RUTH SUNDERLAND

ON WOMEN’S PENSION CRISIS

Thousands of women have been appallingly betrayed. Can you imagine if men had been bilked of £1billion? It would be considered a national disgrace

THE failures that have seen women deprived of thousands of pounds of their rightful pensions are an appalling betrayal.

The huge scale of the underpayments and the fact the problems have been going on for so long are a clear indication that older women are held in contempt at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

If 134,000 retired men were being bilked of £1billion that was rightfully theirs, I doubt the DWP would have indulged in anything like the level of foot-dragging and shoulder-shrugging it has shown towards these women.

It would be seen for what it is — a national disgrace.

In truth, of course, female pensioners are not the only victims of this huge state larceny.

It has also, by extension, robbed thousands of married men, because when wives lose out financially, so do husbands and whole families.

The average of nearly £9,000 owed to each of these pensioners has a heavy cost in hard cash.

But it also has an emotional toll, measured in the holidays not taken, the treats for grandchildren that had to be foregone and the money worries that might have been alleviated.

Sadly, these inexcusable errors by the state are just one aspect of the raw deal millions of women receive in retirement.

About 3.8million born in the 1950s, the so-called Waspi

Women, lost out when their state pension age was equalised with men. No one would quarrel with the principle of a level playing field. But pensions require planning over many years, and the changes did not take this sufficiently into account.

Retirement equality remains a pipe-dream for virtually all women who suffer multiple disadvantages including lower earnings on average than their male counterparts.

As a consequence, 40 pc of women are not saving enough, or in some cases, anything at all. They are also more likely to take career breaks to look after a family. And women tend to live longer than men, so meagre incomes often have to be eked out for many years.

A report by Scottish Widows found that even women who work for a full career lasting 44 years have, on average, a pension pot £100,000 smaller than an equivalent man.

They would have to work until they were 100 years old to amass the same amount.

How has this DWP blunder come about?

My suspicion is that, despite the fact that millions of married women work outside the home, there is residual prejudice at play.

The unspoken assumption is that their pensions are not important because they can rely on their husbands.

This outmoded attitude takes no account of unpleasant realities such as divorce or widowhood, or that women deserve full pensions in their own right.

Whether or not unconscious bias was a factor, the DWP’s behaviour has been unfair and unacceptable.

And what makes it worse is that the deck is already stacked against women trying to save for a decent retirement.