2026-03-18

Bogfaidh muid ar aghaidh go Saincheist Thráthúil Uimh. 5. Is í seo an cheist dheireanach. Tá sí in ainmneacha na dTeachtaí Cullinane agus McGuinness. It is to the Minister for Social Protection to discuss pension issues concerning former Waterford Crystal workers.

How long do I have?

Dhá bhomaite.

I thank Minister, Deputy Calleary, for taking this Topical Issue debate today. As he knows, my party leader and I have written to him a number of times over recent months. I have received his correspondence and responses, which I know have been drafted by officials in his Department who have been responding to this issue for some time. The issue here is that many former Waterford Crystal workers who paid into their pension schemes and were left down initially by the company, but also by the State, have received compensation. They received compensation because a small group of workers took a High Court case which eventually went to the European Court of Justice. Because of that, a compensation scheme was put in place to deal with those workers who were in a deferred pension scheme. Those workers had to fight the State every inch of the way and, in fairness to them, they did and they got the best outcome. There is a category of workers who have been left outside of that. These are workers who, at the time of their redundancy, were not given their full statement of options. They were only given the option of a refund of their contributions. They were not given the option of a preserved benefit and they were not given the option of staying within the pension scheme. Because of that, they are now locked out of the same compensation that other categories of workers have been given. The Minister's response and the response of the Department seems to be that the State did no wrong and that it was not the State's fault, even if it is the case that the workers were not given their full entitlements. By the way, it has never been accepted by the State that it was at fault, regardless of whether the workers were given their full options. What the Minister seems to be saying in the response that has been given to me is that, notwithstanding that the legal situation at the time, the workers may have had a right to know all of their options, but not in writing, and they would have had to ask as opposed to being told. That is unacceptable because the whole thrust of the compensation scheme that was put in place was on the back of an EU directive that the State failed to implement to protect people in these circumstances. These workers have been failed and let down. They want a meeting with the Minister to raise important questions they have. The right thing for the Minister to do is to meet with them.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a bheith anseo anocht chun an cheist seo a phlé. My colleague, Deputy Cullinane, set out the position in his contribution. He and I met with this group of former Waterford Crystal workers just last week. To be honest, they are worn out by this. They have been at it for years. They have had years of being fobbed off. These are decent, hardworking men. They worked hard and honestly for Waterford Crystal. They were made redundant. They were kept in the dark at that time about their options. In fact, they were never told about their options. That failure to inform them has cost them real money and it is money that would have made a real difference in their lives up until now. If this is resolved, that money could make a very real difference to their lives. Time is not on the side of these individuals. Whatever way we cut it, and whatever happened in the early nineties, the State had, and has, a duty to protect its citizens, underwrite fairness, guarantee justice and ensure rights are upheld. When workers are made redundant, through no fault of their own, they must have the ability to make decisions with information. Informed consent is at the core of everything. These workers did not get that and, instead of fixing it, the Government is washing its hands and ignoring them. It is not good enough and it needs to be resolved. Critically, these men want to meet with the Minister so that he can hear their story about the injustice done to them and how it has impacted their lives. Following that, they want him to resolve it. That is where he can make the difference. For decades, these men have been ignored and the injustice of what was done to them explained away. The goalposts shifted, with previous Ministers saying one thing and Ministers of State on local radio saying another, while responses to parliamentary questions said another thing entirely. That is not good enough. I implore the Minister to meet these men, hear them out and do everything he can, with his officials, to work on a solution that will give them some comfort and justice as they finish their retirement.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an mbeirt Teachta Dála as an ábhar tábhachtach seo a ardú anocht. As Deputies Cullinane and McGuinness set out, the issue relates to a group of former workers who left the service of Waterford Crystal between 1990 and 1992 under a redundancy arrangement. At the time of the redundancy, the workers received a refund of their pension contributions relating to their service in the relevant company pension schemes up to that time. Consequently, they then ceased to be members of the pension schemes and no longer had any rights or entitlements under those schemes. This was a private agreement entered into by the workers themselves with their former employers. Separately, in 2010, a legal action was taken by a group of former Waterford Crystal workers against the State following the insolvency of the Waterford Crystal factory and staff pension schemes. The case, which is known as the Hogan case, related to the failure of the State to adequately transpose into Irish law the relevant provisions of the European Union’s insolvency directive. The directive requires member states to ensure that necessary measures are taken to protect employees’ occupational pension scheme benefits where an employer becomes insolvent. In 2015, a mediated settlement was reached between the parties to that legal action. The mediated settlement applied to all persons who were members of the Waterford Crystal staff and factory pension schemes on the date of wind-up of the schemes, namely, 31 March 2009. In total, 1,774 scheme members were covered by the agreement. The total costs to the Exchequer arising from the mediated agreement were estimated at €253 million. No member of the schemes with a pension entitlement at the date of wind-up was excluded from the mediated settlement in respect of their benefits. The former employees of Waterford Crystal who previously took redundancy and received refunds of pension contributions were not eligible to be included in the mediated settlement as they had no benefits retained in the scheme. Those who took partial refunds maintained an entitlement commensurate with their level of benefits that remained in the scheme. This group of workers, the Waterford Crystal Pension Action Group, WCPAG, disputes the receipt of pension option forms at the time they were made redundant. The question regarding the provision of leaving service options is one for the employer and the trustees, rather than the State. I understand that some members of WCPAG took a legal action against these parties, which was ultimately settled. My Department was not party to these proceedings but the outcome did not reinstate the members pension rights in the pension schemes. Following a meeting with some of those affected in September 2024, the former Taoiseach and current Tánaiste, Deputy Harris, requested the Attorney General to review the claims being made, including the allegations around the failure to provide leaving service options. The Attorney General advised that there is no basis on which the State could be obliged to compensate the members concerned or otherwise intervene. I appreciate that the members of WCPAG feel an injustice has been done to them. Unfortunately, it is not something the State was party to or can now resolve. As I have communicated to the group and Deputy Cullinane, nothing has changed from my Department’s perspective. There is no basis for me to intervene, considering that the Attorney General has reviewed this issue comprehensively. In those circumstances, I do not feel a meeting is warranted. I hope this clarifies the matter for both Deputies.

