Submitted by Bill Fernie
25th October 2026
I make no apologies for making this article one of the longer ones. A campaign about pensions for women should be something we all care about so women should read it and men who have a wife, mother or daughter - it concerns us all.
A new campaign highlights the long-term financial cost of motherhood and caring for others. The evidence is compelling, but understanding the gender pension gap requires looking at an entire working life, not just one statistic.
There are some financial disadvantages that are obvious at the time they occur. Others can remain hidden for decades, only becoming apparent when a person finally retires.
The pension penalty experienced by many women belongs firmly in the second category.
A woman who reduces her working hours to look after young children may be making a perfectly sensible decision for her family. A mother who gives up a promotion because the hours are incompatible with childcare may have little practical alternative. Someone who leaves employment to care for an elderly relative is providing a service of enormous value to that person and to society.
Yet the financial consequences of those decisions do not necessarily end when the caring responsibilities ease. Lower earnings, missed pension contributions and years of lost investment growth can follow someone into retirement.
That is the issue behind a new campaign from Pregnant Then Screwed, the organisation that campaigns against the discrimination and disadvantages faced by pregnant women and mothers.
Its campaign, called Thanks for Your Service, uses striking images of women with giant discount labels reading “33% OFF”. The message is deliberately uncomfortable. Women who devote years of their lives to raising children and caring for others can find that their retirement provision is substantially smaller than that of men.
The campaign deserves serious consideration. Having spent parts of my working life involved in pensions, I recognise the underlying problem. I also know that pensions are complicated, that different pension arrangements produce different outcomes, and that a single percentage cannot tell the whole story.
Those qualifications should not be used to dismiss the campaign. They should help us understand why the problem exists and what might be done about it.
A pension gap that cannot be explained away
The campaign was launched on 14 October 2026. Pregnant Then Screwed says women in the UK have, on average, 33% less pension wealth than men. It also points to a substantial difference in the pension income received by women and men in retirement.
The organisation commissioned a YouGov survey of 400 mothers on lower and middle incomes. Of those surveyed, 42% who reported reduced pension contributions said they had little or no choice because of childcare responsibilities. The survey also found that 36% had reduced their working hours because of childcare, while 28% had taken time out of work after having children.
These findings illustrate the choices facing some families, although a survey of 400 mothers should not be mistaken for a measurement of the experience of every mother in Britain.
The broader evidence is equally important.
The Department for Work and Pensions published its latest detailed statistical assessment of the gender pension gap in private pensions in July 2025, using data covering 2020 to 2022.
Among people aged 55 to 59 who had private pension wealth, the median was estimated at £81,000 for women and £156,000 for men. That represents a gap of 48%.
When people with no private pension wealth were included, the difference was larger still: median wealth was £32,000 for women and £85,000 for men, a gap of 62%.
These are substantial differences. They also demonstrate why the precise figure depends on what is being measured and which people are included.
The Pensions Policy Institute added further evidence in September 2026. Its latest research found that women aged 55 to 59 had approximately half the pension wealth of men of the same age.
The House of Commons Library has also examined the issue in detail. Its briefing, The Gender Pensions Gap, published in August 2024, explains that the gap can refer to differences in pension wealth, income received in retirement or State Pension payments. Those are related, but distinct, measures.
There is an important statistical caveat. Pension wealth estimates depend on assumptions, particularly when valuing defined-benefit pensions that promise an income rather than hold a straightforward pot of money. The Department for Work and Pensions has warned that changes to the valuation method mean the latest figures cannot be compared directly with earlier estimates.
Nevertheless, the broad conclusion is clear: many women reach retirement with considerably less private pension provision than men.
What my working life taught me about pensions - Bill Fernie
My interest in this subject is not simply that of an observer reading a recent campaign.
I worked in the Scottish Education Superannuation system, dealing with teachers' pensions. I also spent a short period working in pensions at Scottish Widows. Later, during my career with the Inland Revenue, now HMRC, pensions formed part of my work with taxpayers. And havebeen apensioner for over a decade and still have my mothers words riing in my ears as she had only the basic state pension. "Always look to pensions for your later life"
These experiences gave me an appreciation of how different pension arrangements operate and how individual circumstances can affect the benefits eventually received.
They also reinforced something that should not surprise anyone who has examined pension records over many years: women have often been less well provided for because of the circumstances of their lives and working careers.
Pension provision does not exist separately from the labour market or family life. It reflects the employment opportunities people have had, their earnings, the schemes available to them, the contributions made on their behalf and the time over which those contributions have accumulated.
A pension statement may look like a financial document recording contributions and benefits. Behind it, however, is a working life.
For some people, that life consists of continuous full-time employment, regular salary increases and uninterrupted pension contributions. For others, it includes periods of part-time work, maternity leave, caring responsibilities, lower-paid employment or time spent outside the labour market.
The eventual pension outcomes can be very different.
That does not mean every difference between an individual man's and woman's pension is necessarily unfair. People have different employment histories, occupations, earnings and pension arrangements. But when differences appear repeatedly across large sections of the population, we have to examine the underlying causes rather than treating each outcome as an isolated personal choice.
The cost of motherhood does not end with childcare bills
The most powerful aspect of the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign is its focus on the cumulative effect of decisions made throughout a woman's working life.
Consider a hypothetical example.
A couple have a child. One parent reduces their hours because childcare is expensive and the family needs someone available when the nursery closes. The other continues working full-time, perhaps because their earnings are higher or their job offers less flexibility.
The decision may make sense for the household at the time. The family has to balance its immediate income, childcare costs, employment prospects and the needs of its child.
But the parent who reduces their hours may lose more than the salary difference.
If their pension contributions are linked to earnings, less money goes into their pension. Employer contributions may also fall. If they subsequently miss out on promotion or remain in a lower-paid job, the effect continues.
The contributions that were never made also lose the opportunity to grow through investment over the years that follow.
The effect can be particularly serious for someone who leaves work for several years and later returns on a lower salary. A career break may be followed by another period of part-time work when school holidays or other family responsibilities make full-time employment difficult.
Multiply these effects across several decades and the eventual difference can be considerable.
It is not only mothers of young children who face this problem. Women may later reduce their hours to care for elderly parents, a disabled partner or another relative. Some people find themselves caught between caring for children and looking after older family members.
Men also undertake caring responsibilities, and some suffer financial consequences as a result. But women are disproportionately likely to take on unpaid care and to adjust their employment around it.
The issue, therefore, is not that motherhood inevitably makes a woman poorer. It is that the financial cost of caring is often concentrated on the person who changes their working life to provide it.
Three pension systems, three different stories
To understand the debate properly, it is important to distinguish between private pension wealth, workplace pension benefits and the State Pension.
A defined-contribution pension builds up a pot through contributions and investment returns. If contributions fall for a period, the pot is likely to be smaller than it otherwise would have been.
A defined-benefit pension, such as a traditional final-salary or career-average scheme, works differently. Benefits are calculated under the scheme's rules, usually by reference to pensionable service and salary. A period of reduced hours or lower pensionable earnings can affect the eventual benefit, although the precise impact depends on the scheme.
This distinction matters when interpreting pension statistics. A defined-benefit pension does not simply have a cash pot sitting in an account. Its estimated pension wealth must be calculated using assumptions about the future income it provides.
The State Pension is different again. Entitlement under the new State Pension system is generally based on qualifying National Insurance years rather than the amount of salary earned.
National Insurance credits can protect entitlement during certain periods of childcare and caring. For example, eligible people claiming Child Benefit for a child under 12 can normally receive credits, while Carer's Credit can help some people who provide substantial care.
These protections are valuable. The introduction of the new State Pension in 2016 has also reduced the difference between men's and women's State Pension payments.
But State Pension protection does not automatically replace the private pension contributions lost through years of lower earnings. A person can qualify for a substantial State Pension and still have very little workplace or personal pension wealth.
That is why it would be misleading to suggest that the gender pension gap has been solved simply because State Pension arrangements have become more equal.
Automatic enrolment has helped, but there is more to do
There has been genuine progress.
Workplace pension automatic enrolment, introduced from 2012, brought millions more employees into pension saving. The Department for Work and Pensions reports that participation rates among eligible men and women have become broadly equal.
That is an important achievement. It means many more women are building up pension rights than might otherwise have done so.
However, equal participation does not mean equal pension wealth.
People contribute different amounts because their salaries differ, and employer contribution arrangements vary. Someone who earns less will generally accumulate less in a pension when contributions are calculated as a proportion of pay.
There are also eligibility rules to consider. Under the current automatic enrolment framework, an employee generally needs to earn at least £10,000 a year with an individual employer to be automatically enrolled. People earning less can sometimes ask to join and may qualify for employer contributions, depending on their circumstances and earnings.
The treatment of earnings under the rules can also mean that contributions are not calculated on every pound earned.
For people working part-time or across more than one job, these arrangements can make a difference. Someone may have a modest pension from one job and little or nothing from another.
The figures show that automatic enrolment has improved pension coverage. They also show that getting people into pension saving is only part of the challenge. We must consider how much they can afford to save, what their employers contribute and how consistently they can remain in work.
The maternity-leave issue deserves particular attention
Pregnant Then Screwed has also drawn attention to reports that some women's workplace pension contributions have been calculated incorrectly during maternity leave.
This is a specific issue worth investigating because the rules distinguish between employee and employer contributions.
Broadly, where a woman is receiving paid maternity leave and remains entitled to workplace pension contributions, her own contributions are generally based on the pay she actually receives, while the employer's contributions are generally based on her normal pay before maternity leave. Scheme rules and the circumstances of the leave must be considered, but the distinction is important.
If an employer uses reduced maternity pay to calculate its contribution when it should use normal pay, the employee could lose pension contributions to which she is entitled.
