Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1990

Vol. 396 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Community Service Scheme Supervisors.

Mr. McCartan

I thank you very kindly, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this matter. It is an important issue because it impinges on the quality of services being provided by the community services schemes around the country. I am going to concentrate particularly on the Dublin area from where my information emanates. It is important that I raise this matter here and that the Minister explains the position to the House.

On 9 February last I issued a statement explaining my concerns about some of the work practices and got a cursory, single line response from the Department of Justice to say that my information was completely wrong and that everything was correct in the Department of Justice work services. I would like to have the record put straight but more importantly I would like to see something done to regularise and put in order the conditions of work of the supervisors, of which there are approximately 15 on the north side of the city; the Minister will have to tell us how many are employed by the service throughout the city and country.

When the Community Services Act was passed it took some time to put in place the national service. The probationary service had to be expanded and the idea was that people who might otherwise be put in prison could be put to community work. There was agreement with the unions that they would not generally do work that was capable of being done by tradespeople. The service then started cleaning up graveyards and public open spaces and, more regularly, because of the non-availability of funds in other areas, their work related to the decorating and painting of many of our national and secondary schools. The idea is that at night time when offenders are not required elsewhere they would serve out their orders under supervision. This posed a practical problem for probation officers in that they could not supervise multiple locations and they were not in a position or did not have the trade skills necessary to know how a particular trade job might be done. Therefore the Department correctly sought to employ skilled or trade supervisors, people with experience in the area of painting, decorating, maintenance work and the like. These people were employed through the National Manpower Service and FAS.

In late 1985 or early 1986 these people started work — all of them had been on the dole — and were employed for a maximum of 14 hours a week at a rate of £5 per hour, which amounted to £70. That was considered to be equivalent to two day's work and they were paid for the other four days on the dole. These people are still in that same position and are still being paid under the probationary service scheme. As a consequence problems arose. It was only after some months that the people inquired about their tax situation and were told that was a matter for themselves. I have correspondence in my possession, dated 13 November, from the Revenue to one of these people, indicating that it was considered they have earned fees. This was a device contrived by the Department of Justice to say they were not employees but were on contract to the probationary service. While these people are community service supervisors they are paid through an account which is considered to be the petty cash account of the probationary service in Anne's Lane. The account is with the Bank of Ireland, St. Stephen's Green, account No. 90/0084/75806965.

Each week these people are paid £70 and that rate has not increased. No wage slip is provided to them. Because they have not paid tax there was a demand for huge back tax. The Department say that matter has been resolved but that is not so. It is being addressed but it certainly has not been resolved. One person received a tax bill for over £1,000, money that person simply does not have and will not be able to pay unless this matter is resolved. On the PRSI front, after 18 months the Department back paid, by lump sum, all the PRSI that was being demanded of the Department of Social Welfare and thereafter they began to deduct the payments on a weekly basis.

This whole service was introduced haphazardly but with all good intentions. The primary reason was that due to the embargo the Department could not employ full-time workers who were needed. Many of us have argued here that we have to respect and support the expansion of the community services schemes and they are slowly expanding. The time has now come to regularise the position of these supervisors who have been in this twilight employment for nearly four years. Because they are not in permanent employment they have no entitlement to and are given no allowances for holidays. There is no opportunity, under the operation of the scheme, for a person to be let go for two or three weeks in order to take holidays because it is an ongoing operation.

The tax demands that are being currently made should be sorted out and the people should be employed on a proper and permanent basis. They are needed for the scheme and are an important feature of it. If they were employed full-time it would allow the probation officers to get back to the job that they should be engaged in, that is counselling and work closely related to the courts. Because these people work under 18 hours a week they are considered to be dependants of their wives if they are working and consequently their rate of entitlement is the J1 rate. It is claimed, for example, that if they had four more hours work a week they would be entitled to unemployment benefit of £29.70 on top of what they are currently getting. Because of this arbitrary cut-off to comply with one scheme of the Department of Social Welfare, they are being penalised in another way.