It is not a case of whether the workers were the victims of an injustice; in my view, they were. As I said earlier, at the time those workers should have been given three options: the preserved benefits option, a transfer value or a refund. They were only given one option, which was the refund. The quarrel seems to relate to the fact that the Minister and the Department are of the view that this was a matter for the company and the trustees of the pension fund as opposed to the State and, therefore, the State does not have a liability. However, the Minister confirmed in his response that the Hogan case "related to the failure of the State to adequately transpose into Irish law the relevant provisions of the European Union’s insolvency directive". He went on to say: ... a mediated settlement was reached between the parties to that legal action. The mediated settlement applied to all persons who were members of the Waterford Crystal staff and factory pension schemes on the date of wind-up of the schemes. That is true. The problem, however, is that these workers were not given the option to be members of that scheme. The only option they had, as part of their redundancy, was a refund. That is an injustice. It is wrong that the Minister will not meet those workers because they want to better understand the advice of the Attorney General and determine whether he had all the information when he made his judgment. It is incumbent upon the Minister to meet the group and talk to it about the advice he received from the Attorney General.

The Minister stated in his response: "The question regarding the provision of leaving service options is one for the employer and the trustees, rather than the State." The first part of the sentence is true. At the time these workers were made redundant, it was incumbent on the employer and the trustees to provide full information. The State, however, has a role in vindicating rights and ensuring compliance with not just the letter but the spirit of the law. It must ensure, in instances where there is a difference in power, such as a large multinational company making workers in Waterford redundant, that it is on the side of the workers and that there is fair play. Fairness and justice were not applied here. That happened on the State’s watch and that of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The Minister and the Government have legal advice that says they can just sit on their hands and let this injustice continue. This comes down to a political decision. It comes down to a choice of values and a matter of justice. The Minister has a political decision to either sit on his hands or meet these workers halfway and make a reasonable attempt to resolve this issue. Birthdays come around every year and time is not on the side of these former Waterford Crystal workers. In the last line of the Minister’s response, he state: I do not [believe] a meeting is warranted. I [trust] this clarifies the matter for [the Deputy]." It is crystal clear, in the last line of his response outlining that a meeting is not warranted, that he is refusing to meet with this group of workers who have suffered an injustice. At the very least, sit down with them and hear the impact of their stories. Let us work to get a resolution for these men.

I thank both Deputies. I will again clarify the position. The former employees took refunds of their contributions. They have no pension entitlements. Therefore, they had no entitlement under the mediated settlement. The Pensions Authority has also advised that there has been no breach of the Pensions Act in this case. Some took legal action against the parties. That action was settled. It did not involve the State in any way. The Attorney General has comprehensively reviewed all of the information that was provided to him in September 2024 and his advice is that nothing further can be done in the case. In other cases, the Deputies will have found instances where I feel there can be a solution but, on this occasion, a meeting would be unfair because it may create an expectation that I cannot meet. The Attorney General’s advice is very clear. Nothing further can be done in this case, as of now.