David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I support that viewpoint and ask the Minister to provide some clarification. In my Second Stage contribution I mentioned that I would also support the introduction of a separate Bill dealing with pensions, although I know this Bill deals with certain elements, including defined pensions and so on. Earlier when the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry, was in the House, I mentioned an EU directive to which successive Irish governments had failed to sign up. It is essentially to provide insurance for those with private pensions. In Britain there was the Maxwell v. Robbins case and the British Government was brought to court. Ironically, at the time the Irish Government supported the British Government's position. The British Government lost that court case and had to put in place the terms of the directive, the purpose of which was to ensure all pension companies took out insurance to protect pension contributions in order that at least 60% of what a person had contributed to a pension scheme would be covered.

Pension funds sometimes collapse because of falls in the stock market and, to a lesser extent, the bond market. A case in point is that of Waterford Crystal. Many likened these private pension funds to Ponzi schemes. Some former workers who were the first in and had others behind them to keep the pension fund pot topped up had their pensions guaranteed and were being paid in full. However, when the company finally closed, many workers were left without a pension, despite having paid into a pension scheme for 20 or 30 years. The company made a contribution on behalf of these workers, yet they were left without a pension. I am sure the Minister would have sympathised with them at the time and would still do so.

The Minister will be aware that the UNITE trade union is taking an action against the Government in the commercial court. It simply wants the Government to implement the terms of the directive. For me, it makes perfect sense that we do not end up with workers being left without pensions having made contributions. I do not believe people would mind making a slightly higher contribution if it meant having a safeguard in place in the event that the pension fund went belly up such that they would receive, for example, at least 60% of their pension entitlement rather than being left high and dry as happened to many Waterford Crystal workers.

Is the Minister aware of the European directive? Is she aware of the court case being taken by the UNITE trade union? Is she aware of any plans by the Government to implement the terms of the directive to ensure we safeguard private pensions?