Pension rules could be a nasty shock for 'hundreds of women'

Since 1 January 2004 everyone, male and female, has had separate insurance records, the period since then is no problem – it is pre 2004 that the ESS department's nonsensical and ill-considered rules either unfairly penalise or reward women who have remarried.

In past decades women had the choice of paying a married woman's stamp, whereby she was an appendage of her husband's record. This was widespread, and even recommended by the States Insurance at the time, although they rigorously deny it now. Of course they do. The practice now is to award women a 62% substitution of her husband's record for the pre-2004 period, according to the record of whoever she is married to at the age of 65. Any previous marriage(s), no matter how long, is/are ignored. This clumsy, blunt piece of legislation is almost certainly going to give an unfair outcome unless, by pure fluke, a woman's previous and present husbands happen to have identical records. However, this figure would be arrived at by chance rather than good design.

For example, a woman whose first husband had a full record may remarry up to the age of 64 to a man who has not lived and worked in Guernsey before, in which case her entire entitlement is wiped out. Conversely, a woman whose first husband had little or no local record may suddenly win the States Insurance pension lottery by marrying, as late as age 64 years, someone who has a full Guernsey record.

All sorts of variables can distort what should be paid. A disparity in the age of previous and present husbands where one will have a longer record than the other, his time spent studying or working away from the island, having lived elsewhere before coming to Guernsey, time in the armed forces, the length of each marriage, etc.

In the GP article on Mrs Lowe's case, Mr Ashton of ESS stated that 'entitlements are highly complex and can be confusing', and how right he is. What he omits to add is that the 'complexity and confusion' of these entitlements are of ESS's own making. Naively, little thought was given to any woman's case where remarriage had taken place.

All of this 'complexity and confusion', not to mention injustice, could have been easily and simply avoided by treating each period of marriage in isolation, calculating the 62% substitution for each and adding them together. I could offer the services of my 11-year-old grandson to make up a spreadsheet to do the calculation if it is thought too difficult.

When I wrote to ex-Deputy Langlois when he was head of ESS, and since to the new incumbent Deputy Michelle Le Clerc, about my wife's case, which is similar to that of Mrs Lowe and your letter writer of 5 June, I received dismissive replies from both. They both realise that to put this right may open a can of worms, as some women already receive more than they should and they simply can't be bothered to right a wrong.

Deputy Le Clerc even suggested that it was my wife's own fault for not having her own full record, as she smugly claimed to have herself. Well, there are many women in similar positions who were correctly following the rules of previous decades and in fact have done nothing wrong. The entire fault lies with ESS. Both deputies Langlois and Le Clerc are satisfied that there are some winners and some losers, but overall it simply doesn't matter. Deputy Le Clerc even suggested that ESS could find itself in the position of having to pay two wives (present and ex) from one man's insurance record, costing the department more. Well, that is exactly what happens now under their present rules, as long as the first wife has not remarried. Deputy Le Clerc would do well to consider my suggestion that each period of marriage should be treated in isolation and calculated separately. In this way every woman would be treated fairly, each would receive their exact, correct entitlement and ESS would not be in danger of paying too much, as can be the case at present.

Mrs Lowe, my wife, 5 June's correspondent and hundreds of others could be spared much worry and concern for the future. This would not cost the taxpayer one iota, while staying with the present arrangement may be more expensive than it need be.

Of course, as time passes this problem will come to an end, as eventually no one will have any period on their record that is pre 2004. However, meanwhile, the present injustice should not be allowed to prevail.

Like most ordinary working Guernsey folk, myself and my wife have never claimed any benefits, have always been net contributors to the system and don't want something for nothing. I'm sure Mrs Lowe and Mrs X are the same. We personally know half a dozen women similarly affected. We all just want the little that should be finally due as our working lives come to an end.

I have approached Deputy Matt Fallaize, a member of ESS, to press for a just resolution to my wife's case, and Deputy Barry Paint is supporting Mrs Lowe. I call on all deputies to consider what I have written above. I can guarantee that you will have numerous women in your own parishes, that you represent, that will be similarly cheated by this flawed system. It could so easily be put right.

Name and address withheld.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Michelle Le Clerc, president of Employment & Social Security, replies: The 2004 changes to contributions and pension arrangements for married women, divorced women and widows drew a line under a very outdated concept of women being financially dependent on their husbands. Under the old arrangements, a married woman would be entitled to a pension of 62% of the pension that her husband would receive. So if the husband's pension was £200 per week, the wife's pension would be £124 per week. This was irrespective of whether she had paid any contributions or not.

The 2004 changes meant that the contributions and benefits systems became individualised, with everyone becoming responsible for their own contribution record from that point. Of course the new arrangements had to recognise married women's previous expectation of a pension of 62% of their husband's amount. That's why women who were married as of 31 December 2003 remain entitled to a contribution record equal to 62% of the contribution record of the husband to whom they were married as of that date. That entitlement cannot be changed by divorce, remarriage or widowhood after 2004. Your correspondent is mistaken on this particular point, where he believes that the record of a husband from a marriage post 2004 will substitute the record of the former husband. This is incorrect and consequently makes some of his other assertions incorrect.

It had always been a feature of the old system, before the line was drawn underneath it, that it was only the record of the current husband that was taken into account. Again, that was consistent with the outdated concept of dependency and the transfer of dependency on remarriage. Social Security brought an end to this from 2004. It would have been strange indeed if, in closing off a system, the rules under which it had been operating for decades were also changed.

One of the aims of the 2004 reforms was to improve the pension position for married women.

In most cases this has proved to be the case, and it will always be the case where, post 2004, a woman has maintained her contribution record through paying employed, self-employed or non-employed contributions.