It's a little over a year since the government pushed up the retirement ages of half a million women by up to 18 months, with as little as five years' notice.Now it wants to rush through an inadequate single-tier pension in 2017 - just four years away, against the Pensions Commission recommendation of 15 years' notice.
The pensions white paper was published on January 14. It would normally be followed by a 12-week consultation period.
But no, this time the draft Pensions Bill was published on January 18 and the work and pensions select committee asked to report back by Easter.
It called for evidence to be submitted by February 15, giving voluntary organisations just four weeks to gather data - not a timetable many could realistically meet.
So much for the government's commitment to consultation and dialogue.
So, what is the government proposing?
It wants to combine the basic and state second pensions into a single-tier pension for those retiring after April 2017. This will be set just above the level of the measly pensions credit.
It plans to increase the number of years needed to qualify for a full state pension from 30 to 35 (a "qualifying year" in state pension terms is a year in which you have paid national insurance).
It will abolish national insurance rebates for contracted-out pension schemes, increasing their costs.
It will bring in further increases to the state pension age - raising it to 67 by 2028 and introducing automatic reviews linked to life expectancy.
Oh, and the whole will mean lower state spending on pensions than the current system.
Pensioners should not have to parade their poverty to get means-tested benefits, but should get a decent state pension as of right.
And the National Assembly of Women (NAW) has long argued that the current pension system treats women's lives as an exception, when we need a pensions system which reflects our needs.
A single-tier pension isn't objectionable in principle, but pensions reform in this country can't be delivered on a cost-saving basis. In any case, current pensioners will not be covered by the single-tier system and will continue to have to access a complicated means-tested pensions credit which currently sees one-and-a-half million eligible women go without claiming it.
As noted, the £144 pension proposed is just above the current £142.70 pension credit level. But that's still way below the agreed European pensioner poverty level of £178.
The best way to simplify the system and reduce dependence on means-testing would be to significantly increase the level of the basic state pension.
Back in the 1970s the basic state pension was linked to earnings. That link was broken in 1980 and the retail price index of inflation was used instead.
If the link had not been broken the basic state pension would now be over £160 per week. The break means that the proportion of GDP spent on pensions will keep declining.
As a proportion of GDP we spend less on pensions than France, Germany or Italy. Affording pensions is not a matter of economics. It is a matter of politics.
The government should stop peddling the lie that there is no alternative to capping pensions.
The upper national insurance threshold could be raised as GDP grows, for example. Broader economic policies also take their toll - fair taxation would boost the amount the government has to spend. So would reducing unemployment, which would cut the costs of unemployment benefit and raise tax revenues.
The 2007 Pensions Act of the last Labour government did bring some significant improvements for women retiring after April 2010.
One of those was reducing the number of qualifying years for a full pension to 30.
Because women are more likely to take years out from employment when raising children it's harder to qualify for a full pension - in 2005 only 14 per cent of women qualified in their own right, compared with over 90 per cent of men.
The Tories' move to increase the number of qualifying years again will roll back progress in this area. Currently those who have fewer than 30 qualifying years get a direct proportion of the full amount, but under the new proposals a minimum of seven to 10 years would be needed to get any pension at all.
A woman on low pay retiring after 30 years would currently receive a basic state pension and state second pension totalling £151 a week.
Under the proposed single-tier rules the same woman would get just £123.
The end of the second state pension, which gives better flat-rate benefits to the low-paid and carers - carers' credits would be abolished - means many poorer women will lose out.
The Department for Work and Pensions's own assessment is that by 2040 35 per cent of pensioners will be better off, compared with 45 per cent worse off and 20 per cent about the same.
The abolition of the married women's pension for women who do not have 30 qualifying years will also hit many retirees hard.
The Con-Dems argue that by making the system simpler they will encourage individuals to save while helping older people avoid means-testing.
But the con is that the government will not provide any extra money for pensions.
What is clearly needed is a decent state pension which could easily be afforded if sensible policies on tax and employment were followed.
And their contention that people do not save because the system is complicated shows how far ministers are from the reality of women's lives.
Struggling desperately to provide for children and grandchildren and paying through the nose for childcare if they do work makes individual saving for retirement an impossibility for millions of women.
What is needed is radical reform that provides a pension system based on women's needs and which recognises that women's employment is often part time, erratic and low paid.
Eleanor Lewington is a member of the National Assembly of Women executive.
Reblogged via: Morning Star
