INTRODUCTION
An adequate income in old age is fundamental to the wellbeing of older people. A low income results in a life lacking in quality, choice and independence. For older women this is exacerbated by the sexism and ageism rife in our society, which renders them invisible and unheard. They are socially excluded.
Women make up the majority of pensioners, particularly amongst the most elderly. They also make up the majority of the poorest pensioners.

Therefore, in considering the government's pensions policy it is essential to examine the difference in its effect on women and men. The way a pensions system treats women is a measure of its quality and fairness.

Women's very different working patterns - typically including many years out of the labour market and/or in part time work whilst caring for children - mean they are disadvantaged in independent, employment based pensions.

WOMEN, WORK AND CARING RESPONSIBILITIES
Women are handicapped in building a good pension income because pension systems were originally designed for those with continuous full time employment.

As it is still the case that women take the majority of responsibility for caring for children, as well as caring for sick and elderly relatives and looking after the household, the average woman spends many years outside the labour market and additional years working part time. During these years women are unable to build entitlement to employment-based pensions. Additionally, women in work still earn less on average than men.

Women full timers earn on average 80% of male full timers hourly rate and of women part timers just 60%. So even whilst in work women are liable to build up less entitlement to pension income. To obtain sufficient occupational or personal pension for an income well above Income Support level, it is necessary to have been employed full time for most of your working life. Amongst women aged over 65 the average time in employment was just 27 years, with only 19 of those in full time employment.

There are also large differences between married and non-married women with average time in full employment at 17 years for married women compared to 35 years for single women in full employment.

Altogether, only 19% of older women worked for more than 30 years between the ages of 25 and 55, compared with 93% of men, and many of women's working years were part time. Thirty nine years of contributions are needed to qualify for the full basic State Pension and even with Home Responsibility Protection - introduced by Labour in 1978 to protect women with caring responsibilities - 20 years of contributions are required.

Changes to the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) have been particularly damaging to women. The original formula of using the'20 best years rule' - a major advance for women as carers - was changed, so that the average earnings over the whole working life are used. Will women's increased employment mean better pensions in the future? This is not guaranteed, as most of the increase is due to part time work. Almost half of all women in employment work part time and 20% work less than 8 hours per week.

The current pension system is biased against women in many ways. In reviewing the system and trying to improve it, we need to consider the gender impact of any changes made. As men's working patterns become more similar to women's, with increased part time work and insecure employment, any changes which support women will also benefit men.

We should work towards a pension system which:

• gives women access to a fair and independent income in retirement

• does not penalise women for years out of the labour market, caring for children or frail relatives

• provides access to private pensions for part time and temporary workers on the same basis as full time employees on standard contracts

• avoids pension penalties for those who change jobs many times

• acknowledges women's greater tendency to live alone in old age, and does not result in hardship for widows and divorcees.

Schemes which are wholly based on lifetime earnings place women at some disadvantage. Providing means-tested benefits is no solution. It creates savings and pension traps, stigmatises recipients and is widely condemned by the poorest.

The first replacement for a pension system which is fair to women is an improved basic pension indexed to national earnings. A state second tier earnings related pension scheme is also necessary. Unlike private pension schemes, a state scheme is portable between jobs, inexpensive to administer, and can allow for women's caring responsibilities through a ' best year' formula and home responsibility protection or carer credits. Proposals for any alternative system must be carefully scrutinised for their gender impact.

One alternative system that is gaining attention is the introduction of a Citizen's Pension as in Denmark. That would amount to paying the MIG automatically (without any means test) to all pensioners. Other countries have devised ways of clawing back from the well-off either through the tax system or other means.
A Citizen's Pension (replacing other state pensions) would be simple to understand and administer. It would relieve the state of the complex calculations of individuals' employment and earnings record and of the even more convoluted tracking of derived pension entitlements as women divorce, are widowed and remarry.

Moreover, the rebate and incentive to opt out of state second tier pension (amounting, with tax relief on private pension, to about £20 billion in tax spending) could be saved. Both a Citizen's Pension or a substantial rise in the basic pension are affordable, as shown by the Millennium Paper on Paying for Age, by London Age Concern. Either would be of great benefit to women now and in the future.

It is interesting to note also the responses of some women's organisations to the Government's pension proposals.
The National Assembly of Women said: "For women pensioners and for most women in their 50s, the proposals offer nothing but more means-testing. In the longer term, the State Pension, as proposed, would provide a subsistence level income. Only a minority of women would be able to build enough private pension to escape the poverty trap,"

The Women's National Commission said, "A move away from benefits to a decent income in retirement will not be achieved by a Minimum Income Guarantee of just £75. By the target year of 2050 an equally high proportion of the population will be dependent on benefits."