The change to State Pension Age, announced in 1993, followed equality legislation and various cases in the European courts.
Changes in life expectancy were also being considered.
Equalisation was initially brought about by the Pensions Act in 1995, when an EU directive prompted the UK Government to equalise retirement age for men and women—then 65 and 60 respectively.
The UK Government chose to level it at 65, with staged increases women’s in State Pension Age between 2010 and 2020.
Following the 1995 Act, the actual and projected pensioner population growth continued faster than anticipated, due to increasing longevity.
The then Labour Government therefore decided that a state pension age fixed at 65 was not affordable or sustainable – and introduced the Pensions Act 2007, increasing the state pension age to 68 in stages between 2024 and 2046.
The coalition Government set out further changes in the Pensions Act 2011, which accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age and brought forward the increase in equalised state pension age to 66 by 2020.
However, this includes a concession so that no woman will see an increase to her state pension age of more than 18 months, relative to the 1995 Act timetable - at a cost to the Exchequer of £1.1 Billion.
The Pensions Act 2014 then increased state pension age to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and introduced regular reviews of the state pension age, the first of which was the 2017 Cridland review, to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and affordable for taxpayers on an ongoing basis.
We cannot ignore the issue of life expectancy.
Back in 1926, when the state pension age was first set, there were nine people of working age for every pensioner.
The ratio is now 3:1 and is set to fall closer to 2:1 by the latter half of the 21st century.
Life expectancy at 65 has increased by more than 10 years since the 1920s, when the state pension age was first set.
The first five of those years were added between 1920 and 1990.
The next five were added in just 20 years, from 1990 to 2010.
The number of people receiving a state pension is expected to grow by one third over the next 25 years, and by 2034 there will be more than twice as many people over 100 as there are now.
Life expectancy at age 65 in the UK is now projected to increase to 26.7 years for men and 28.7 years for women between 2014 and 2064.
Speaking in Westminster last November, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Guy Opperman, said:
“the Government have gone to significant lengths to communicate the changes to ensure that those affected were fully aware of their rights - including communication campaigns, information online, and individual letters posted to approximately 1.2 million women who were directly affected by the 1995 Act changes.
“A further 5 million letters were sent later to those affected by the 2011 Act changes between January 2012 and November 2013.
“Between April 2000 and the end of September 2018, the DWP provided more than 24 million personalised state pension statements, and we continue to encourage individuals to request a personalised state pension statement”.
On points of fact, I therefore move amendment 2.
Last December, the Work and Pensions Secretary stated that revising the 2011 - changes would cost over £30 Billion by 2026, that returning to 60 for women would cost £77 Billion by 2021 and that creating a new inequality between men and women would be dubious as a matter of law.
The High Court subsequently granted permission for Judicial Review of the impact these matters on women born in the 1950s. The case is listed to be heard on June 5th and 6th.
It is clearly inappropriate for the DWP to investigate a matter that is being considered by the High Court and they have therefore suspended action on related complaints until a final decision has been taken by the Courts.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has also suspended consideration of related cases on the same basis.
As Guy Opperman said in January “I stand here defending the actions not just of this Government but of the coalition Government, the Labour Government of 1997-2010 and the preceding Government, all of whose actions are effectively the subject matter of the judicial review”.
As the DWP has also said, it does not comment on live litigation, a protocol that this Assembly has previously adopted, but which this motion appears to breach.