I wonder how many men reading this article feel they owe women some of their pension? This article argues that we have ignored household income in thinking about pensions and this has been to the detriment of British women.
It is a curious paradox, a policy designed to create equality has created pension inequality. The bigger picture has prevailed.
The bigger picture has prevailed
Ombudsman says DWP ‘has refused to comply’ with its ruling on state pension age changes. There is no point Parliament having an Ombudsman if the Government ignores its carefully considered recommendations
— Steve Webb (@stevewebb1) March 21, 2024
If DWP refuse to pay WASPI compensation in line with Ombudsman, I think the Government has *zero* chance of winning a vote in Parliament in support of that position in an Election year
— Steve Webb (@stevewebb1) March 21, 2024
The bigger picture is the crystallised pension gender gap
There are a formidable number of articles and research documents written to address the gender pension gap – effectively a deferred pay gap.
Women get less pension men and unless pensions are assessed as household income, inequality will persist.
What happens in the future is down to how we protect women who’s reasonable expectations of pension sharing are dashed by divorce or death of a spouse or long-term partner, by moving towards equal pay and by ensuring that state pension credits are claimed by women who leave the workplace.
But that is of little interest to a generation of women whose interests were determined to be needing support through a lower state pension age than men. That judgement was made by men and when another judgement was made that women could not be treated preferentially, the decision to take away that support was made with little consultation with women. It is as the title of this opinion piece says
It is easy and cheap to commission an article on the pension gender gap, it is extremely expensive and very hard to do much about it. The women who reach state pension today have on average less private pension and less state pension. They get less of the earnings related stuff because they earned less and many have lost out on pension credits for technical reasons which mean they are not fully entitled.
We focus our attention on future generations assuming that current generations of women are alright. We point to the fact that the current women impacted by an increase in the state pension age include Theresa May and others like her as if they are representative.
Too much of the argument is based on a claim against bad DWP administration and too little on the fact that when something was taken away, nothing was put in its place. When women lost their preferential status with the state pension , they did not get greater household rights, women continue to be vulnerable in divorce and separation as it is mainly the wealthy who have the means to fight for a fair pension settlement.
When in 1948, the original formulation for state pension age was made, there was a very different attitude to household wealth. Women were generally supported financially and expected to be. The woman’s pension, as my Grandmother told me, was a reward for the family, thought to be paid early as compensation for a lack of earnings related pension.
The real crime against women was not maladministration , but a failure to address the fundamental issues women face, which simply haven’t been addressed. In this context, the WASPI claim is a fair claim, the cost of paying for that claim should be shouldered by the tax-payer, but it is only a part of a just settlement that must recognise that women have sharing rights in a household and those rights carry over when households split.
I urge you to read Johanna Noble’s argument, which is saying much the same, though rather better.
Men will have to pay a price for pension inequality and for most of us it will dwarf the cost of WASPI compensation. This is about sharing pensions properly with the women we have and still lived with.