There must be a simple way to split pension contributions between partners.

For example you could simply make employers create two pots one for each partner and then pay half of all contributions to each pot.

Sure there is a bit more admin and it creates more pots but at least it addresses the inequality between usually men and women. 

For example, my pension is four times that of my wife's pot.

SCROLL DOWN TO FIND OUT HOW TO ASK STEVE YOUR PENSION QUESTION 

Steve Webb replies: We hear plenty about the 'gender pay gap', with larger employers now under legal obligations to publish details of pay differences between men and women in their workplace.

Your question relates to a different – but related – gap, namely the 'gender pension gap'. And this gap is very real.

The average woman reaches retirement with private pension wealth around 35 per cent lower than her male counterpart, according to DWP figures published last year.

While the gender gap in *state* pensions is closing every year, mainly because of the introduction of the new state pension, the gap in *private* pensions between men and women is substantial and is at roughly the same level now as it was a decade earlier.

There are many different factors which lead to pension gaps between men and women, but here are some of the main ones.

- The gender *pay* gap: The size of your pension generally depends on how much you earned and how long you earned for.

As women are on average paid less, they will also tend to build up smaller pensions.

- The 'caregiver penalty': The majority of unpaid care in the UK, whether of children or the older generation, is given by women.

Often this can be at the expense of jobs or careers. Whilst the state pension system provides 'credits' during periods of caring, it can be hard to keep a private pension going if you are not earning or earning at a reduced level because of caring responsibilities.

- Gaps in automatic enrolment: Although automatic enrolment has been a great initiative, bringing millions of men and women into pensions for the first time, it does not cover the whole workforce.

In particular, those who earn under £10,000 per year from a single job, or those with multiple low-paid jobs, may miss out, and women are over-represented in these groups.

- Relationship breakdown: Where a couple divorce and there is a sharing of assets, pensions can often be overlooked or undervalued.

Where one member of a couple (typically a man) has built up much larger pension rights than the other, and nothing is done to even things up on divorce, this can leave the spouse with poor pension prospects when she retires.

You can read more about each of these issues in a paper I co-authored on this topic last year: The Gender Pension Gap - How did we get here, and where are we going?

In terms of solutions, there is no doubt that greater equality in the labour market would help, as would more equal contributions between men and women to caring responsibilities, though these could take decades to work through into improved retirement outcomes for women.

You have raised a creative suggestion which is that where an employee is part of a couple, the employer could pay equally into a pension for each partner.

One advantage of your idea is that both parties would build up equal pension rights and this would reduce the potential for unfairness in the event of a divorce.

There are, however, some significant practical problems with this idea.

I suspect employers would not be thrilled about the idea of having to make pension contributions for people who don't even work for them.

Although the total cost might be the same, there would be a considerable administrative burden in establishing the details of the other person to receive the contributions as well as keeping that information up-to-date as relationships are formed or break up.

Some employers would also, presumably, find themselves splitting the pension contributions which they currently make in respect of lower paid women so that half could go to a better paid spouse or partner.

If this was an 'opt-in' scheme it's possible that many people wouldn't bother as they can, if they wish, find simpler ways to even up their finances.

One example would be that in a couple concerned about this issue the higher earner could simply pay directly into the pension of the lower earner without needing to involve the employer.

The tax implications of doing this, both now and in retirement would however need to be thought through.

There is also the challenge that this idea could make the problem of small pension pots even worse.

We know that many people aren't paying enough into their pension and that a short job spell can generate a relatively small pot.

If your suggestion was adopted, each job spell would now generate two pots, some of which would be very small indeed.

I welcome your creative thinking and it's vital that this issue gets more attention.

Whilst I have my reservations about this specific idea, we certainly need to tackle these longstanding pension gaps sooner rather than later.