Why the government is wrong to penalise women over state pensions

We know that these are tough times. We know we have to reduce the deficit - and fast. But I believe that speeding up the raising of the state pension age to 66 by 2020 is wrong.

It's wrong for several reasons. Firstly, because it will penalise women who make up the largest proportion of pensioners living in poverty (the government's own figures show that two thirds of pensioners living in poverty are women), secondly because it doesn't give those women affected enough time to make alternative plans to plug the gap and thirdly because it would break a coalition agreement promise made last May.

The Pensions Minister, Steve Webb MP, said last year (only half joking) that the state pensions system had been designed at a time when the expectation was that a man had a state pension and a woman had a husband.

Until last April - when the rules were relaxed so you could qualify for a full basic state pension with only 30 years worth of National Insurance payments as opposed to 39 if you were a woman (and 44 if you were a man) - fewer than 50% of women retired on a full basic state pension, compared to well over 90% of men. Now that figure is around 75% and rising.

The government's own figures show that the average 56 year old woman has £9,100 in pensions savings compared to £52,800 for men. And for far more women than men, the state pension is the cornerstone of their retirement income. Around half a million more women than men claim Pension Credit, a benefit paid to pensioners on the lowest income.

The state pension age for women is currently being increased from 60 to 65, which is only fair. It was due to take place over a ten year period and - although it's true that some women didn't know about it - the government decision was made years ago and there was enough time for them to prepare.

By raising the state pension age to 66 - a process that will start to affect women who reach pension age from 2016, it means some of those worst affected have less than 10 years to find £10,000 (two years worth of state pension) unless they're going to continue working until they're 66.

Now, some women may be happy working to 66, but the government's own figures show that just 50% of women aged 50+ are currently in full time employment. I'm sure that if you were to look at women aged 60+ the figure will be much lower. You can't work unless the jobs are there in the first place and as the public sector is a major employer of women, the outlook for jobs is only going to get worse over the next few years.

The Pensions Minister has said that those who can't work and who don't have savings will be provided for by out of work benefits such as Jobseeker's Allowance (currently £65.45 a week). I think that's not good enough, to put it mildly.

As a financial journalist, I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged women to start planning for their retirement in good time - how it shouldn't be left to the last minute etc. But this plan to speed up the raising of the state pension age to 66 seems to show that the government is happy to give hundreds of thousands of women just a few years to save enough to bridge the gap left by missing out on the state pension, or work until they're 66.

I think we all understand that the government has to make tough decisions, but tough decisions should also be fair. The plan to bring forward raising of the state pension age to 66 is not.