Women’s state pension age increases

Image result for one voice back to 60

VICTORY for campaign groups as High Court orders Judicial Review of Women’s State Pension Age Increases

A High Court Judge has granted a judicial review to determine whether recent increases to women’s state pension age were lawful.

The case was brought by BackTo60, a campaign group
representing women born in the 1950’s who have borne the brunt of recent increases to the state pension age.

Until 2010 women received their state pension at age 60. However, this has gradually been increased and currently state pension age is 65 for both men and women and will increase to 67 by 2028.

State pension ages rose faster for women, in order for them to be equalised with men’s.

BackTo60 and other campaign groups such as WASPI (Women Against State Pension Increases) argue that many women born in the 1950s were not warned of the changes and have suffered financial hardship as a result.

BackTo60 is campaigning for all women born during the 1950’s to have their financial position restored to the position it would have been, had the state pension age remained at 60.

Men have pension pots worth FIVE TIMES more than women at
retirement, a report reveals.

David Hencke, Westminsiter & Whitehall News Investigations writing on behalf of #BackTo60 reported

‘The fact that 50’s women  were robbed of their pensions  by raising the pension age is undeniable. But the biggest argument against putting this right has been the cost, a fact perpetually used by the present Pensions Minister, Guy Oppenman, who quotes the £70 billion plus figure.’

Recently I discovered that successive governments had taken a  decision  NOT to top up the fund as originally proposed by William Beveridge when the welfare state was set up in 1948.

What I did not know was how much money was lost. Now thanks to an
extraordinary paper prepared for the National Pensioners Convention by a social security expert Tony Lynes and still on the web, I now know…and it is staggering! The paper written 12 years ago by a man I personally knew as a fount of all knowledge on the benefit system  when I was social services correspondent on the Guardian. He sadly died, aged 85, in a car accident in 2014.

His calculation from beyond the grave is that for every year that the
government decided not to contribute to the fund it was deprived of
£11.3 billion. As he says:

‘Restoring the supplement at its pre-1981 level would bring an extra £11.3 billion a year into the Fund, enough to meet the gross cost of a £109 per week basic pension.’

We now know that virtually no money was paid into the fund by the Treasury for around 24 years from 1990 to 2014. I calculate, and this will be a conservative estimate because it doesn’t count the reduced contributions post 1981 that an amazing £271 billion  extra would have been in the fund.

This would pay  more than three times over the money due to the women and even allowed higher State Pensions for everybody else now.

Why this didn’t happen is because politicians of all three major parties took a decision not to do this. They took the decision knowing that their Parliamentary and ministerial pension pot would mean they would be some of the wealthiest pensioners in the land when they came to retire. And the taxpayer would foot their bills.

They decided the pain should fall on the electorate instead. In 1995 they knew  all the arguments about people living longer and that money paid out in state pensions would go up.

They  could have changed the rules and informed the Government
Actuary Department that they would deliberately build up a surplus in the fund so it could pay out as people lived longer without changing the pension age.

Instead they chose the cheapest route to raise the pension age so they won’t have to subsidise the fund but try and keep mum so the women wouldn’t realise what they were doing.

The villains are the late Lady Thatcher, John Moore, Kenneth Clarke, Sir John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Steve Webb and Guy Opperman. There are many others who stood by and did nothing. That is why 50’s women have been left in this situation today.’


‘As UNISON Women’s Officer, I would urge all members, affected or not to support this campaign.  The rise in the pension age from 60 to 65 and then 66 for women was far greater than for men who faced a one year rise in 2020, compared to a six year rise for women.  Women of the 1950’s prepared for a future built on a life-long expectation of a State Pension at 60 years of age.  The effect on women born in the 50’s is discriminatory!   Please sign the petition and share on social media.’

Sheila Quinn, Women’s Officer
UNISON St Helens Branch