Women hit by state pension age rise lose Court of Appeal case
'A lot of women hit by the pension changes don't have partners, are living alone and struggling to eat and heat and pay rent. Everything is on a shoestring,' says campaigner
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Women hit by the state pension age rise have lost their Court of Appeal case against the government.
Almost 4 million women were impacted by the government increasing the state pension age from 60 to 66 for women born after March 1950.
BackTo60, a campaign group calling for women to be reimbursed for pension payments they have missed due to the controversial changes, lost its landmark High Court battle against the government — but appealed the ruling at the end of July.
Julie Delve and Karen Glynn, two women hit by the rise who took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court back in 2019, brought the Court of Appeal challenge but have now lost their case.
The women, who are both in their sixties, argued that increasing their pension age unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of age and sex, and they were not provided with sufficient notice of the pension overhaul.
In a judgment published on Tuesday, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Rose unanimously dismissed the claim.
They found that introducing the same state pension age for men and women did not amount to unlawful discrimination under EU or human rights laws.
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.”
The state pension age rise was accelerated in 2010 and saw women reach equality with men, at 65, in 2018.
Julia Jacobs, who was impacted by the pension age increase, told The Independent she was “devastated” by the Court of Appeal decision.
The 60-year-old, who is a member of BackTo60, said: “I am on the floor. It is like all hope has gone. I am devastated and particularly so for the women who are on the breadline. Women were not given adequate notice by the government to prepare for the retirement age being put six years up.
“For our childhoods and most of our working life, we weren't equal with men. When I had babies society expected me to give up work to look after them. We are now in a pandemic and a lot of 1950’s women have been forced to put their lives at risk by working through the crisis.
“Now they are at risk of losing their jobs if they haven’t lost them already. Who is going to employ a 60-year-old woman? A lot of women hit by the pension changes don’t have partners, are living alone and struggling to eat and heat and pay rent. Everything is on a shoestring. It has made women feel devalued as people and pushed onto the scrapheap. We are the grandmothers of this country. We have raised the children of this country and now we are told to shut up like good little 1950’s housewives.”
Ms Jacobs, who lives in Solihull, was working as a part-time exam invigilator on a zero-hour contract before the Covid-19 crisis but is now living off life savings due to getting no furlough payments.
The United Nations has previously said women hit by the state pension age change are at increased risk of “poverty, homelessness and financial hardship” as a direct consequences of the changes.
Joanne Welch, founder of BackTo60, told The Independent she was disappointed by the Court of Appeal verdict.
She said: “I braced myself for what would happen but I expected to win. But we still can win this. The legal team is actively considering a Supreme Court appeal. 1950’s women who support full restitution were not created to retreat nor run from the opposition.
“We have armour to keep moving forward and we stand strong. Last night 500 women lit candles and prayed we would win today. It was so touching. On behalf of the 1950’s women – many of whom are destitute – we have huge concern about the judgement.”
The Independent previously reported on how women impacted by the changes have been pushed into destitution after losing their jobs in the public health crisis, while others have been forced to carry on working — despite their age placing them at risk from the life-threatening virus.
Christina McAnea, Unison assistant general secretary, 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.”
Michael Mansfield QC, representing the women when the case was heard in July, said the impact of the state pension age change had been “catastrophic”.
He said: “We have a group of essentially, economically and emotionally, disenfranchised women. So it is against that background that we do submit that there are grounds for discrimination”.
A DWP spokesperson welcomed the ruling, saying: “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.”
Additional reporting by PA
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments