Two campaigners hit by changes to state pension age LOSE their Court of Appeal
Four million women who were born in 1950s are DENIED compensation after Court of Appeal dismisses campaigners’ challenge over increase in retirement age from 60 to 66
- Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63, have today lost a Court of Appeal challenge over changes to pension age
- Last year the pair lost a landmark High Court fight against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
- Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Rose dismissed claim today
Two women have today lost their Court of Appeal challenge against the Government over controversial changes to the state pension age.
Nearly four million women born in the 1950s have been affected by reforms introduced by successive governments to ensure ‘pension age equalisation’, which have raised the state pension age for this group from 60 to 66.
Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63 – supported by campaign group BackTo60 – brought a Court of Appeal challenge over the changes after losing a landmark High Court fight against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) last year.
The women argued that raising their pension age unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age and sex, and said that they were not given adequate notice of the changes.
But in a judgment published today, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Rose unanimously dismissed the women’s claim.
The judges found that introducing the same state pension age for men and women did not amount to unlawful discrimination under EU or human rights laws.
Campaigners argued that the Government’s increase of women’s state pension age from 60 to 66 is discriminatory, unlawful and unfair (pictured, campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice in October 2019)
The women lost a landmark High Court fight last October after senior judges ruled that the policy was lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds (pictured, campaigners in October 2019)
Michael Mansfield QC said the discrimination has caused ‘significant detriments’ to many of the ‘roughly 3.8 million’ women affected
As part of their ruling, the senior justices said that, ‘despite the sympathy that we, like the members of the Divisional Court (High Court), feel for the appellants and other women in their position, we are satisfied that this is not a case where the court can interfere with the decisions taken through the Parliamentary process’.
They said that ‘in the light of the extensive evidence’ put forward by the Government, they agreed with the High Court’s assessment that ‘it is impossible to say that the Government’s decision to strike the balance where it did between the need to put state pension provision on a sustainable footing and the recognition of the hardship that could result for those affected by the changes was manifestly without reasonable foundation (MWRF)’.
At a remote hearing in July, Michael Mansfield QC, representing the two women, said the impact of the state pension age change has been ‘dramatic’, adding: ‘This has been catastrophic for this group.’
Mr Mansfield described the six-year wait that women have from 60 to 66 as a ‘considerable’ period of time which translates to a ‘considerable’ sum of money – around £8,000 if it is a full pension, leading to losses that could run up to about £50,000.
In his written submissions, Mr Mansfield said the appellants are women born in the 1950s who ‘seek to challenge both the legislative measures which raised the age at which they can receive their state pensions, and the inadequate notice they and other affected women received of the changes’.
The court heard Ms Delve expected to receive her state pension at the age of 60 in 2018, but as a result of the changes, she will not receive it until 2024.
Ms Glynn expected to receive her state pension at 60 in 2016, but will not receive it until 2022.
Nearly 4 million women are believed to have been affected by the decision to raise the state pension age from 60 to 66.
The age at which women could claim their state pension – currently ££175.20 a week – used to be 60.
But since 2011, it has been gradually increased and in November it came level with the men’s state pension age of 65 for the first time.
This year, the age rose again for both sexes to 66.
Last October, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed the women’s claim ‘on all grounds’.
The High Court rejected their argument that the policy was discriminatory based on age, adding that, even if it was, ‘it could be justified on the facts’, and also dismissed their contention that they were not given adequate notice of the changes.
Commenting on the judgment from the Court of Appeal today, Unison assistant general secretary Christina McAnea said: ‘For a generation of women, this is nothing short of a disaster.
‘Raising the state pension age with next to no notice has had a calamitous effect on their retirement plans.
‘Those on lower incomes have been left in dire straits, struggling to make ends meet with precious little support from the government.
‘It’s now time MPs intervened to give them the financial help many so desperately need.’
Women from (WASPI) Women Against State Pension Inequality demonstrated last November outside Parliament
Campaign group WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality), outside the Houses of Parliament in 2017
A DWP spokesperson said: ‘We welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have supported the actions of the DWP, under successive governments dating back to 1995, finding we acted entirely lawfully and did not discriminate on any grounds.
‘The claimants argued that they were not given adequate notice of the changes to state pension age. We are pleased the court decided that due notice was given and the claimants’ arguments must fail.
‘The government decided 25 years ago that it was going to make the state pension age the same for men and women as a long-overdue move towards gender equality.
‘Raising state pension age in line with life expectancy changes has been the policy of successive administrations over many years.’
Speaking after today’s ruling, Maike Currie, Investment Director at Fidelity International added: ‘In a blow to campaigners, the Court of Appeal delivered its final judgement on a hard-fought battle against changes to the state pension age. After months of deliberating, the state pension age change will not be overturned and will move to 66 for women born after March 1950 from next month.
‘With expectations this could reach 67 years in less than a decade, millions of women could be impacted by the loss of pension payments.
‘Women are more likely to have less income than their male counterparts in retirement, with 25% less in state pension the first year alone, according to the Cridland Report. When longer life expectancies are considered, this leaves a substantial income short fall to overcome.
‘Women’s pensions, and access to them, need to reflect the differences in our working lives: women are still contending with the pay gap and have more fragmented careers, both of which have a significant impact on the savings women have in retirement.
‘The government needs to adapt policies to ensure that women are better informed on how to safeguard their finances into retirement – an even more pressing issue now considering the disproportionate impact Covid-19 has had on women’s finances.’
