Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 September 2018
64. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the number of community employment supervisors employed; the cost of providing pension entitlements to community employment supervisors from 1 January 2019; the additional supports which will be provided for community employment sponsoring community organisations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38654/18]
View answer72. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when community employment supervisors will receive their pension entitlements in accordance with Labour Court Recommendation No. 19293 of July 2008 and the Dáil Éireann motion of April 2018; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38653/18]
View answer75. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the steps taken to honour the pension claim of community employment supervisors and assistant supervisors as per a 2008 Labour Court recommendation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38816/18]
View answerIt is sad and funny to hear the Minister talk about anomalies given the amnesia that affects her and the Fine Gael Party generally, and Fianna Fáil.
Could the Deputy ask a question please?
The Minister changed those bands and inflicted suffering on the women concerned pre-2012.
I wish to ask the Minister about another anomaly, namely, the Labour Court Recommendation No. 19293 of July 2008, in respect of pensions for the 1,250 community employment, CE, supervisors and assistant supervisors who manage 25,000 staff who are carrying out wonderful work in parishes and communities throughout the island. Several commitments have been made that we would address this other anomaly but the Minister has done nothing to date.
The conceit of the far left never ceases to amaze me. It considers it has a monopoly on compassion.
I do not want a second preamble. Could we move on with the reply?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 64, 72 and 75 together.
CE scheme supervisors are employees of private companies in the community and voluntary sector that receive public funding. They are not employees of my Department or public servants. There are currently 1,346 supervisors or assistant supervisors employed with CE sponsor organisations. My Department funds wages and training costs in respect of CE participants and supervisors. It does not, and has not, provided provision for funding for CE supervisor pensions.
Employers, including CE sponsoring organisations, are legally obliged to offer access to at least one standard personal retirement savings account, PRSA, under the Pension (Amendment) Act 2002. I am sure the Deputy is well aware of that. On foot of the Labour Court recommendation, the issue of CE supervisor pensions is currently being examined by a community sector high-level forum, which is chaired by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. A number of Departments, including mine, are represented on this group, as are the unions and Pobal.
A detailed scoping exercise was carried out with input from the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, IGEES, on the costs of providing Exchequer support for the establishment of such a pension scheme for employees across the community and voluntary sector. The exercise clearly illustrated that this matter presents significant issues for the Exchequer, with a potential cost to the State of €188 million per annum in respect of funding to enable an employer pension contribution in State-funded community and voluntary organisations, excluding any provision for immediate ex gratia lump sum payment of pension as sought, which could, depending on the size of the sector, entail a further Exchequer cost of up to €318 million.
I am very conscious that while the issue relates to CE supervisors and assistant supervisors, such individuals comprise just one small group within the wider community and voluntary sector. Any provision of State funding for such a scheme in respect of those employees could potentially give rise to claims for similar schemes on the part of those in the broader sector, thus crystallising the level of liability. Any solution to this issue will require careful consideration, in particular the implications for scarce Exchequer resources.
The final few points the Minister made are reminiscent of a familiar old mantra. When community employment and later, job initiative, JI, schemes were set up - Ruairí Quinn initially set up the social employment scheme, SES, in the mid-1980s - people did not realise they would become such a fundamental part of society in terms of local development, training, caring and childcare. I am a director of a number of such community companies. I was involved in them before I became involved in politics and have been all through my political career. Wonderful work is carried out that benefits both the individuals themselves through the training provided and their work in communities. That must be recognised.
The Minister referred to the Lansdowne Road agreement and the high-level forum chaired by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We expected an outcome from that in late 2017. We had a Private Members' debate on a motion tabled by our Sinn Féin colleagues. The Minister quoted the potential cost put forward by IGEES of €400 million to €500 million but we estimated the cost to be much lower in budgetary terms and the issue must be revisited as a matter of urgency.
We are all deeply aware of, and grateful for, the work being carried out. Local groups are valiantly trying to support supervisors and assistant supervisors for the brilliant work they have done over decades. The issue is similar to a previous question on women's pensions pre-2012 and the Minister should acknowledge the situation and begin to move on it.
