No doubt the Taoiseach is familiar with the recent ruling from the European Court of Justice which held that the State is obliged to protect the pension rights of 1,500 Waterford Crystal workers. The case is now back in the High Court to determine what percentage of their pensions the workers are entitled to. Should the legal process run its full course all the way to the Supreme Court, it could take the workers into 2016 or beyond in their quest for justice.

Later this afternoon Deputies from all parties will meet a delegation of former Waterford Crystal workers who are coming to the Dáil to protest at the Government's continuing failure to address the implications of the European Court of Justice ruling. Also here today in the Gallery is the general secretary of Unite, Jimmy Kelly, along with some of the former Waterford Crystal workers.

It is now four and a half years since Waterford Crystal shut, decimating the lives of hundreds of Waterford families and indeed the economy in Waterford city. As if it was not bad enough that their livelihoods disappeared so quickly, these workers were further kicked into the ground when they were told that their pensions were effectively wiped out. This has caused particular hardship for many ex-Crystal workers who tell me that some of them and their families are living on the brink of poverty. Many of them are reliant on social welfare in spite of the fact that they have paid into pension funds, some for 46 or 47 years. It is outrageous. Further, it is unfortunate and appalling that since the factory shut four years ago, some 20 of these workers have passed away without receiving their pension entitlements.

Each year hundreds of cases are settled out of court in Ireland. Will the Taoiseach instruct the State's defence team to meet the legal and union representatives of workers to seek an agreement ahead of a High Court date? After all, to go through this procedure could represent a considerable cost on Irish taxpayers and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a common agreement could be reached with the Unite union without incurring costs of perhaps millions to the taxpayers of Ireland.

I was in Waterford recently and I met some of the personnel involved. On 25 April last, the European Court of Justice issued its ruling which contained several clarifications regarding the transposition of the EU directive that had been referred by the High Court in July 2011. The European Court of Justice made its findings and rulings.

I sympathise and empathise with what Deputy Halligan is saying. The downturn in the economy has affected hundreds of thousands of workers. In many cases, including companies such as Waterford Crystal, this has had a devastating impact on those who have paid into pensions over the years.

Deputy Halligan asked me about meetings and so on. The matter is before the High Court now and I cannot involve myself in a parallel negotiating position. I am sure those who are on top of all the details as this prepares to go back to the High Court are well aware of what might or might not result from those negotiations. However, I do not want to give any false hope. There is no point in my saying that we will set up a meeting with the union when there is a parallel course going through the courts and I imagine Deputy Halligan understands that. If we were to take this outside that forum without the authority to make a decision at the end, it would only cause a lot of trouble and confusion and I am sure Deputy Halligan understands that as well. The process is in train, the ECJ has made its ruling and it has gone back to the High Court. Those arguing the issues now have the clarification they sought from the European Court of Justice and I expect that the process of the High Court can deal with this.

There is nothing prohibiting reaching a settlement. The barristers and legal teams have said as much and it is under the European directive. There is nothing stopping the Government from speaking to the union and making a settlement outside of court. That has been made quite clear by the legal teams. If the Taoiseach read the European directive he would see that it has almost been acknowledged as the way forward.

Is it not regrettable that the State would choose to contest this when it is an open and shut case causing distress and uncertainty to workers? I have referred to the potential costs to taxpayers.

The Taoiseach may be aware that in the United Kingdom all workers are entitled to 90% of their accrued pensions. That ruling was issued by the European courts some years back following a case taken by a worker in the United Kingdom. It is appalling and outrageous that former taoisigh, Ministers and bankers are on huge pensions. One former Minister chose to leave the country and live in another country and have his pension sent out to him. Here, we have workers who have contributed to the Irish economy for up to 47 years with payments to keep the economy going. There were 5,500 workers at one stage. We are going to force those workers, 20 of whom have already passed away, into the High Court and possibly the Supreme Court. There is no sense in doing this when the European Court of Justice has already issued a directive to the effect that these workers are entitled to their pensions.

Thank you.

I again appeal to the Taoiseach, and specifically to members of the Labour Party to whom I have spoken, to do something about this. I appeal to him not to force these workers, who have made a huge contribution to the Irish economy, into the Supreme Court until 2016 or 2017.

Hear, hear.

This was a landmark case taken by the union to the European Court of Justice. It is necessary that the clarifications given by the European Court of Justice be available to the State. The negotiating team for the State and the team for the workers are involving themselves with the clarifications and are going back into the High Court. The reason these clarifications are necessary is that these rulings have general application for many thousands of other workers. Consequently, it must be uniform across the board in respect of all workers in that sense.

Sorry Taoiseach, the specific ruling was in respect of these workers and it can be separated. The specific case covers 1,500 workers and not all workers in the country.

Sorry, Deputy, the Taoiseach.

The European Court of Justice rulings arose because of the case taken by the union to the court. Those clarifications have been given in the High Court and both teams now have them. For the State, it is important that these clarifications be available because of the general application across the board for thousands of workers and I hope that with these clarifications, both teams, which are in constant contact with each other, will be able to use that process to arrive at a solution.

Stalling.

While that concludes Leaders' Questions for today, I understand the Taoiseach wishes to make a statement.