This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-13834281

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Duncan Smith under fire over women's pension age change Duncan Smith under fire over women's pension age change
(40 minutes later)
  
Iain Duncan Smith has faced cries of protest from MPs on all sides in announcing the government will press ahead with controversial plans to raise the state pension age for women.Iain Duncan Smith has faced cries of protest from MPs on all sides in announcing the government will press ahead with controversial plans to raise the state pension age for women.
The coalition wants to increase the age from 60 to 65 by 2018. The coalition wants to raise this from 60 to 65 by 2018 before both female and male pension ages rise to 66 in 2020.
Critics say that more than 300,000 women face working up to two years longer before they can retire. Critics say 330,000 women face working up to two years longer before retiring.
But the work and pensions secretary rejected calls from Lib Dem and Tory backbenchers for a rethink. The work and pensions secretary said he would not reconsider but promised to look at "transitional" arrangements.
He did say he was "willing to work to get this transition right" amid concerns over the "relatively small number of women" being disadvantaged. During a Commons debate on the proposals, Mr Duncan Smith did say he was "willing to work to get this transition right" amid concerns over the "relatively small number of women" set to be disadvantaged.
'Tough decisions'
He told MPs: "Responsible government is not always easy government. It involves commitment, tough decisions and a willingness to stay the course.He told MPs: "Responsible government is not always easy government. It involves commitment, tough decisions and a willingness to stay the course.
"We will not change from that, we will stay the course. We will secure our children's future.""We will not change from that, we will stay the course. We will secure our children's future."
Delaying the move to 66 until 2022 would cost the taxpayer £10bn, which would be an "unfair financial burden borne disproportionately by the next generation", he added.
Mr Duncan Smith insisted the coalition would not waver from its commitment to equalise the state pension age in 2018 so that both ages rise together to reach 66 in 2020.Mr Duncan Smith insisted the coalition would not waver from its commitment to equalise the state pension age in 2018 so that both ages rise together to reach 66 in 2020.
Short notice Delaying the move to 66 until 2022 would cost the taxpayer £10bn, which would be an "unfair financial burden borne disproportionately by the next generation", he added.
Last year, Chancellor George Osborne announced plans to accelerate the rate at which women's pension age would rise to equal that of men, currently 65.Last year, Chancellor George Osborne announced plans to accelerate the rate at which women's pension age would rise to equal that of men, currently 65.
The previous Labour government had agreed to achieve equalisation by April 2020, but the coalition's plans will see it achieved by November 2018.
Ministers will then use this extra time to raise the pension age to 66 for everyone.
The critics say many women affected by the proposals will have to wait between 18 months and two years longer than expected before they get their state pensions. They also say the changes are unfair as some women are being given as little as five years' notice of the changes.
More than 170 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a rethink over the plans, including both Conservative and Liberal Democrat backbenchers.
Lorely Burt, chair of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, said those affected would not have time to plan their retirement and many would be "financially a great deal worse off".
'Careers interrupted'
For Labour, shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne said the government's plans had thrown the retirement plans of thousands of women into chaos.
The government finds itself in a bind over giving in to pressure to slow down the changes in pension age for women.The government finds itself in a bind over giving in to pressure to slow down the changes in pension age for women.
The problem is they've had to perform so many U-turns recently - health, sentencing, forests, etc - it is becoming a defining character of the coalition.The problem is they've had to perform so many U-turns recently - health, sentencing, forests, etc - it is becoming a defining character of the coalition.
There must also be a concern that to backtrack over women's pensions would also be seen as a sign of weakness at a time when ministers are seeking to square up to the unions over public sector pensions.There must also be a concern that to backtrack over women's pensions would also be seen as a sign of weakness at a time when ministers are seeking to square up to the unions over public sector pensions.
And yet politically there is little sense in finding yourself lined up against well regarded age charities and further exacerbating tensions within the coalition - for a problem that only involves a comparatively small number of women.And yet politically there is little sense in finding yourself lined up against well regarded age charities and further exacerbating tensions within the coalition - for a problem that only involves a comparatively small number of women.