The programme for Government states that the Government will respect the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court and ensure that both bodies are supported to fulfil their roles. Does the commitment still stand? When we were dealing with the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Minister cited legitimate concerns about the implications of proposed amendments on the working of the WRC and the Labour Court and those concerns were addressed. There was a clear ruling by the WRC in 2008, which has been ignored by successive Ministers and Governments, affecting 1,250 CE supervisors and assistant supervisors. The Minister hides behind the scoping exercise that is being carried out, brings in the community and voluntary sector and comes up with the figure of €188 million, which was not part of the WRC ruling from 2008. The WRC was categoric in what was being proposed, namely, that pensions should be provided for CE supervisors and assistant supervisors. Could the Minister provide an exact figure on the cost to provide a pension scheme solely for CE supervisors and assistant supervisors, who are individuals doing exceptional work across communities in this State?
Before the Minister responds, I make an appeal to both Deputies. Deputies Durkan and Murphy O'Mahony have both been sitting in the Chamber for a long time and I want to ensure they have an opportunity to have their questions answered before 12 noon. Could Deputies Broughan and Brady stick to the rules and regulations to which we all agreed on the running of this House? I urge all speakers to be brief so that we can accommodate those two Deputies who have been sitting here a long time.
The community sector high-level forum includes representatives of not only various Departments and statutory agencies but also union representatives. To be fair, the forum is chaired by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but it includes the various Departments that have responsibilities towards the community and voluntary sector and not just the valuable organisations that provide CE schemes funded by my Department. All of the Departments recognise the valuable services provided in communities by people on CE schemes. That is why the high-level forum was established.
I am not sure whether Deputy Brady is aware of the history of this case and that the Labour Court made a recommendation. It did not make a ruling. The recommendation has been scoped with input from IGEES on the costs of providing Exchequer support to all involved in the community and voluntary sector. Unlike Deputy Broughan, who is an Opposition Deputy, we do not have the option of pitting one part of the community and voluntary sector against another. If one is going to do something, one must respect equally the contribution made by all those in the community and voluntary sector. That is why this is such a difficult task. If it was easy to fix, it would have been fixed.
We have not looked at individual costs for CE scheme supervisors because one cannot fix the problem without causing an additional problem elsewhere. We have learnt lessons from the past when we tried to fix issues in a piecemeal way by ignoring the outputs from advisory groups.
The Minister could make a start with the CE supervisors and assistant supervisors.
There is no question. We had this debate. On the IGEES figures I cited earlier, up to €500 million or whatever, that is obviously if we have an immediate big-bang approach. Given that Labour Court Recommendation No. 19293 is sitting there for ten years, whatever excuses could have been made in respect of the crash and the aftermath and the austerity period, there is no validity in them now. The matter is crying out for justice. The Minister herself has been floating the idea of the supplementary savings scheme, automatic enrolment and this plan for 2022-2023 to ensure that this will not happen again to any segment of our society where people have given very valuable service to communities. In this budget, in line with that, can she not as a start implement this recommendation at a very modest cost? The budget committee is meeting the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, this afternoon.
I am not asking the Minister to introduce anything piecemeal. I am asking her to introduce the full recommendation of the WRC from back in 2008. What that recommendation lays out would cost a fraction of the €188 million the Minister cites. We are not talking about doing things piecemeal. We are talking about the Minister following up on the commitments in the programme for Government, honouring and respecting the WRC and not being an impediment to its work.
A motion was passed in the Dáil before the summer recess, brought forward by the Minister's friends in Fianna Fáil with Sinn Féin's support. It called on the Government to implement the recommendations from the WRC. We are coming into the budgetary process and, in the next couple of weeks, we will have a negotiated budget presented between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Have there been any discussions about implementing that motion? Have there been any discussions between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael about implementing the pensions for community employment supervisors and their assistants?
The Deputies seem to have forgotten that the high-level forum consists not only of people from a variety of Departments with responsibility to the voluntary and community sectors, but also representatives of Pobal, Fórsa and SIPTU, which are the people's representatives in those sectors. In terms of suggestions as to how we could magically find the €0.5 billion that is potentially needed, maybe Deputy Brady will come up with a great budget himself in the next couple of weeks and show us what he would cut or stop doing to provide that extra €500 million every year.
We will.
We have all done our own budgets.
If there was an easy solution to this, the high-level forum, including representatives of both unions, would already have found it. The meetings of the high-level forum will continue. The unions have met the Minister over the summer months and will actively continue to pursue ideas in an effort to resolve this issue. It is not going to be fixed until we all find a solution and we will continue to work towards that.