The immediate amount might not appear dramatic. But pension contributions are long-term investments, so missing payments can also mean losing future investment growth.
The campaign says it has heard from mothers who believe their contributions fell because of such miscalculations. That is a reason to raise awareness and encourage checks, rather than assume every employer has made an error or that the scale of the problem is already known.
Employers should apply the rules correctly. Employees should be able to understand how their contributions have been calculated, particularly during maternity leave or changes in working hours.
This is one area where practical action could help women without waiting for a wholesale reform of the pension system.
What should government do?
There is no single reform that will eliminate the gender pension gap. The causes are too varied, and the existing pension system contains many different arrangements.
Nevertheless, several areas deserve attention.
First, the government should ensure that pension rules work fairly for people on low earnings, part-time hours or multiple jobs. Automatic enrolment has been successful, but the contribution thresholds and the way contributions are calculated can still leave some workers with limited pension savings.
Second, employers should be expected to apply maternity-leave pension rules correctly, with clear information available to employees. Where errors occur, there should be straightforward ways to identify and correct them.
Third, childcare policy matters. If childcare is unaffordable or unavailable, parents may be forced to reduce their hours or leave employment. Better access to affordable childcare and more flexible working arrangements could help parents remain in employment and continue building pension rights.
Fourth, society should consider how the financial consequences of unpaid care are shared. More balanced parental leave and a greater willingness to recognise men as carers could help reduce the extent to which women bear the long-term cost.
Finally, there is a case for examining whether existing pension credits and other protections adequately reflect the contribution made by people who spend significant periods caring for children or relatives.
All these proposals have costs and practical implications. Additional public support must be funded, while changes to workplace pensions can affect employers and employees differently. Reforms must also consider people already approaching retirement, who have less time to rebuild their pension savings than younger workers.
But those difficulties are reasons to examine the options carefully, not reasons to avoid the subject.
Women live longer, so retirement security matters even more
There is another dimension to this debate.
Women, on average, live longer than men. That means their pension provision may need to support them over a longer retirement.
A woman who retires with substantially less private pension wealth may face years of living on a lower income, potentially after a partner has died and a household has lost one source of income.
Not every woman is financially disadvantaged, of course. Some have excellent public-sector pensions, successful careers or substantial private savings. Some men reach retirement with very little pension provision.
The issue is about averages and patterns across the population, not assumptions about every individual.
But averages matter when they reveal that one group is consistently more exposed to financial insecurity.
The consequences can extend beyond pensions themselves. Lower retirement income may restrict choices about housing, heating, transport, social activities and care. It can also increase dependence on a partner or family members at a stage of life when independence becomes particularly important.
The effects of decisions made when children were young can therefore still be felt when those children have grown up and the parent has been retired for many years.
A campaign worth supporting, with the facts kept in view
Pregnant Then Screwed has chosen a deliberately provocative campaign. Its giant “33% OFF” labels are designed to make people stop and think about a financial penalty that can otherwise remain invisible.
The language is campaigning language, not a complete technical description of every pension arrangement. The 33% headline should be accompanied by an explanation of whether it refers to pension wealth or pension income, because the two measures differ and the underlying statistics are not interchangeable.
The government's own research puts the median private pension wealth gap among 55- to 59-year-olds with pension wealth at 48%, using its 2020–22 measure. The Pensions Policy Institute's 2026 work also finds a very substantial gap among people approaching retirement.
These findings strengthen the case for public debate, even while the precise figures must be used carefully.
My own experience of working with pensions has left me in no doubt that employment and family circumstances shape retirement outcomes. The system cannot be understood simply by looking at the final pension statement. We have to look back at the working life that produced it.
Raising children and caring for relatives are not private activities without wider value. They help sustain families, communities and the economy. Yet the person who provides that care may pay a disproportionate financial price for doing so.
That is the central question raised by this campaign: should the cost of caring fall so heavily on the future financial security of the person who provides it?
It is a question that deserves more than a slogan, but it should not be lost in technical arguments about how the gap is measured.
The evidence shows that many women reach retirement with considerably less private pension wealth than men. The causes include differences in earnings, working hours, career progression, pension coverage and caring responsibilities. Some of these differences reflect individual circumstances, but many are shaped by the way employment and family life are organised.
The challenge is to find practical ways to reduce the unfairness without pretending that one policy can solve every problem.
Pregnant Then Screwed is right to bring the issue into the open. The next step should be a serious discussion about how pension rules, childcare, employers and society can better protect people who spend part of their working lives caring for others.
A society that depends on care should not ignore the financial consequences borne by those who provide it.
And those consequences should not be allowed to remain hidden until retirement, when much of the opportunity to put things right has already passed.
Further reading
Pregnant Then Screwed Thanks for Your Service campaign
House of Commons Library The Gender Pensions Gap
Department for Work and Pensions Gender Pensions Gap in Private Pensions 2020 to 2022
Pensions Policy Institute The Underpensioned Updating the Gender Pension Gap September 2026