Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

Unlike the Sinn Féin Deputies, I do not welcome the legislation. The bottom line is that workers are being asked to work longer for less. It is part of a nasty, regressive attack on the rights and entitlements of working people generally. It arises in the context of a relentless, vitriolic and utterly dishonest campaign of scapegoating against public sector workers generally, the purpose of which has been to cause a race to the bottom in terms of their pay, entitlements, pensions and the rights of workers generally, both those in the public sector and the private sector. It is part of a strategy of playing public sector workers off against private sector workers with the intention of attacking them both.

Much of the context for those sort of attacks on public sector workers has implied that the Government is championing in some way the interests of private sector workers and pensioners. Let us be clear: in the criticism I make of the legislation and the Government's intent, we are as concerned as anybody else about the difficulties and injustices being faced by private sector pensioners. If the Government had any real concern for private sector pensioners it would do something. Instead of attacking public sector pension entitlements it would do something, for example, about the criminal overcharging of private sector pensioners by Irish fund managers. As the Government will be aware, recent reports and analysis suggest that private sector pensioners are losing between 30% and 40% of the value of their pension fund essentially because of the greed of private sector pension fund managers. The Government should do something about that rather than attack public sector pension entitlements.

It should also do something to ensure that it is mandatory for private sector employers to make substantial contributions towards the pensions of private sector workers. The failure of the Government to do anything to champion the real interests of private sector workers and pensioners is symptomatic of its more general refusal to take on the wealthy, corporate elite in this country and impose taxes on it which could be used to fund decent pensions for all workers in the public sector and the private sector.

Symptomatic of the real attitude of the Government towards private sector pensioners was the so-called 0.6% raid on private sector pensions earlier this year, which as the Tara Mines pensioners have now explained to us is not in fact a 0.6% raid on their pensions but actually amounts to 10% of the value of their annual pension being taken off them for the next four years or 2.5% over the full lifetime of their pensions. This is a disgusting raid on people who worked all their lives and paid their taxes and pension contributions. Their pensions are being attacked by this Government to pay off bankers, bondholders and vultures of the financial markets. Other private sector workers are likely to discover that their pensions were similarly affected. The Government needs to provide decent pension rights and entitlements to private sector workers by making employer contributions mandatory.

In regard to public sector pensions, it is important to be clear about the context in which these events arise. In criticising this legislation I also acknowledge the legitimate anger felt by ordinary people in regard to excessive pay and pension entitlements for top civil servants, semi-State bosses, politicians, judges and the bankers who are now effectively public servants. The Government should do something about these individuals by cutting their pay and pension entitlements. At a time when ordinary workers in the public and private sectors are being lashed by levies, universal social charges and taxes on pensions and pay, it is disgraceful that some people are still paying themselves multiples of the average industrial wage. People are right to be angry but this Government has no intention of doing anything about the problem other than token gestures.

The ULA's view is that nobody paid with public money should earn more than €100,000 per annum. If the Government is serious about dealing with excessive pay among those at the top of the public sector, that is what it would do. Such a cap would solve the problem of people walking away with massive pension pots. Rather than attack the pensions of low and middle income public sector workers on the spurious basis of preventing people from building up excessive pensions, by reducing salaries we would not have to deal with these obscene entitlements.

This legislation is based on the myth that ordinary public sector workers have gold plated pensions for which the rest of us pay. Public sector workers pay for their pensions through superannuation, the pension levy and their taxes. The Government continues to recycle ideological rubbish in this regard. On 11 October, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform stated: "[t]o appreciate how the single scheme will continue to provide valuable pensions to teachers, it is instructive to look at the 2009 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on public service pensions which estimated the annual pension cost to the State for teachers to be 22.4% of pay." That is absolute nonsense. According to that report, the cost to the State was 9.6% of pay. The remainder came from the public sector workers themselves. In any event, the State's money comes from the taxes paid by these workers.

This legislation will require new entrants to the public service to pay more into their pension schemes than they will get in return. The State, as employer, will pay a lower contribution to pensions than the average proportion across the private sector. Contrary to all the mumbo jumbo arguments that are wheeled out to defend it, this legislation will accelerate the race to the bottom by attacking the pay and pensions of all workers, whether public or private, and it should be opposed resolutely.

See this speech in context