AMBER Rudd’s column (Observer, January 18) is somewhat disingenuous.
She states that the new pension arrangement will make ‘a huge and positive difference to people in Hastings and Rye.’ This is not the case on present demographics.
What Amber does not state is that current pensioners and those retiring prior to the date of the introduction of the new scheme, will not be able to migrate to the new system.
Consequently present pensioners would receive £107.45 as opposed to the £142.70 based on current indexation, ie a difference of some £35.25 per week. How is that fair or just?
In effect there will be two classes of pensioners, two lots of pension administration and two differing taxation methods. A distinctly fractured Big Society.
No doubt our MP will state that there was SERPS for higher rate taxpayers in the past to add to the state pension. But this hardly applies to the Hastings where salaries are some of the lowest in the country.
The pension proposals are unacceptable, as they are stated, and need to be more equitable to treat all pensioners equally rather than the present pension cliff which awaits most of our Hastings and Rye pensioners and which will lead to two classes of citizens.
Turning to Amber’s comment on Christian rights. She states that one judgement was positive at the Euopean Court of Human Rights, but neglects to say that three other judgements were negative. As she is welcoming support for Christian rights perhaps she would be good enough to outline exactly where she stands on the controversial issue of gay marriage?