David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is aware that the former Waterford Crystal workers brought a case to the Commercial Court.

The Commercial Court sought advice from the European Court of Justice on a number of aspects of the State's obligations under the European Union 2008 insolvency directive. The European Court of Justice ruled last week and found that the State had failed in its obligations to implement measures which safeguard workers' pensions in respect of a double insolvency and that the State had not implemented Article 8 of the EU insolvency directive.

I hosted a briefing in the audio-visual room today which was attended by Members from all parties and none. The briefing was given by Mr. Jimmy Kelly and Mr. Walter Cullen, officials from Unite, Mr. Tom Hogan and Mr. Michael Dooley, former Waterford Crystal workers and plaintiffs in the court case to which I referred, Ms Mona Costello, the lawyer for the workers, and Mr. John O'Connell, a pensions expert. The two former workers spoke about their experience of working for 30 years and 40 years in Waterford Crystal. They found out at very short notice that their jobs were gone, that they were essentially being locked out of their jobs and that they were being left without proper redundancy payments and without proper terms and conditions being implemented. They were treated very badly by the company. The workers then found out that not only was the company insolvent but that their pension fund was insolvent and that after long service to a company, they would not get their proper entitlements in terms of redundancy nor would they get the vast bulk of their pension into which they had paid. To add insult to injury, they then found out to their cost that the State had failed in its obligation. If the State had implemented the 2008 European Union insolvency directive, those workers' pensions would have been protected.

I commend those workers for taking the court case and congratulate them on their victory. However, I appeal to the Government to act. I understand this must go back to the Commercial Court but the strong message from all the people who made the presentation in the audio-visual room today - from the legal people to the pensions expert to the workers themselves to the union - was that the Government should not drag its heels. While the Leas-Chathaoirleach can argue it is sub judice, that does not stop the Government from acting. The Government has it within its power to enter into immediate negotiations with the trade union to properly compensate the former Waterford Crystal workers.

I will leave it to the Commercial Court to make its decision but I am asking the Government to start negotiations with the former workers. The delegation was very clear that if the Government does that, then agreement can be reached to everybody's satisfaction. However, there must be justice for former Waterford Crystal workers who must get their pensions. What steps will the Government take following this judgment? Will it drag its heels, drag this out further and add insult to injury or will it accept the court's ruling and allow the Commercial Court to run its course but enter into negotiations with the trade union, properly compensate the workers and seek to put in place legislation, which it ultimately will be compelled to do, to ensure all workers and their pensions are protected?