Morning:
10°c
David Cameron was today forced to clarify plans to raise the retirement age to 66, amid claims that millions of women could have to work for three years longer.
Under fresh details of the plan rushed out this morning, the new retirement age will come in for women by 2020 and for men by 2016, which affects people in their fifties.
But the plan will not be decided until a review is held after the election, which opened the door to Labour claims that millions in late middle age face uncertainty about when they can retire.
The controversy came at a critical point at the Conservative conference in Manchester, where austerity measures were being unveiled by George Osborne to slash public finances.
Curbing future retirements will not save the taxpayer a penny until at least seven years' time, let alone help curb the current spending deficit, but Mr Cameron said it was all part of establishing policies to “live within our means” in the long term.
Under current government plans, the retirement age of 65 for men will be raised to 66 in 2026. Bringing that forward by 10 years would save £13 billion over the course of a decade.
The position for women, who currently get their pension at 60, is more complex. Under existing legislation, their retirement age is increased gradually from 2010 onwards, reaching 63 in 2016 and 65 in 2020.
Initially the Conservatives appeared to be saying that both sexes would retire at the same time from 2016, which would mean women currently in their fifties having to work three years longer. But after Labour began warning women voters that the Conservatives would steal their retirements, Mr Cameron began a round of TV and radio interviews to assure people that such a timetable for women was “too great a leap”.
“That's not what we said,” he told the BBC. “But clearly we do think that over time we will need to have an equal retirement age.”
Work and pensions spokesman Theresa May suggested the review would not be constrained. “It will be looking at what should happen to the state pension age for men and for women and at what point it should be raised to 66.”
Reader views (21)
I was one of the women who had to work until they are 65 instead of 60, I accept that as we move in line with men (Equality), so I have to say I was somewhat upset to find out today I was going to have to work yet another year before I can receive my state pension.It is difficult to think somone 6 months to 5 years older than me will be able to retire between 60 to 64 years and not have to work until they are 66 and I will have to now work an extra 6 years, will I really get anything more for the extra years I work ( Looking at inflation and increase in costs)I am quie sure after working yet another extra year I will not gain anything in monetry value,but the government will save an enormouse amount. Shame they can't see past their own needs.
- Edwina, Prudhoe Northumberland, 24/06/2010 22:19
Report abuse
My contract started at 15 to retire at 65 so is this legal after 42 years at work to suddenly change the goal posts because of others mistakes.
- Rick Storey, Ipswich, 07/10/2009 21:29
Report abuse
But we started work much earlier than you! Being a 56 year old this affects me profoundly having worked full time continously since I was 15 years old, yes 15! I now have an aged and frail Mother and would be nice to think she will still be around when I retire to be able to have some quality time together, but they keep moving the goal posts as I've now won't get my pension until I'm 63. I've always put in the pot and never taken a penny out unlike some in this country. I've paid my dues so Cameron lay off as you've already lost my vote for putting my retirement up last time!
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 07/10/2009 10:10
Report abuse
Lets while we are about it cut all the hand outs and benefits given out to the work shy and lazy, no that would never get into law how stupid of me, and stop sending so much aid overseas. Its time to look after the workers of this country, few that there are!!
- Dave, isle of wight, 06/10/2009 17:46
Report abuse
I note that Dave clarifies while other politicians take fright and performs U-turns. Were all of the policies written out on fag packets in the last week?
- C Morgan, Kensington England, 06/10/2009 16:53
Report abuse
If I read one more ill-informed post about how the Hedge Funds and bankers have ripped us all off I'll scream. The Government pent your money not the banks. They had the option of letting them go bust or nationalising them whilst wipiing out stock holders. They did neither and you and your children are paying for that decision!
- Mark, London, 06/10/2009 15:44
Report abuse
Sounds great as I am seven years older than the wife and by this law it will mean I get a good five years of peace and quiet when I retire as I boot the misses out the door to work in the morning.
