State pension age changes: women lose landmark judicial review

The state pension age for women has risen from 60 to 65 in recent years, reaching state pension age parity between men and women in November 2018, at 65. Now, the state pension age is rising

for both men and women. A judicial review into the changes for the state pension age for women took place earlier this year. Today, Lord Justice Irwin said the claims have been

"dismissed". _This is a breaking story, please refresh the page for the latest updates._ THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: JUDICIAL REVIEW - LIVE BLOG Nearly four million women born in the

1950s have been affected by the changes. Two claimants, Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63, took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court, arguing that raising their pension

age "unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined". Supported by the campaign group BackTo60, the pair also claim that they were not

given adequate notice in order to be able to adjust to the changes. Addressing a court during a hearing in June, Michael Mansfield QC said that "roughly 3.8 million" women had been

affected by the changes. 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". He submitted that "the claimants and many other women born in the 1950s" were not told about the changes "until shortly before their expected state

pension age at 60", which caused "significant detriments" to many of them. He added that women born in the 1950s had already suffered "considerable inequalities in the

workplace", which he said were the result of "historical factors and social expectations". Sir James Eadie QC, representing the DWP, argued that 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 added that the aim of raising the pension age to 66 was also to "make pensions affordable ... and to control government expenditure at a time of great pressure on public

finances". Sir James submitted that the Government took "extensive" steps to notify women of the change to their state pension age, and added that "personal notification

would have been very difficult if not impossible prior to 2003". He concluded that the changes "pursue obviously legitimate aims", and that they "strike a balance

between the public interest and the claimants' interests". THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 13.28 A DWP Spokesperson said: “We welcome the High Court’s judgment. It has always been our

view that the changes we made to women’s State Pension age were entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. “The Court decided that arguments the claimants were not given

adequate notice of changes to the state pension age could not be upheld. “This follows the extensive communications that DWP made to publicise these changes over many years. “The government

decided in 1995 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.” THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 10.52 Joanne Welch from the Backto60 campaign said outside court: "Where

do we go from here? Well, where will the Government go from here is the better question." The Campaign Director referred to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's pledge during the Tory

leadership campaign to look at the state pension age issue with "fresh vigour", adding: "We will be holding you to that undertaking." She said to supporters: "There

is no doubt whatsoever that this is discrimination." She said she was "rather puzzled" by the court's ruling, but added: "We can take this, we've got broad

shoulders." As Ms Welch finished a brief statement, supporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice chanted: "The fight goes on." Meanwhile, the campaign group Women Against

State Pension Inequality (WASPI) responded to the news. The WASPI response read: “We would like to thank Back to 60 for their efforts to secure redress for 1950s-born women who have lost so

much of their State Pension. "Whilst we were not involved in bringing this case to Court, we know that a significant amount of work was put into the Judicial Review and, understandably,

there will be considerable disappointment at the outcome. “However, this decision does not cover the maladministration case which is at the centre of the WASPI Campaign’s work. "The

progress of our ongoing maladministration complaints with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has been suspended pending this

decision. We know that both bodies will be considering the outcome and taking a decision on whether and how to proceed with our cases. "We will also be seeking legal advice on the

implications for our mass maladministration complaint. “We look forward to updating our members and supporters with further information on this, and to taking the next steps in our campaign

for justice for all 1950s-born women.” THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 10:42 In a statement after the ruling, Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "This is a terrible blow for the

millions of women who will have been hoping for a very different outcome today. "The decision to hike the state pension age with next to no notice didn't just throw their

retirement plans up in the air, it also left many women on lower incomes really struggling to make ends meet. "Now, almost a quarter of a century later, justice and the state pension

that was so cruelly snatched away from them remain disappointingly out of reach. "It seems perverse that the Department for Work and Pensions had no obligation to inform these women of

this significant change. "But despite today's decision women born in the 1950s will not give up their campaign to get back what they are rightly owed." THURSDAY OCTOBER 3,

2019: 10:31 Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party, wrote on Twitter: “Deeply disappointing that the courageous and unjustly treated #WASPI women have lost their judicial review in the

High Court “The gross pensions injustice for #1950swomen remains – I will continue to support their fight #solidarity #backto60.” THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 10:22 Upon hearing the news,

Martin Lewis wrote on Twitter: "So the #backto60 #1950sWomen judicial review has fallen. Yet that doesn't mean the case isn't just, just that the govt made the decision on a

lawful way. "The solution must now likely be political." THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 10:13 In a summary of the court's decision, the judges said: "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." The court also rejected the claimants' argument that the policy was discriminatory based on age, adding that even if

it was "it could be justified on the facts". THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 10:08 In a summary of the court's decision, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple said: "The

court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence. "But the court's role was limited. 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. "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." THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2019: 10:05 Women affected by controversial changes to

the state pension age have lost their landmark High Court fight against the Government. Giving judgement in London, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed the claim. THURSDAY

OCTOBER 3, 2019: 09:25 Campaigners have gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where a ruling is expected on a case brought about campaigners who argue changes to the state

pension age have unlawfully discriminated against women born in the 1950s.