Dear Constituent,
Thank you for contacting me about changes to the State Pension Age. I do not, as a general rule, sign EDMs as they have no prospect of changing the law, are seldom debated and do not raise the profile of an issue with a minister.
More than 25 years ago, the Pensions Act 1995 legislated to equalise the State Pension age as a move towards gender equality. The Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007, and 2011 were all subject to public consultation and debate in Parliament and were all widely reported in the media. The changes in the 1995 legislation were communicated in leaflets, advertising campaigns, and individual letters. The up-to-date State Pension age was also provided to those who requested a Pension Statement. More than 37 million personal State Pension statements were provided between April 2000 and September 2020.
The Pensions Act 2011 accelerated this equalisation. The 2011 Act included transitional arrangements limiting State Pension age delays. Parliament legislated for a concession worth £1.1 billion which means that no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months, relative to the original 1995 Act timetable.
In recent years, women born on or after 6 April 1950 complained to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) on two issues. First, that the DWP had not adequately communicated these changes and that they had suffered financial losses as a result. Second, that the DWP had not adequately communicated how many National Insurance qualifying years they would need to qualify for the full state pension.
The PHSO published a report on 20 July 2021 regarding a specific window of time – focused on 28 months of DWP decisions solely between 2004 and 2007, under the last Labour government. Its investigation is ongoing. The report concludes stage one of what could be a three-part investigation. Stage two of their investigation is now underway, considering whether the complainants suffered an injustice, and what action the DWP might take to remedy any injustices.
As part of the second stage of its investigation, the PHSO has shared the provisional views with complainants, their MPs, DWP and ICE. They now have an opportunity to provide comment. This stage is considering the DWP’s communication around the number of qualifying years of national insurance contributions required for a full state pension, DWP and ICE’s complaint handling, and whether any failings led to injustice. Additionally, the PHSO is going to begin considering what action the DWP should take to remedy any apparent injustice.
As the PSHO is required to conduct its investigations in private, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation whilst it is ongoing. You can keep up to date with the investigation here: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/complaints-womens-state-pension-age.
In the 2019-2021 Judicial Review on changes to the State Pension Age, both the High Court and Court of Appeal supported the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), finding it acted entirely lawfully and did not discriminate on any grounds. A copy of the judgment can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-queen-oao-delve-and-glynn-appellants-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-respondent. In March 2021, the Supreme Court refused the Claimants’ permission to appeal, and the Government confirmed it would not be reviewing the state pension age in response to the campaign.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
