Wednesday, 8 May 2019

Questions (192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 202, 206)

Mary Butler

Question:

192. Deputy Mary Butler asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to have a meeting with community employment supervisors as part of the high level forum discussion on gratuities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18458/19]

View answer

Michael Healy-Rae

Question:

193. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if a pension scheme will be introduced for community employment supervisors (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18566/19]

View answer

Peter Burke

Question:

194. Deputy Peter Burke asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the status of the provision of pensions for community employment supervisors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18591/19]

View answer

Peter Burke

Question:

195. Deputy Peter Burke asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the status of the availability of capital for the provision of pensions for community employment supervisors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18592/19]

View answer

Noel Rock

Question:

196. Deputy Noel Rock asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will be engaging with the high level forum (details supplied) to deal with the ongoing issue of the pension claim by community employment supervisors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18829/19]

View answer

James Browne

Question:

202. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will consider meeting a union regarding a matter (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19421/19]

View answer

Brendan Griffin

Question:

206. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on a matter concerning community employment supervisors (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19968/19]

View answer

Written answers (Question to Public)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 192 to 196, inclusive, 202 and 206 together.

This issue relates to a claim by community employment supervisors and assistant supervisors who have been seeking, through their union representatives, the allocation of Exchequer funding to implement a 2008 Labour Court recommendation relating to the provision of a pension scheme.

The matter was the subject of extensive discussion at the Community Sector High Level Forum which was reconvened to examine certain issues pertaining to the Community Employment sector and in particular to ensure that the matter was fully examined having regard to both costs and precedent. The implications arising from this claim extend beyond the CE Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors cadre and impact across the entire Community and Voluntary sector.

A detailed scoping exercise was carried out by my Department in 2017 in order to comprehensively examine and assess the full potential implications of the issues under consideration.

The scoping exercise clearly illustrated that this matter presents very significant issues for the Exchequer, with a potential cost exposure for the State of between €188 million per annum and €347m depending on the size of the sector which is difficult to ascertain, were consequential demands to be made to fund employer pension contributions for all similar State funded Community and Voluntary organisations. This excludes any provision for immediate ex-gratia lump sum payment of pension for those imminently retiring, as sought, which could, depending on the size of the sector, give rise to a further Exchequer cost exposure of up to €318 million.

The Forum met in the period subsequent to the conduct of the scoping exercise where relevant matters in respect of this issue were discussed in comprehensive detail with the members of the Forum. These discussions provided a clear understanding to each of the parties of their respective positions in relation to this matter and in this context the formal engagement process between the parties was accordingly concluded on this basis.

It continues to be the position that state organisations are not the employer of the particular employees concerned and accordingly it is not for the State to provide funding for occupational pension scheme provision.