As LibDem Green and Independent Spokesperson for Women, I was proud to second the important cross-party motion at Suffolk County Council last week which asked government to support fair transitional pension arrangements for 1950’s born women (the so-called #WASPI* women) See speech on YouTube here:
Women born in the 50s have lived throughout a period when the Equality Act didn’t result in equality of pay, opportunity, or expectation. They have been expected to make career breaks, and work part-time to bring up children and care for dependent relatives with all the subsequent difficulties of returning to equivalent work.
In 2017 a woman’s retirement income is on average 45% less than a man’s.
For years successive governments failed to warn women so they could better plan for their futures. But in the circumstances many women would have needed to have made a lifetime of different choices to make adequate preparation for this pension change.
The perfect storm is that WASPI women are now also 3 times more likely than their younger peers to be divorced and suffer financial pressure.
The motion, proposed by Labour stated: “This Council believes the Government should make fair and transitional state pension arrangements for the 34,000 Suffolk women born in the 1950’s, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age with lack of appropriate notification. This Council requests the Interim Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions calling on the government to reconsider transitional arrangements for women.” It was passed unanimously by Suffolk County Council with no abstentions.
*WASPI = Women Against State Pension Inequality
My speech: I’m proud to support the efforts of the WASPI campaign, and applaud them on their resilience and determination to make their case heard. As a State Pension Age affected woman myself born in the 1950s, as LibDem Green and Independent Spokesperson for Women, and as a full-time carer, I’m all too aware of the problems.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Retirement age changes take place in the name of equality – and everyone should want that!
But the devil’s in the detail. Women born in the 50s have lived throughout a period when the Equality Act didn’t result in equality of pay, opportunity, or expectation. Women have been expected to make career breaks, and work part-time to bring up children and care for dependent relatives with all subsequent difficulties of returning to equivalent work.
And lack of occupational pension, and breaks in state pension contributions has inevitable consequences. No surprise that in 2017 a woman’s retirement income is on average 45% less than a man’s – the differential £1000 GREATER than it was a year before. Shocking.
For years successive governments failed to warn women so they could better plan for their futures.
But -lets be honest – many women would need to have made a lifetime of different choices to make adequate preparation for this
By the time women are my age, 50% are already unpaid family carers: odds men don’t achieve until they are 75. And with life expectancy rising, the numbers needing care have snowballed. You don’t start out in life expecting to be a family carer. It comes up behind you and blackjacks you and conflicts with your capacity to earn..
So, change in retirement age impacts particularly on a whole generation of women that state and family have relied on to give up careers and occupational pensions to care unpaid for others.
And you can see how families, women, everyone might decide it better for family finances that the woman gave up work to care because she’d get the earlier state pension.
The perfect storm is that WASPI women are now also more likely than their younger peers to be divorced and suffer financial pressure. One in 3 are divorced – three times as many as those born 25 years later.
Says a 62 year old constituent ,“Make preparations? Many of my lifechoices were out of my hands but I still have to face the consequences “. Her husband didn’t want her to work after they married, but then left her – with minimal support and young children. She’d lost her place in the job market she trained in and the only work she could do was cleaning. Ill paid, laborious – but she could fit it around childcare. She’s been a cleaner for 17 years now, and expected to retire 2 years ago.
But she now has another 4 years to go.
She says “I’m worn out. You can’t manage such physical work till you’re 66. I have no choice.”
There are many such women facing years without a fair level of support, purely because the government failed in its duty to keep them fully informed – and failed to consider the constraints which an entire generation’s practices imposed upon so-called “life choices”.
I call upon all councillors of all parties to stand behind these women and support this motion