WE WON’T GIVE UP
Millions of women lose out as judges dismiss fight over pensions
MILLIONS of women saw their hopes dashed after judges dismissed an appeal against controversial changes to the state pension age.
But campaigners have vowed to press on and take their case to the Supreme Court.
Nearly four million women born in the 1950s have lost as much as £50,000 after the age they could pick up their pension was hiked from 60 to 66.
Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63, took the Department for Work and Pensions to the High Court last year.
They claimed the rise unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age and sex and that they were not given adequate notice of the changes. Judges dismissed their case in October, but the pair, supported by campaign group BackTo60, mounted a Court of Appeal challenge.
Representing the women at the twoday hearing in July, Michael Mansfield QC said the changes had been ‘catastrophic’ to those affected. He told judges women had been left ‘economically and emotionally’ disenfranchised.
But yesterday, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Rose unanimously dismissed the case. They found that introducing the same state pension age for men and women did not amount to unlawful discrimination.
And in their judgment published yesterday morning, they said that ‘despite their sympathy’ for the women, they were ‘satisfied’ that this was not a case where the court could interfere with decisions ‘taken through the Parliamentary process’. Joanne Welch, founder of BackTo60, described the ruling as ‘hugely disappointing for 1950s women’.
The group wants those affected to be fully reimbursed for the payments they expected to receive from 60. But the Government has warned this could cost £215billion. Mrs Welch said: ‘We will not retreat from this and we will achieve full restitution by hook or by crook. We will be taking this to the Supreme Court.’ The age at which women could claim their state pension – currently £175.20 a week – used to be 60. But since 2011, it has gradually risen and in November 2018 it came level with the men’s pension age of 65 for the first time.
From next month both men and women will have to wait until they are 66 to receive their pension and the age is set to continue to rise to 68. Mrs Delve expected to receive her state pension when she turned 60 in 2018, but as a result of the changes she will have to wait until she is 66, in 2024. Meanwhile Mrs Glynn expected to receive her state pension at 60 in 2016, but will now not be eligible until 2022, when she is 66.
If the group wishes to take the case to the Supreme Court, it will need to submit a permission-to-appeal application, which will then be assessed by three judges – a process that could take months. Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), another campaign group, also represents those affected.
It hopes that an ongoing Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigation into whether six 1950s women were let down by how they were told about the changes could lead to compensation in the future.
But unlike BackTo60, the group is not asking for all the money women would have received from the age of 60 to be paid back.
After the ruling, Jonathan Reynolds MP, shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, said: ‘It is unacceptable that 1950s women have been forgotten by the Conservative government, both within the crisis and out.’
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.’
A DWP spokesman said: ‘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.’
‘Economically disenfranchised’
WITh life expectancy rising and Britain’s finances in hideous disarray, it was inevitable we would all have to work longer before receiving a state pension.
But the way successive governments increased the retirement age from 60 to 66 was grotesquely unfair to millions of women, who received inadequate warning.
Consequently, those women – including many who stayed at home to raise families – have each lost out on tens of thousands of pounds. Instead of comfortable retirements, many now face penury.
So it is a bitter blow that judges have ruled they did not suffer discrimination and should not be compensated.
Perhaps not. But beyond that dry legal finding, there is no doubt these women have been treated very shabbily indeed.