Pension reforms: 'It's clear some islanders are definitely more equal than others'
I REFER to the letter headed 'Pension laws unfair to women' (Open Lines, 5 June 2017). I fully agree with the contents of this letter. The writer who had been widowed spoke of how her old age pension entitlement was adversely affected by her remarriage. She also made reference to your front page story regarding the treatment of Mrs J. Lowe, another widow who, after she remarried, was denied the full benefit of her dead husband's pension. (Guernsey Press, 22 May) Had these ladies been widows as at 31 December 2003 they would have been entitled to the full benefits of their husbands' pensions. Women who were divorced on this date are entitled to the full entitlement (100%) of their ex-husbands' pensions whereas married women are only entitled to 62%.
The legislation applicable to these issues is The Social Insurance (Benefits) (Transitional) Regulations, 2004 (the Regs). These were meant to bring about 'gender equality', i.e. to ensure working women pay the same social security contributions as men. However, in achieving this equality another inequality has been created in that married women are treated less favourably than widowed and divorced women. This may even be in contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights. The logic of this is impossible to comprehend. It might be considered married women have the extra benefit of their husband's pension as well as their own.
However, widows and divorced women are not penalised if they should be living with a partner who is working and/or in receipt of a pension. In fact Mrs Lowe was advised by Social Security that she would have been better just living with her new husband instead of marrying him. Moreover the explanatory note in the Regs advised women that they could improve their entitlement to an old age pension by obtaining a divorce prior to 1 January 2004. This is just an insult to the institution of marriage.
These reforms are detrimental to married women, many of whom have looked after children and cared for ageing or ill relatives. I have worked for decades and paid my social security dues (two thirds of which were first-class, full contributions) only to have a reduced pension in my old age. If you paid the 'married women's stamp' for any period then any first-class contributions paid prior to 1 January 2004 are ignored. You could only be assessed on them if your husband's contributions were not considered (my husband paid contributions for over 50 years). I only paid the lesser stamp when I was informed that there was no advantage in paying the first-class contribution as married women at that time were not entitled to a pension in their own right. Social Security confirmed this when I enquired. There have been so many changes and amendments to social insurance laws over the years (most of which are incomprehensible to the average person) that it has not always been possible to 'keep one's eye on the ball'.
There was a lack of information and transparency prior to the Regs coming into force. If people had been fully aware of their effects there would have been an outcry.
Deputy Barry Paint is helping Mrs Lowe in regard to her pension rights and I commend him for this. However, there is only one way to rectify this discriminatory situation and that is to amend section 5(1)(b) of the 2004 Regs to give married women the same pension rights as other women. I hope some other States deputies will take this matter on board and support Deputy Paint.
One could be cynical and suggest this is another scheme by the States to save money at the expense of pensioners who have paid into the system during their working lives. With this blatant discrimination it's clear some islanders are definitely more equal than others.
Name and Address withheld.