Elephant in the room

Working flexibly, or giving up work entirely, to care for children is “how we in society want them to work and live, and then we punish them for it”, Hollis said at an event organised by the Trades Union Congress.

While working women earning more than £10,000 from a single job are these days auto-enrolled (in the past some employers did not enter female workers into their scheme), those not meeting the criteria fall through the net.

But neither Hollis (nor indeed then-pensions minister Ros Altmann when she helped launch the latest Scottish Widows report on women and pensions in April last year) addressed the elephant in the room: The cost of childcare provision in the UK.

Illustration by Ben Jennings

Perhaps it is seen as unrelated to pensions – too far off-topic? I would say it is at the very heart of the decision women with children take on whether and how much they work, and even what type of work they do.

If the maths doesn’t stack up and you effectively have to pay for the privilege of working, why should you? Average weekly childcare costs in Britain for 25 hours – about half of what is needed to cover full-time employment – range from £103 to £117 according to the Family and Childcare Trust. This has to be paid from net salaries; government support is minimal.

Grandparents can’t be systematically drafted in either to solve the problem. I have seen grandmothers give up work to care for grandchildren, in turn depriving them of the opportunity to save. Other grandparents are less than thrilled at the prospect of looking after snotty toddlers. And increasingly far-flung families means many live too far away to be able to help.

Affordability of childcare is inextricably linked to the adequacy of women’s pension savings and should be addressed urgently. What is needed is a piggy bank, not an elephant.

Sandra Wolf is editor at Pensions Expert. You can follow her on Twitter @SandraCWK and the team @pensions_expert.