RUTH SUNDERLAND: Too usually, the rise of their pension age is forcing these ladies to hold on working for years

There is something very unsettling about the figures suggesting the nation’s grandmas are being forced to abandon their dreams of putting their feet up and instead, having to work until they drop.

What kind of society are we, that kindly grey-haired ladies are having to slave away in what should be their golden years, one might wonder.

Some of the sixty-something women will still be at work by choice, but in many cases, it is simply a question of financial necessity and compulsion.

The main reason is the rise in the state retirement age which for previous generations was 60 for women and 65 for men.

It is now 66 for both sexes and will rise to 67 starting next year. The plan is for it to go up even further, to 68, as people live longer.

This presents millions of women with a stark choice: either work for longer, or struggle to make ends meet in what ought to be a happy and carefree retirement.

This dilemma does, of course, face men as well, because the male state pension age is also rising.

However, the situation is worse for women because most of them have significantly smaller retirement pots and savings generally.

Rachel Reeves during the budget in October last year. The Chancellor will unveil her Spring Statement next week

A combination of lower earnings throughout their working lives plus career breaks to bring up children means women are a lot worse off when it comes to their pension pot. That gap was recently calculated to be £7,000 a year less retirement income for women.

Research by Scottish Widows shows that 42 per cent of women currently face poverty in their old age.

About two million women say they don’t believe they’ll ever be able to retire.

The figure for men, standing at 35 per cent, is also far higher than it should be.

There are also plenty of women who would not be on the breadline if they retired, but prefer to carry on in their careers rather than skimp on holidays or handbags.

The rise in ‘silver splitters’ –couples who divorce in later life – is another factor, particularly for women who relied on their husband’s pension rather than accumulating their own. Divorce, even if she is granted a share of her ex’s pot, may leave a woman with less than she needs.

For a minority of successful women, breaking the age barrier in the workplace is a final taboo.

Those turning 65 now came of age in the go-getting 1980s when Maggie was in Downing Street and are part of the first generation to smash through the glass ceiling in a big way.

What kind of society are we, that kindly grey-haired ladies are having to slave away in what should be their golden years, one might wonder

They include ‘Superwomen’ such as fund manager Nicola Horlick, who turns 65 this year, and ITV chief executive Carolyn McCall, who will be 64.

Women at the top of their game have no desire to hang up their stilettos and shoulder pads any more than an equivalent man would.

On a lower-octane level, many employers tell me they are wary of hiring youngsters because of their poor work ethic and would much rather recruit their mums and grandmothers.

These latest figures suggest there may be a change in attitudes and that the awful ageism women have faced in the workplace perhaps is fading.

Despite these glimmers of change, the harsh truth is many, if not most, of these women are working from necessity not choice.

It is a profound social shift with implications for family life and employers.

Let’s not forget that women in their sixties are often expected to look after grandchildren or their own elderly parents – sometimes both.

If older women are compelled to remain at work, it will leave a gaping chasm in care. We will soon find out whether society really is ready for working grans.