Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Community Sector High Level Forum

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 5 March 2019

Tuesday, 5 March 2019

Ceisteanna (53, 78)

John Curran

Ceist:

53. Deputy John Curran asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the community sector high level forum has met recently; the progress in regard to pension provision for supervisors and assistant supervisors of community employment schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10450/19]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Bríd Smith

Ceist:

78. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the total amount of providing pension entitlements to community employment supervisors in line with the Labour Court proposal has been costed; if funding will be made available in the coming period to deal with the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10622/19]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (6 píosaí cainte)

I suggest that there be no introduction to these questions, with the Minister to respond. The Deputies will have 30 seconds each for just one supplementary question apiece.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 78 together.

As the Deputies will be aware, this issue relates to a claim by community employment, CE, supervisors and assistant supervisors who have been seeking to implement a 2008 Labour Court recommendation relating to the provision of a pension scheme. The matter was the subject of discussion at the community sector high level forum that was reconvened to examine certain issues pertaining to the CE sector and, in particular, to ensure that the matter was fully examined while having regard to costs and precedent.

A detailed scoping exercise was carried out by my Department in 2017 in order to examine and assess comprehensively the full potential implications of the issues under consideration. That exercise clearly illustrated that this matter presented significant issues for the Exchequer, with a potential cost to the State of between €188 million per annum and €347 million, depending on the size of the sector, which is difficult to ascertain, in respect of funding to enable an employer pension contribution in State-funded community and voluntary organisations. This excludes any provision for immediate ex gratia lump sum payments of pension as sought, which could, depending on the size of the sector, entail a further Exchequer cost of up to €318 million.

It continues to be the position that State organisations are not the employer of the particular employees concerned and that it is not for the State to provide funding for such pension scheme provision. The employees in question are, or were, employees of private companies, notwithstanding the fact that the companies concerned are, or were, in receipt of State funding.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He knows that this issue has been around since the Labour Court recommendation of over a decade ago. The high-level forum that the Minister mentioned has been examining it. However, the matter must be resolved at some point. These people have spent years providing a significant service as supervisors and assistant supervisors, yet we are not making the level of progress that we should be.

I chair the Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection, which is examining the issue of bogus self-employment. There are parallels with what has been done to this group of people by saying that they are employed by private companies. They had no autonomy. Their sole funding came from the State. We must accept a level of responsibility and deal with the issue. It will not disappear.

It is ironic that the Government is constantly warning about pension time bombs and the need to force or cajole workers into pension schemes, yet here it is refusing to acknowledge the State's responsibility to provide these workers with pensions despite effectively being the agency that hired and paid them. These workers have taken strike action as a last resort in an effort to persuade the Government to negotiate with them. Their claim for a pension has been supported by the Labour Court and Dáil Éireann, which passed a motion calling on the Government to put in place pension arrangements for these workers. The Minister is now saying that it will cost too much even though we do not know the size of the sector.

We do know the size of it. I have shared with the House on a number of occasions the different figures that are involved in this. The key point I would make to Deputy Curran in response to the points he made is that the Government is not the employer. These were companies and organisations that were formed to provide services to which the State made a contribution. I know that Deputy Curran, as Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection, will appreciate the challenges involved here. As the Deputy knows, we are about to embark on a process in which we will be asking people, through the pensions master scheme and automatic enrolment, to forgo earnings to build up a pension in the future. However, we would face a great challenge were we to say that for another group of employees, we are going to do that retrospectively. How do we handle that issue for the citizens in our State? That is what is at the heart of this issue.

I thank the Minister. The issue may require more time but that is the best I can do.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn