£5bn pension inequality is sexism, too
HORROR stories of sexism in the corridors of power and in Hollywood are one thing. But the all-pervading scourge of inequality is hitting women hard in their pockets as well – no more so than following divorce.
According to the latest ‘women and retirement’ report from Scottish Widows, seven in ten divorcing couples do not discuss pensions as part of a settlement. And guess who loses out? Women.
The insurer’s research – released at the Houses of Parliament last week (how appropriate) – is powerful stuff. It indicates that by ignoring pensions when thrashing out a settlement following a split, women are missing out to the tune of £5billion a year.
Women need to wake up to this vital part of the divorce equation as a matter of urgency. They are likely to have smaller pensions of their own because of the ongoing gender pay gap, maternity leave and career breaks. Plus the fact they often work parttime and even in the new world of workplace pension auto-enrolment they can miss out because their earnings are too low to be included in the scheme. An anomaly that needs addressing immediately.
Pensions are often the biggest assets a couple have – since homes often have a mortgage that dilutes the value of bricks and mortar.
Pension sharing was introduced 20 years ago but often pots are not taken into account, says Nigel Shepherd, head of family law at legal firm Mills & Reeve.
He says some pensions can be complicated, especially those in the public sector, so legal and financial advice is vital – even though it is an extra cost in the divorce bills.
Scottish Widows states that just 22 per cent of married women would discuss pensions as part of a divorce. The insurer believes it should be compulsory for pensions to be included in divorce proceedings. In the meantime, it wants the Government to lead the way in helping women better understand their pension rights in divorce negotiations.
Worthy research which all MPs and the Government should respond to favourably. PUBLIC service advertising sometimes has its merits. I was brought up in awe of the Green Cross Code Man – stop, look, listen, think – and, touch wood, I have yet to get injured crossing a road.
But some of it is an utter waste of money. Cue to last Tuesday’s Bake Off final on Channel 4 when the programme (already ruined by Prue Leith revealing the winner beforehand) was interrupted by an interminable advert which attempted to convince us why we should all opt for a smart meter.
The ‘power of 10p’ advert, which dragged on for at least two and a half minutes (enough time for me to cook a soft boiled egg and do 50 press-ups), featured chef Ainsley Harriott preparing food for a group of bodybuilders, of all shapes and sizes and ages. His task? To see how many he could cook for by using just 10p’s worth of energy – he managed to feed 14 of the 18 muscle-bound individuals.
The advert was commissioned by Smart Energy GB, the outfit we pay for through higher energy bills, to promote the roll-out of smart meters. It is spending an astronomical £224 million up to 2020 to persuade us to ditch our old meters in favour of new near real-time ones which also allow us to monitor our energy usage (a la Ainsley).
I dread to think how much the advert cost. We did ask Smart Energy GB the question but it chose not to say. Maybe £100,000 – and that is before Ainsley’s costs are factored in, as well as those of TV presenter Maya Jama and the muscly 18.
As our newspaper has highlighted in recent weeks, smart meters are not without their failings. They are not set up to allow users to switch suppliers (the only way to keep on top of energy bills) and have been known to malfunction. Some suppliers are also bordering on bullying tactics in getting customers to go smart.
We should be allowed to choose whether we want a smart meter or not. We do not need to be indoctrinated at our own expense.
Women need to wake up to this vital part of the divorce equation as a matter of urgency
INSURANCE premium tax is an invidious tax which is inescapable. It pushes up the cost of our home, motor, pet and travel insurance.
Since 2005 it has risen from six per cent to 12 per cent. Yet it could rise again in the Budget – possibly to 15 per cent. Such a move would be unfair and punish us all at a time of great uncertainty.