It seems this is no country for old women
Reynolds’ unique contribution to the lasting peace that grew out of the process that he dedicated much of his premiership to was rightly acknowledged. He did the state some valuable service. The tributes that followed his demise also brought to mind another time, when Fianna Fáil leaders were automatically destined for the highest elected office in the land. That entitlement no longer applies.
The heartrending story of a young woman held hostage to a constitutional provision enacted from another Ireland was also to the fore. There is little doubt but that eighth amendment to the constitution, voted for in 1983, is still resonating down into today’s different world. Some would see this as a bulwark against, what they regard as, declining moral standards, with which they don’t agree. For many though, it is an anarchism that requires addressing.
There is another issue from the past, one that rarely makes any headlines, that also requires addressing. Back when the Church’s writ ran large, and Albert Reynolds was in his pomp, a marriage ban existed in the public service. Once a woman married, she was forced to give up her job. The same didn’t apply in the private sector, but married women were few and far between right across the workforce.
Instead, they were largely homemakers, rearing children and busying themselves with domestic imperatives. The ban was lifted in 1973, but cultural mores continued to ensure for many years afterwards that when children came along, women retreated to the home. (Many still do today, but are not forced to act out of any societal or cultural pressures).
The ending of the ban, however, provided a route back into the workforce. Once children were reared, women often returned to work. In doing so, they were able once again to make contributions to the social insurance fund which would eventually award them with a contributory pension.
The hiatus in the working lives of women in this group was acknowledged in the pension regime, ensuring they were in a position to make up for lost contributions when they retired.
All that changed in 2012 when the Social Protection minister Joan Burton introduced a new regime which aligned pension contributions with the average number of weeks worked. This is in line with the national pensions framework published by the previous government. However, the framework recommended a lead-in time in order to ensure that those who had made contributions throughout their working lives weren’t adversely affected.
According to the framework document the new system would “see a reduction in the levels at which pensions are paid. Accordingly, the government has decided that implementation of this measure will not take place until 2020”.
Burton brought forward the new rules to 2012, and between 44,000 and 47,000, mainly women, are understood to be adversely impacted.
For instance, a worker retiring on 31 August 2012, who had an average of 21 annual PRSI payments throughout their working lives, received a contributory pension of €225.
The worker who retired two days later, and made up to an average of 29 contributions per year, got only €196.
That’s €29 less, at a time when new tariffs like property tax and water charges are disproportionately increasing the burden on those no longer working. The cut also disputes the government’s claim to have ringfenced basic social welfare rates.
In fact, for some who spent a good chunk of their adult lives in employment, paying PRSI, their autumn years might have seen a greater income if they hadn’t worked at all and were now drawing the non-contributory pension.
A blatant injustice exists here which makes a mockery of rhetoric that looking after the elderly at the end of their working lives is a primary concern of government and society.
There may well have been sound actuarial reasons for bringing forward the new rules by eight years, but there appears to be scant regard for those who have fallen through the cracks.
As first reported in this newspaper by Conor Ryan last March, the Department of Social Protection was aware that thousands would lose out, yet implemented the policy. Burton’s department proposed some measure of restitution by introducing a homemakers credit scheme, but responsibility for this was passed to the Department of Finance, which, so far, has insisted the money is not there for such a scheme.
Is it any coincidence that the majority of those affected were, and are, women in low paying employment? In a country where preferment is routinely given to those who shout loudest, this constituency is one whose voice is rarely heard.
A constant theme through successive budgets in this recession has been attempts to impose cuts to, or savings from, constituencies that might not be expected to muster much resistance. A whole raft of measures have been introduced to shave relatively small amounts from sections of society that can least afford it.
This has been the case particularly in relation to people with disabilities, and disparate elements of those who are on social welfare. Through it all, the government, and particularly the Labour party, have made much about maintaining basic rates.
That is most certainly not the case for those affected by changes to the contributory pension regime.
Representations on behalf of those affected have been relatively sparse. At parliamentary level, the only TD to persistently attempt to address the injustice is People before Profit’s Joan Collins. Both ICTU and SIPTU have raised objections but at a time when purse strings may be loosened, both would appear to have bigger fish to fry.
We have seen, in recent months, a scramble among various interest groups for some restitution now that the worst of the recession appears to be behind us. Tax cuts, we are told, are on the agenda, although the fairness of how any such cuts might be applied is a bone of major contention. Pay levels in the public sector have also been raised towards the top of the hierarchy of priorities. Yet it would seem that the plight this group, most of whom are women who worked in the low paid sector, has been quietly relegated. In that regard, despite the rhetoric, this would appear to be no country for old women.
Albert Reynolds wasn’t a noted campaigner for social justice. He was, however, a practical man, not without compassion. He would have seen a way in which this blatant injustice could be addressed. Were it that those who have succeeded him in running the country had the wherewithal to do likewise.
If there is to be any social justice at all applying to the forthcoming budget, this matter needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
