inbox, and please add to your safe senders list so we don't get junked.


Fund managers lick wounds after Conviviality collapse

by Daniel Grote on Apr 23, 2018 at 14:05

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet