Last week’s news agenda was dominated by the disparity in salaries received by males and females at the BBC in the process burying the other big story, the Government’s decision to accelerate increases in state pension age. Ironically, the state pension system has had its own share of gender controversy with women gradually losing their historic entitlement to receive their state pension five years earlier than their male counterparts.
Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon said:“In today’s society there’s no room for gender inequality on pay or beyond. Where women suffer from lower pay, they are also likely to receive less generous workplace pensions and moves to equalise pay need to extend to other employment benefits.
“It’s ironic that revelations on BBC pay inequalities came the same day as the Government’s decision to bring forward increases in the state pension age from 67 to 68. The state pension used to have a gender gap, but one which favoured women, by allowing them to draw it from age 60 rather than 65 for men. The phasing out of this ‘inequality’ caused huge controversy with the ‘WASPI’ campaign particularly critical of the Government’s poor communication of the change.
“Gender equality is right, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of individual choice and flexibility. Just as individuals should be allowed to choose a working pattern that suits their lifestyle, so should people be given choices around when they retire. Private and workplace pensions now offer individuals the option to take a retirement income from as early as age 55 making the blanket increase in state pension age to 68 from 2037, with no early access option, completely outdated.
“With an ever increasing state pension age, people of both genders will increasingly find they are simply unable to stay in work into their late 60s, whether because of health concerns, work pressures or lack of employment opportunity. This is why Aegon has been calling on the Government to allow all individuals the choice to access their state pension a few years early, at a reduced level to balance the costs to the Government. These calls have been rejected on grounds of complexity, but with these latest changes not coming into force for 20 years, we believe more thought can be given to making them work.”
|
