Submission 133
April 2008
Green Paper submission
Chapter 6: The social Welfare Pension: Reform Options (Pages 68-98)
Reference is made to the situation of women in the Civil Service who were obliged to retire on marriage (the marriage bar – which was abolished in the 1970’s) (Para 6.5). Such women were awarded a marriage gratuity related to the number of years they had served in office. Pre-1970, the choice of a deferred pension was not an option. The argument that such women would qualify for a pension (if pensions on a universal basis were introduced) without contributing to the social insurance system is only valid if “contribution” is defined only as a monetary contribution (Para. 6.12). The introduction of such a pension need not be based solely on residency and/or citizenship. If some recognition were given to the contribution made by women (who were forced to leave the Civil Service on marriage) in home making and child rearing it could still be argued that any such pension was earned on the basis of contribution to the well being of the State (Para. 6.14).
Many references are made to the payment of pensions to persons based on age. Age in itself is not a stand-alone criterion. It can be, and currently is, combined with contributions. However the only contribution deemed by the State as worthy
of consideration is a monetary contribution. No credit is given to non-monetary contributions to the State. The value of child rearing and home making is completely ignored in assessing contributions made by e.g. former female civil servants who were compelled to retire on marriage. (It should not be forgotten that such female civil servants and single male civil servants were penalised by the State by being paid only 80% of the salary of equivalent grade married male civil servants doing the same work and have never been compensated).
The State gives some recognition to the fact that child rearing is very important work (they assist it financially with childcare allowance payments). Why does the State stop short in allowing credit for this work towards the receipt of some State
pension in old age? By foregoing paid employment outside the home, such married women failed to pay any PRSI and so are penalised on both fronts by the State. The disbarment of such married women from any “non-contributory” State pension (because the State only regards monetary contributions as contributing towards a pension) on the basis of the means of their spouses is unfair and inconsistent. For income tax purposes such married women (working solely in the home) are regarded by the State as having no income (they receive no tax allowance in their own right). The spouse working outside the home and the spouse working at home are penalised by receiving less income tax relief than a married couple both of whom work outside the home and whose combined incomes equal that of the couple where only one is working outside the home. The further injustice is that in the former case both parties of the couple, where both are working outside the home, can qualify for State pensions in their own right. It seems that the State regards any work outside the home as superior to that of home making and chid rearing. The State even goes so far as to give assistance towards crèche facilities which the stay-at-home spouse contributes freely to the State.
For pension determination by the State, the spouse working in the home is regarded as having half the income of the spouse working outside the home. The State should be consistent in dealing with its citizens.