- Dave, london, 06/10/2009 14:12
Report abuse
Simply reiterating what has already been said:
Equal pay, equal rights = same retirement age.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 06/10/2009 13:47
Report abuse
My father died just 3 days after his 65th Birthday and after working all his life, fighting for his country in WW2 he got zilch!!!
Of course this is another policy that wont affect the idol rich who already take early retirement in their mid 50s and go away to live in the sun. And dont forget the money they will save on inheritence tax cut for millionaires.
This is another daft Tory policy not thought through because if someone has to work till 66 that means their job will not become available for another year or longer for women. The result is that a younger man with a wife and children to suppoort will have to receive benefits for another year so how much will this cost?
This change will affect many people who are in their mid 50s so why should turkeys vote for a tory xmas?
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 06/10/2009 13:46
Report abuse
Stephend - they never really had it, did they?
- John R., London SW, 06/10/2009 13:24
Report abuse
What is the problem, I am only 50, under the current rules I would get a state pension just short of my 66th birthday. this info was obtained by a written pesion forecast posted to me.
I imagine future rules will push this up to 70
The current rules push the state pension up to about 68 for those younger than me, go to the pension website and see for yourselves.
The 66 + years is already here.
- Andy, surrey, 06/10/2009 12:51
Report abuse
How about the Bankers, Hedge fund managers and MPs who have got us into this mess giving up some (all) of their exorbitant pension entitlements. That will probably cover the rest of us for a year on the ludicrously low pension that is paid in this country.
- Mick, London, England, 06/10/2009 11:53
Report abuse
And so they bloody well should, it's called equal opps.
Don't expect equality laws to exclude the bits you don't want, women have moaned for years they wanted to be treated equally.
- P Staker, Londonistan., 06/10/2009 11:26
Report abuse
As a general principle I can't see what's wrong with that: so long as there are both jobs for women to continue working until 66 and also jobs for younger people without one usurping the other. I'd say people now in their 30s will have to work until they drop if the employment is available - just to survive.
- Roz, France, 06/10/2009 11:09
Report abuse
Time to get real. Work until you drop, obviously.
Somebody is going to have to pay the UK current debt of £1,400,000,000,000.00 and it will NOT be your parasite local MP.
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR, 06/10/2009 10:53
Report abuse
And why shouldn't women work until they are 66? Our local council is being forced to pay out millions of pounds to women who claim they are not paid at the same rate as men, who do a different job but is assessed as the same. If they want they money, then everything else should be equal!!!!
- Alan, carlisle uk, 06/10/2009 10:23
Report abuse
So after bailing out the overpaid Bankers who have caused a crisis by their greed and incompetence it is Pensioners and Public Sector workers who will have to make sacrifices to repair the damage while any attempt to recoup the money from the Bankers by forcing them to stop avoiding Tax are met with threats that they will move overseas. The Tories have not changed.
- B D'Eath, Kennington England, 06/10/2009 10:09
Report abuse
I don't really see what the big deal is I'm afraid. I fully expect the retirement age to be around 70 or even 75 by the time I reach retirement age. With life expectancy increasing it is only logical to expect we will be working longer. The far more serious concern should be focused on finding decent employment for the older generation who've been out of work - I understand that it is incredibly hard to find a job without facing age related prejudice in the interview process.
- Isabel, Woking, 06/10/2009 09:45
Report abuse
They have just lost my vote.
- Stephend, London, England, 06/10/2009 09:44
Report abuse
Let's get real. The country is in a state, people are living longer and the birth rate is plunging. Brown didn't help when he plundered the pension funds as chancellor. We are all going to have to work until we are 70 ..... except politicians, of course, as their pension pots have only been heading one way in recent years - up!
- Paul, London, 06/10/2009 09:44
Report abuse
One thought if the pension age is 66 and the legislative age where a firm can compulsory dismiss you for being too old to work is 65, what happens to the missing year; will this be a new social security benefit ??? Will older people have to queue to be available for work at social security, that would appear shameful ?
- James, City of London, 06/10/2009 09:16
Report abuse
