Righting pension wrongs for all

■ Unlike Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe, I was rendered speechless during the presentation of the Budget.

He intends to compensate women who were forced to give up their civil service jobs on marriage and thus lost out on pension rights. Does he seriously believe that he will get away with limiting this to civil servants?

The mores of the time were such that the same practice was adopted in the private sector (with the possible exception that resignation was usually on pregnancy rather than marriage). This was in keeping with the Constitutional position at that time, particularly Article 41.2: “The State shall endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

The Pensions Act 1990 (as amended) deals with the principle of equal treatment in pensions. It seems obvious the State would lose if challenged in court, whether under that act or more general equality legislation or through Constitutional action.

Finally, is it appropriate for a minister

to describe something which reflected the spirit of the then Constitutional position as “bonkers”? If he persists with his present position, he risks that adjective becoming more appropriately applied to him. Joan E Jordan Killiney, Co Dublin