I am tempted to go over all the arguments again but I will not do so. Last Saturday night in the programme "Dáil Report" I heard the Minister say that he had listened to the arguments of Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies. Obviously he did not hear what Fianna Fáil Deputies had to say but I will not put the House through the agony of going through the arguments we put forward in a two hour period on a previous occasion.
The most important amendment has to do with pension funds. As Deputy O'Kennedy said, this matter was discussed by us at party level and it became clear that the cases referred to, such as Castle Brand in Nenagh, have been repeated throughout the country. We must also consider the pensioners who have been on pension for a number of years: where the company concerned goes into liquidation those people lose their pension rights. Last week I referred to Bolands Mills. In that case some people had spent their entire working lives in the employment of a reputable company but when there was a take-over they lost a substantial amount. They had to be grateful they got anything because under present legislation in the event of a take-over they have no entitlements. In the case of Bolands at least the people concerned got part of their pension, but in Castle Brand the fund is insolvent and there will be nothing left. Yesterday there was a statement by Mr. Justice Costello that there should be an investigation into what happened to the funds. We will have to wait and see.
Many such losses have occurred but they have never been highlighted. As this Bill was going through the House at this time it probably focused attention on a number of pension funds. One point I made last week was picked up by Deputy Prendergast. He said that when a company goes into liquidation it is bad enough for employees to lose their jobs and entitlements with regard to wages and salary. However, they also lose the substantial amounts they have paid into a pension fund for a number of years. In many of the traditional Irish industries that are closing now the employees had 35 or 40 years service.
In his speech on Second Stage on 26 June the Minister made the following comment:
In addition to providing for the protection of workers' claims relating to pay, the EEC directive also imposes an obligation on member states to protect workers' interests in the matter of company pension schemes. I am very concerned that the entitlements of employees under company pension schemes should be protected.
We fully supported that view. Our spokesman on Finance, and hopefully the next Minister for Finance, made it clear last week he would support the Minister knowing that the contributions would have to be increased if the concession were given. We know the money cannot be provided out of the redundancy and insolvency funds as at present constituted. We are asking the Minister to follow up on what he said on the previous occasion. We all know that his alternative and compromise solution is to wait until there is a national pay-related pension scheme. That will not happen until many of us have left this House, either forced out by the public or having left on retirement. The Minister was not very precise in what he said last week and I checked to see if there was any proposal by his colleague, the Minister for Health, to bring in a Bill that might resemble in any way a national pay-related pension scheme. I was told by his Department that there was no such proposal. In that event I welcome the Bill which I consider a good Bill.
I know that the directive has been around for three years and that the latest date by which we had to implement it was 22 October. By funding 12 months contributions of pensions we fulfil the EC directive in the most minimal way. However, we are putting a case to the Minister in the interests of thousands of defenceless people. They have no one to argue their case, they are out of work, they have no trade union to speak for them and many of them have lost the contributions they have made in the past 35 or 40 years. When the directive was drafted in Europe it was obviously designed to provide such protection and the Minister admitted that on Second Stage. If there is some way for the Minister to put forward an appropriate amendment I willingly withdraw my amendment now and will wait until Report Stage. I am as anxious as the Minister to get this Bill through so that people who have been made redundant since 22 October 1983 may receive their entitlements under the legislation. Surely it is an opportunity to give something back to the thousands of people who have been deprived of their jobs, entitlements and pension contributions. I ask the Minister to consider doing something to alleviate this massive hardship.