Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

No one wishes to deny members of the Waterford Wedgewood pensions scheme their due. However, when the House is passing legislation, Deputies should at least be provided with a ballpark figure for what costs will be involved. Governments have often got the figures wrong. In that regard, a number of Supplementary Estimates were introduced in the House earlier.

Earlier this year a report in the Irish Examinernoted the following:

Initially, the former Waterford Crystal employees pursued a case before the Commercial Court, saying the State had failed to meet its obligations under the EU Insolvency Directive.

Kevin Cardiff, then secretary general of the Department of Finance, told the court the economic crisis and bailout terms meant the Government could not commit to pay an estimated €13bn to provide a State guarantee of full pension entitlements for workers in case of employer insolvency.

This figure was based on the potential cost of providing protection for the more than 200 defined benefit pension schemes in place at the time. This figure has since declined. In the case of Waterford Glass, the deficit in the pension fund was approximately €100 million. We were informed earlier, however, that a number of pension schemes were in place. What is the estimated cost of providing protection for the Waterford Crystal workers? Will it be €100 million, 50% of €100 million or a multiple of €100 million?

As the Minister of State indicated, Waterford Crystal was a prestigious company. I recall being amazed by footage showing glass blowers, molten glass and blanks at the factory. Sir Tony O'Reilly and his crew subsequently got stuck into the company and sent the blanks and everything else to the Czech Republic. The company subsequently went downhill and later amalgamated with Wedgewood as part of a failed rescue effort. In some ways, the associated companies of the owners got off scot free. This returns me to an issue we discussed in the debate on pensions legislation, namely, the practice of establishing companies for different purposes which often insulate the owners or main company from claims. Vita Cortex, the Paris Bakery and Connolly Shoes are three examples of this practice. Did this also occur in the case of Waterford Glass where the pension fund and company were insolvent and the owners remained solvent and were able to isolate themselves from any liability? As a result of this, taxpayers have been forced to pick up the tab in some ways.

I am not arguing against the Bill. During the debate on the 2013 Bill I argued that its provisions should be made retrospective, but I was informed that was not possible. That retrospection is being introduced today is good, but why did it take from 2007 to 2013 to start addressing defined benefit schemes? This legislation deals with schemes that fell between the cracks. Are there 11 other companies which could potentially be covered by the scheme? If so, to how many workers or pensioners would it apply? Does the figure run into the hundreds? In the case of Waterford Crystal, the number of people involved is 1,774.

See this speech in context