Girls lose state pension age enchantment in opposition to executive

Protestors outside courtImage copyright
PA Media

Image caption

Campaigners outside court during a previous hearing

Two women affected by controversial changes to the state pension age have lost their Court of Appeal challenge.

Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63, backed by campaign group BackTo60, challenged the changes after losing a High Court fight against the Department for Work and Pensions last year.

On Tuesday, senior judges unanimously dismissed that appeal.

They said introducing the same state pension age for men and women did not amount to unlawful discrimination.

Campaign groups associated with the court case represent almost four million women who were affected by the government decision to increase the state pension age from 60 to 66.

They say their fight is not over and will take their case to the Supreme Court.


The two women were last in court last June where they told a judicial review that when they had not received their state pension at the age of 60, their lives had been affected disproportionately.

They argued the way the government had introduced the increase of the pension age was discriminatory. Some women thought they would retire at 60 but found they had to wait up to more than five years. This caused them financial hardship.

Those affected were born in the decade after 6 April, 1950, but campaigners say those born from 6 April 1953 were particularly disadvantaged and have been the focus of much of the movement.

Because the workplace was less equal for many of this generation, they argue they were taking time out of their careers to raise children, paid less than men and could not save as much in occupational pensions, so the change has hit them harder.

The senior justices said: “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.”

Read More: | For More Business Articles | Visit Our Facebook & Twitter @kbcchanneltv | Making The Invisible, Visible

Source link

READ  Probably the most very best puts to have a good time Lunar New 12 months is simply out of doors Vancouver

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker
%d bloggers like this: