Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 October 2017
167. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the composition of the community sector high-level forum; the members of the forum; the chair of the forum; the remit and schedule for the forum reporting to his Department; if it is examining Labour Court recommendation 19293 regarding pension provision for community employment supervisers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43939/17]
View answer168. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason the Labour Court recommendation 19293 on pension provision for community employment supervisers has not yet been implemented; the barriers to implementation; the cost of implementation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43940/17]
View answer169. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when he expects the community sector high-level forum to report on the Labour Court recommendation 19293 on pension provision for community employment supervisers; if the minutes of the forum's meetings are available; the cost of running the forum; when he expects it to complete its work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43941/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 167 to 169, inclusive, together.
The Community Sector High Level Forum was reconvened in 2015 to give consideration to a number of issues including the issue to which the Deputy refers. Meetings took place on 24 February and more recently 7 April 2017. The minutes of these meetings await formal approval by the parties to the Forum and will on such approval be publicly available on my Department's website. Previously approved meeting minutes are publicly available on my Department's website and contain the names of the participants on the Forum.
In considering the particular matter referred to, I must have regard to the costs and precedent of such an arrangement were one to be created. A scoping exercise is currently being progressed by officials in my Department and should be completed later this year.
It continues to be the position that state organisations are not the employer of the particular employees concerned and that it is not possible for the State to provide funding for such a scheme. The employees in question are, or were, employees of private companies notwithstanding the fact that the companies concerned are, or were, reliant on State funding.