I hope I have outlined succinctly in the short time available to me, the problems that exist. The tax problem is being addressed but in a way that these people simply cannot meet. Their PRSI is now on a proper basis, although inconsistently because they are paying PRSI on the basis that they are employed but they are taxed on the basis that they are being paid fees. They are being paid out of the account of the probationary service that is there for general cost purposes. They are in a twilight zone. They are in an irregular position at this stage given the number of years they have been employed. They are described as being in receipt of fees. They do not consider themselves to be professional people. They are thankful for the small amount of work they have but they believe strongly — and I support their claim — that after such a long time it is incumbent on the Minister to regularise their position, to put them in a permanent and proper position within the scheme. As a result, the community services scheme would be all the better because it would be formalised and there would be a formula whereby the scheme could be properly expanded.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Burke)

The Deputy first accused my Department of irregular employment practice in the employment of sessional supervisors under the community service order scheme in a press release on 9 February last. The Deputy alleged that my Department were guilty of grossly irregular practices in the employment of tradesmen as sessional supervisors, an allegation he repeated tonight. In response to these allegations my Department immediately issued a statement which was read out on the "Today at 5" radio programme that evening, to the effect that there was no basis for the Deputy's allegations; that those engaged as sessional supervisors are taken from the FÁS register; that their tax arrangements have been fully agreed with the Revenue Commissioners and are in order; that there is no question of any irregularity nor is there any question of trying to get around either the public service embargo or worker protection legislation.

The Deputy who was being interviewed on the programme at the time availed of that advantage to say that he believed my Department were trying to mislead the public in the matter. This was totally unfounded and, may I say, most regrettable statement in view of the very clear-cut rejection of his allegations by my Department. However, not satisfied with that, the Deputy tabled an oral question on the matter to my colleague, the Minister for Labour, for answer on 20 February. The Minister for Labour pointed out, among other things, that there was no contravention of labour law in the method of employing these sessional supervisors. Moveover, as regards the tax situation, I made matters perfectly clear again on 27 February in reply to written questions from Deputy Jim Mitchell.

Perhaps I should now take this opportunity to, I hope, clarify once and for all the circumstances under which sessional supervisors are employed by the probation and welfare service under the community service order scheme. Persons engaged as sessional supervisors are taken from the FÁS register. They are usually unskilled. Some, of course, may have a trade or skill but they are not taken on on that basis: in fact, they are taken on on the basis that they have an ability to oversee the work done by offenders and ensure the work is being done to a reasonably good standard.

The supervisors work from five to 14 hours in any one week depending on the nature of the project and the attendance arrangements for the offenders. As regards the latter consideration — the attendance arrangements for offenders — I think it would be helpful to invite the Deputy's attention to what the law actually provides. Section 7(3) of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983, specifically provides as follows in relation to work directions that maybe given to offenders:

Directions... shall, so far as practical, avoid any interference with the times the offender normally works or attends a school or other educational or training establishment.

One of the practical effects of securing compliance with this provision is that community service work tends to be performed, for the most part, in the evening or at weekends.

This arrangements, therefore, has nothing whatsoever to do with any effort to have the people concerned categorised as part-time workers and excluded from the scope of workers protection legislation or to get around the public service recruitment embargo. The fact that the appropriate rate of PRSI is deducted, precisely for the purpose of securing social welfare benefits, in itself indicates that there is certainly no intention of dodging legislative benefits and shows how grossly unfair the Deputy is in his reference to back street practices. The whole arrangement is based entirely on practical necessities having regard to the job to be done and the availability of the offenders doing it.

My colleague, the Minister for Labour, in dealing with the Deputy's question to him on 20 February made it quite clear that my Department will be keeping the question of full-time employment under review should that prove to be an efficient manner to carry out the work concerned. I can assure the Deputy that if full time employment appeared to be a feasible and efficient proposition there would be no question of its being rejected on the basis that it would bring workers within the legal protection to which my Government and I are committed.

As the sessional supervisors work for a maximum of 14 hours per week at £5 per hour they are unlikely for the most part to incur a tax liability during the income tax year unless they have income from other sources. Tax is not deducted and persons engaged are advised that an end of year tax return will be made to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of the moneys paid to them. This arrangement has been fully agreed with the Revenue Commissioners. They are entitled to unemployment benefit or assistance less the amount received during the period of engagement of one week. I should, incidentally, mention again, as I did in the Dáil on 27 February in reply to Deputy Mitchell's questions, that the question of applying public service pay rises to the hourly rate of £5 is under consideration at present.

In conclusion, may I say that sessional supervisors provide a valuable service under the scheme and I am satisfied that the conditions under which they are employed are not open to the kind of criticisms made by the Deputy. The suggestion that my Department would involve themselves in back street style tactics in employing labour and on top of that would seek to mislead the public on the subject is to put it mildly offensive and I sincerely hope the Deputy will take a suitable opportunity to retract it.