A STATE pension age shift that short-changed almost 4 million women is not discriminatory, according to a ruling in a key legal challenge.
Women born in the 1950s say they lost out financially when the UK Government raised the female pension age from 60 to 65, in line with that of men.
Campaigners claim lack of warning about the change left them unable to prepare their finances.
The group BackTo60 took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court, claiming that the age uplift amounted to unlawful discrimination on “the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined”.
Yesterday judges disagreed, ruling that: “There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law. Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.”
Judges Lord Justice Irwin and Justice Whipple further rejected the age discrimination claim.
In a judgment which also dismissed lack of notice, the pair said: “The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong, or good or bad, were not for the court. They were for members of the public and their elected representatives.”
Supporters chanted “the fight goes on” outside the court, and BackTo60 said it will appeal the decision. The group’s Joanne Welch said: “Come on Boris Johnson, you pledged during the Tory leadership campaign that you would look at this issue with fresh vigour. There’s a general election coming up. You need our votes and we are holding you to that undertaking.”
Those affected by the change are often referred to as Waspi women, in reference to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. Though it focuses on the same issue as BackTo60, it seeks a “bridging” allowance to help affected women manage until reaching the state pension age.
Some women could potentially lose out on as much as £40,000.
Critics say lower earnings for women and time out of work to care for children has made the hit harder, as many were unable to save as much as men in occupational pensions.
However, the UK Government said reversing the change could cost the public billions.
Lord Justice Irwin and Justice Whipple said they had been “saddened” by the personal stories of hardship presented in evidence, but added that the court’s role is “limited”.
They said: “There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to government. In any event they were approved by parliament.”
Scots MP Mhairi Black, who has campaigned on this issue, commented: “This is a disappointing ruling for the thousands of women who have been fighting tirelessly against pension injustice, but the campaign of 1950s women continues.
“The SNP will continue to stand up for Waspi women against the cavalier attitude of this Tory government who appear hell-bent on short-changing pensioners across Scotland and the whole UK.
“It’s time for the Tories to undertake a full impact assessment on how successive UK governments have disadvantaged Waspi women. Once this assessment has been completed, a payment acknowledging any disadvantage caused should be made to 1950s women without delay.
“With the lowest state pension in the developed world and galling pension injustice for 1950s women, it’s clear that the UK Government cannot be trusted to deliver.”
Meanwhile, the Waspi campaign is awaiting the outcome of its maladministration complaints with the DWP and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
It was suspended while the BackTo60 case proceeded.
Thanking BackTo60, a spokesperson for Waspi said it would seek legal advice on the implications of the court’s ruling for its challenge.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here