Tuesday, 11 December 2018

Questions (550)

Bobby Aylward

Question:

550. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the position regarding contractual, pay and pension concerns raised by community employment scheme supervisors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52033/18]

View answer

Written answers (Question to Employment)

As the Deputy is probably aware Community Employment (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, and as such were not subject to pay reductions under the provisions of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (FEMPI) which only applied to public servants. 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.

On foot of the Labour Court recommendation, the issue of CE supervisor pensions is being examined by a Community Sector High Level Forum, chaired by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. A number of Departments, including my own Department, 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 potential costs of providing Exchequer support for the establishment of such a pension scheme for employees across the Community and Voluntary sector in Ireland. The exercise clearly illustrated that this matter presents very 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 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 potential level of liability. Any solution to this issue will require careful consideration, in particular the implications for scarce Exchequer resources.