Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate from the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member, and for her eloquent and informative speech.

Financial security is something we endeavour to secure for our families and for ourselves. Many 1950s-born women worked their whole lives with the goal of financial security in their mind’s eye, only for it to be affected through no fault of their own. I will not rehearse the ombudsman’s judgment, which stands as clear as day. We have heard those words time and again specifically because this has not been appropriately remedied.

What never fails to shock are the lived experiences. The testimonies of 1950s-born women are so important because the impact of their stories never diminishes. This is about real women. My constituent, Ann, is just one of the many 1950s-born women who will not accept that finding a remedy to the DWP’s maladministration is

“neither fair nor feasible and would not represent good value for taxpayers.”

When Ann was 57, she applied for a pension forecast. Upon receiving it, Ann discovered that her retirement age was 66, rather than 60. Not long before that shocking news, she went from working five days a week to three. How was she to know that she had to work and plan for retirement over a further six years? She was never informed. Because she was now working part time, it was not possible for her to substantially increase her pension contributions. In 2020, at the age of 63, Ann was made redundant. She had to make her small redundancy payment last her until she retired three years later.

Life has been tough for these women. Events like the pandemic, when Ann lost her job, shook us all, but events where the state has made people’s lives more difficult just because of the day they were born, have a particular degree of unfairness to them. Given the ombudsman’s significant concerns that the DWP would fail to remedy the injustice, it deliberately laid its report before Parliament. When the Government announced their position in relation to the findings—incredibly, without recourse to Parliament—this reaffirmed the ombudsman’s concerns, and sets a worrying precedent for the future.

We have high hopes for our Pensions Minister; his past life, dedicated to improving living standards, makes him well suited to the role he now holds. I truly hope that he will re-examine the Government’s position on an issue that is so important to so many women who continue to fight for justice.