Woman, 61, accuses Government of ‘stealing’ her retirement fund as campaigners launch High Court challenge over change in pension age from 60-66
- Nearly 4 million women have been affected by the later pension age of 66
- Two women from the campaign group BackTo60 have taken the Department for Work and Pensions to the High Court in a judicial review over the issue
- They argue that raising their pension age ‘unlawfully discriminated against them’
- A judgement is expected in the coming weeks
Changes to the state pension age discriminated unlawfully against women born in the 1950s, the High Court has heard.
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 £168.60 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.
In 2020, the age will rise again for both sexes to 66.
Anne Taylor (left) and Patsy Franklin (right) from the campaign Backto60 campaign outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London
Many women say they were never informed about the plan to increase their state pension age and found out that they would have to carry on working for up to six more years just months before they were due to turn 60.
This week, two women from the campaign group BackTo60 – Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 62 – took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to the High Court in a judicial review over the issue.
They argue that raising their pension age ‘unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined’. And they claim they were not given adequate notice in order to adjust.
Representing the claimants, Michael Mansfield QC told the hearing: ‘Although the object of the exercise was intended to be equalisation of treatment, in fact what has happened is the reverse.’
Addressing a court packed with BackTo60 supporters, he said the claimants and ‘many other women born in the 1950s’ had not been told about the changes until shortly before their 60th birthdays.
Mr Mansfield said this caused ‘significant detriments’ to many of the ‘roughly 3.8 million’ women affected.
The barrister said raising the state pension age discriminated against women born after 1950 on the grounds of their age, and also put women ‘at a particular disadvantage to men’.
Michael Mansfield QC said the discrimination has caused ‘significant detriments’ to many of the ‘roughly 3.8 million’ women affected
BackTo60 is seeking repayment of all the pensions people born in the 1950s would have received if they had been able to retire earlier. Speaking outside the court in London, 61-year-old Elaine Hague, from Stoke-on-Trent, said she was ‘absolutely disgusted with the Government’.
She added: ‘I’ve worked all my life, since I was 16, and I feel totally humiliated and degraded by the Government.
‘The men I worked with were seen as the breadwinners, and they got company cars, occupational pensions, private healthcare – none of which were available to us. Now they’ve stolen our pensions – it’s degrading. It’s just common theft.’
Nicolette Collins, 63, from Kent, said: ‘We have had the inequality throughout our working life and then, at the end of the day, you are suddenly told, ‘this is equality’ when they basically snatch £50,000 off you.’
Sir James Eadie QC, representing the DWP, said the changes were intended ‘to equalise the state pension age between the sexes’ and to ensure ‘intergenerational fairness as between those in receipt of state pensions and the younger taxpayers funding them’.
He said the Government took ‘extensive’ steps to notify women of the change, and added that ‘personal notification would have been very difficult if not impossible prior to 2003’.
Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple are expected to deliver a judgment in the coming weeks.