Farm pensions U-turn - Decision is wrong and inequitable

THIS week’s decision by Minister for Social and Family Affairs Éamon O Cuív to overturn a decision made by his predecessor, Mary Hanafin, epitomises so much of what is wrong in this country. It proves, as if it needed proving, that the monkey with the biggest stick gets all the coconuts.

It proves too that Fianna Fáil, always with an eye on the next election, are incapable of opposing powerful pressure groups even when they are wrong. That the decision was welcomed by the Irish Farmers’ Association, Fine Gael and Labour only serves only to underline how used to taking the line of least resistance we all have become and how reluctant politicians are to adopt an unpopular position even if it is the right one.

In this instance it seems that because a relatively small amount of money is involved it was far easier to cough up rather than face the criticism supporting Ms Hanafin’s correct decision would have entailed.

Mr O Cuív rescinded a decision to withdraw or reduce contributory pensions given to farm spouses who paid PRSI retrospectively. Under the new scheme, a person only had to pay a year’s contribution before reaching pension age to get a contributory pension. It must be assumed that, if they had not paid PRSI, they would not have paid income tax either.

Though the number of people benefiting is relatively small, the unfairness, the social inequity involved is incredible. It does not diminish, disrespect or disregard the great contribution farmers’ wives have made to family farms and rural communities to point out that there are tens of thousands of other wives, spouses or partners who worked long and hard, just like them, to support the family business, but will not get the whiff of an opportunity to buy a pension by making PSRI back-payments. How happy they’d be if they could.

Small builders’ wives, publicans’ partners, carpenters’ spouses, doctors’ wives, the partner of the person running the all-night store, more or less any partner of someone who works for themselves, routinely makes significant time-and-talent contributions to the family business. In this time of economic crisis those contributions are more important than ever. In this context why should farmers’ wives be the only category afforded such largesse? This is not a criticism of farmers, farmers’ spouses or anything to do with farming, rather it is a criticism of a system that can treat one group of citizens so very differently and unfairly to another.

When Brian Cowen reshuffled his cabinet he was criticised for his conservatism. That his minister for social and family affairs has made such an unfair and socially imperceptive decision within days of assuming office confirms that criticism was justified.

The whole area of pensions is a minefield and this latest stroke from the handbook of auction politics points to another area that must be considered under the long-awaited pensions review.

Sadly, especially for entirely innocent farm families, the only decision that will not deepen injustice in this already deeply divided society is another U-turn. But they need not fret, that’s as unlikely as a promotion for Mary Hanafin or her admirable ideals of social equity.