It may be too that with the possible threat of legal action ministers have no option but to pause and re-think.It may be too that with the possible threat of legal action ministers have no option but to pause and re-think.
Certainly the government's critics are confident that whatever the government is saying now - it will eventually have to apply the handbrake.Certainly the government's critics are confident that whatever the government is saying now - it will eventually have to apply the handbrake.
The previous Labour government had agreed to achieve equalisation by April 2020, but the coalition's plans will see it achieved by November 2018. "Women in their late 50s will have earned less over their lifetime, they have lower state pensions and private savings than men, many of them are unable to join a workplace pension and have interrupted careers to look after their family, many will have stood down from jobs on the understanding they would get that state pension early.
Ministers will then use this extra time to raise the pension age to 66 for everyone. "What on earth are these women supposed to do with the measures set out in this Bill?"
The critics say many women affected by the proposals will have to wait between 18 months and two years longer than expected before they get their state pensions. James Gray was among Tory MPs to urge the coalition to think again.
They also say the changes are unfair as some women are being given as little as five years' notice of the changes.
More than 170 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a rethink over the plans, including both Conservative and Liberal Democrat backbenchers.
Lorely Burt, chair of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, said those affected would not have time to plan their retirement and many would be "financially a great deal worse off".
For Labour, shadow pensions minister Rachel Reeves said it was "simply wrong to punish women by moving the goal posts at this late stage".
Conservative MP James Gray is among the Tories to want the coalition to think again.
"Going around the corridors and tea rooms in Westminster talking to Tories, Lib Dems and of course Labour MPs, they are saying this is an injustice being done to a small number of people," he said."Going around the corridors and tea rooms in Westminster talking to Tories, Lib Dems and of course Labour MPs, they are saying this is an injustice being done to a small number of people," he said.
Meanwhile, Ros Altmann, director general of over-50s organisation Saga and a former government adviser on pensions, said the government could face a costly legal challenge if they did not make changes. Meanwhile, Ros Altmann, director general of over-50s organisation Saga and a former government adviser on pensions, said ministers could face a costly legal challenge if they did not make changes.
"Ministers must listen to reason on this issue," she said.
"The current plans are unfair and may, indeed, be illegal in public law terms, since they clearly do not give women adequate notice of the large changes in pension age that they face.""The current plans are unfair and may, indeed, be illegal in public law terms, since they clearly do not give women adequate notice of the large changes in pension age that they face."
Oxford University professor of gerontology Sarah Harper believes the pensions age should be abolished. Ahead of the debate, Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to get his own policy on pensions wrong in an interview with BBC Radio 2 - suggesting the retirement age will move to 66 in 2018.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that life expectancy increases in Britain needed to be acknowledged but that they varied significantly. Depending on work and lifestyle, Prof Harper said, there could be an 11-year difference in life expectancy for men. The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Cameron was merely saying the process towards 66 for men and women begins in 2018 but will be complete by 2020.
"One of the concerns is that if you just raise it in terms of age, we will have an increasing number who probably fall out of employment early - they end up on disability allowance rather than retiring with pride at a time when they have successfully completed their working life," she said.
"A much more fair system would be to take it away from age and relate it instead to the years worked."
Prof Harper said if everyone had to contribute for 45 years, for example, a manual labourer with a lower life expectancy who had started work at 16 would probably still have 15 years of retirement, as would a professional who had entered the workforce later after further education.
The Commons debate comes as union leaders are threatening industrial action over the government's proposals for public sector employees to work longer and pay more for less generous entitlements in retirement.The Commons debate comes as union leaders are threatening industrial action over the government's proposals for public sector employees to work longer and pay more for less generous entitlements in retirement.
Ministers said negotiations were still ongoing but shadow chancellor Ed Balls accused Mr Osborne of being "desperate" to provoke industrial action so he could blame the unions for the weak economic recovery.