That's very kind, thank you. I'm conscious, because this is live litigation, I'm trying to avoid expressing an opinion and rather focusing on the actual history behind this. 

So, 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 can't 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 twenty-first 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.'

He concluded,

'Between April 2000 and the end of September 2018, the Department for Work and Pensions provided more than 24 million personalised state pension statements, and we continue to encourage individuals to request a personalised state pension statement.​'

I 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 age 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 of these matters on women born in the 1950s. The case is listed to be heard on 5 and 6 June. It's 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. I move amendment 1 accordingly.