Dara Calleary
Question:108. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress on the provision of pensions for community employment scheme supervisors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [35338/21]
View answerThursday, 1 July 2021
Questions (108, 113)
Seán Sherlock
Question:113. Deputy Sean Sherlock asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of pension entitlements for community employment supervisors. [35357/21]
View answerOral answers (10 contributions)
I want to know the current position on the CE supervisors' pension claim. I know the Government put a proposal on the table recently. I want to see an update on that. There has been very negative feedback to the proposal. I also want to ascertain the Department's plans in this regard.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 108 and 113 together.
As the Deputies will be aware, CE supervisors and CE assistant supervisors have been seeking for several years, through their union representatives, the allocation of Exchequer funding to implement a 2008 Labour Court recommendation on the provision of a pension scheme for CE supervisors and assistant supervisors who are employed by CE scheme sponsors. This claim creates some difficulties because the State is not the direct employer of the supervisors. Within this context, officials from my Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform held discussions on proposals to progress and to resolve this complex issue while having regard to the wider budgetary framework. Officials from my Department also held discussions with unions representing CE supervisors and assistant supervisors.
At the start of April agreement was reached with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on proposals to resolve the long-standing issue. These proposals include a financial package. I am confident these proposals are a solid basis for progressing and resolving this complex issue. Discussions on these proposals are ongoing between my Department and the unions representing CE supervisors and assistant supervisors. The unions have made some observations and these are now being examined by my officials in conjunction with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. My officials continue to progress this matter as a priority, and I hope these discussions can reach a conclusion in the near future.
As the Minister of State said, the Labour Court in 2008 made a recommendation which would nullify the Government view on the State not being the direct employer of supervisors or assistant supervisors. The Minister of State knows an incredible amount about the schemes and we have discussed them this morning. Every scheme is dependent on the commitment, dedication, talent and skills of the supervisor and the assistant supervisor. Without those, CE would not be the very successful scheme it has been. As the Minister of State said, the proposals were put forward in April. Today is 1 July. What timeline has the Minister of State in mind for resolving the issue? The proposal, as he said, is a solid basis for progression, but there are a lot of concerns about the detail within it, the fact that it relates only to service since 2008 and the fact that it is taxable. Many of the supervisors and assistant supervisors I have spoken to have said the offer is so small after tax that they would have been as well off not having done anything over the past 20 years of their lives, never mind the commitment they have given to communities.
I ask for urgency on this. It has been going on for far too long. Unfortunately, many who started the campaign have passed on. We owe it to all these supervisors and the assistant supervisors to resolve this issue fairly for once and for all.
I share the concerns Deputy Calleary outlined about the risk that we feel is inherent in this that the outcome of the negotiations will be such that the amount paid to retirees would be derisory, rendering the process almost null and void in the context of the pound of flesh that supervisors have given through their years of service. The Government should not at the end of this process be levelled with the charge that it was a token process. The process has to be such that the amount of moneys that will be awarded to people will be commensurate with their years of service and meaningful for those people. I accept the bona fides of the Ministers in the Department and accept the fact that there is a process to be gone through in respect of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but I ask the Minister of State to ensure that the moneys that are paid at the end of the day will be meaningful given the supervisors' years of service.
I thank both Deputies for raising this. I expect they appreciate that there is a negotiation process ongoing and that I would be very slow to impact that adversely, so I will not comment on the details except to reiterate and to acknowledge the work of CE supervisors, assistant supervisors and participants across the country. I have met supervisors and participants from Newmarket, Ballina, Killinarden and Churchfield in the past four or five weeks.
The work they do is astonishing and their embeddedness in communities is remarkable. They are not looking for thanks from me this morning. It would be remiss of me to go into too much detail on what is happening in the negotiations, other than to say we are examining the counterproposal from the unions and we hope to respond to it in the coming weeks.
I welcome that there is engagement. That is important but the Minister of State should be under no illusions about the frustration and anger of the supervisors and assistant supervisors with the proposal on the table. Many have told me they feel that they have been boxed into a corner, that this offer will be put on the table and if they do not take it, they will be told they were made an offer and did not take it. That is adding to their anger and their frustration with the manner in which this issue has evolved in recent years. The Minister of State's tributes are noted but tributes and good wishes do not put butter on the potatoes or pay the bills. This has been going on far too long. I am conscious that other areas of the public service are watching this process. However, there is a Labour Court recommendation and the Government cannot lecture people on taking the Labour Court seriously if it does not take it seriously.
We know these people. They live within our communities and we know the work they do. We deal with them every day of the week. They are of us and our neighbours. The work they do cannot be measured easily in metrics but we all know instinctively its value, sometimes over decades in the case of some supervisors. I reiterate the call that has been made that the process and outcome have to be meaningful in terms of financial recognition of that service. All of us in the political landscape openly acknowledge the role of community employment schemes. We recognise the value that they have brought to the public realm and otherwise. It would be very unfortunate if the outcome of this process was such that people felt their personal dignity, as workers, was undermined by a derisory package. I implore the Minister of State, and I know he will take this into account, to reflect that work in a package that is commensurate with years of service.
I commend Deputies Calleary and Sherlock on tabling these questions. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and Minister of State in trying to resolve this matter but I agree with everything the two Deputies have said. This issue needs to be resolved now. I call on the Ministers to listen to the counterproposal put forward by the unions. This issue has been going on for far too long. It is frustrating and disheartening for people who play a pivotal role in all our communities. I appeal for progress and urgency in the approach to resolve this matter once and for all. I thank the Acting Chairman for allowing me to contribute briefly.
I concur with the Deputies' comments on the huge work CE schemes have been delivering in our communities for many years. Running in parallel with CE schemes is the rural social scheme, RSS. While I acknowledge that the cases highlighted focused on the CE scheme, the RSS engages in similar activity in rural areas. I seek clarification on whether the work towards a solution will also address the case for RSS supervisors who are effectively in the same situation or if that is possible.
I genuinely thank all the Deputies for their contributions and acknowledgement of the importance of community employment. I will give some points of information in response to Deputy Moynihan's question. The 2008 Labour Court recommendation deals with the CE supervisor and assistant supervisor pension issue solely. It related to these two categories of employees and did not deal with job initiative scheme or Tús employees or the RSS, which is a different type of scheme. It is in this context that officials in my Department, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the unions representing the community employment supervisors and assistant supervisors held discussions to progress this issue.
Another Deputy made the point that some CE supervisors had passed on. My understanding is that should an agreement be reached, the estate of a former supervisor could apply to whatever scheme is agreed upon. The Deputies will appreciate that I do not want to go into too much detail and that my officials are working on a response.