Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I indicate on behalf of the Labour Party that we will support unambiguously tonight's motion. I welcome the supervisors and assistant supervisors and their trade union representatives to the Gallery. We met some of them earlier.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish to contribute to this debate on the plight of CE supervisors and assistant supervisors who, notwithstanding the court hearing on 11 July 2008, have been denied the import of the recommendation of 22 July 2008 by Raymond McGee, which took into account the comprehensive submissions made by the unions on behalf of the supervisors and assistant supervisors of CE schemes and a submission from FÁS, as the funding agency for the CE schemes. They recommended that an agreed pension scheme be introduced for the CE supervisors and assistant supervisors.

One of the important aspects which compelled the Labour Court to bring forward this recommendation was the fact that the public service benchmarking body in December 2007 did not provide a pay increase to the majority of public servants because of the value placed on public service pensions. This gave rise to a fundamentally iniquitous situation whereby supervisors and assistant supervisors of CE schemes did not receive pay increases to which they were entitled because they had no pensions. They were told they had pensions and, as a result, were not given any pay increases so they were effectively double-whammied by the State. The consequences of these decisions remain current and relevant to date. The Labour Court recommended that a pension scheme be adequately funded by what was then FÁS, as the recognised funding agency, and exhorted the parties to engage without delay to achieve this objective and that no adverse consequences for workers' employment should arise.

We are all aware of the importance of CE schemes throughout the country and the key role they play in environmental enhancement and refurbishment in towns and villages. They also help disadvantaged people and those in long-term unemployment to gain work and training in their local communities as a stepping stone to achieving regular work. I am aware of this happening through a scheme operating in my own village and of one young man recently securing full-time employment. We see the results of the work input of CE schemes in the provision of much-needed community services, such as: crèches and meals on wheels; the upkeep of community halls and facilities and GAA and soccer pitches; Tidy Towns supports; and the maintenance of green areas.

Critical to the success and smooth functioning of CE schemes are the 1,200 or so supervisors and their assistant supervisors who manage all these local projects daily and ensure the objectives of the schemes are achieved. This involves a wealth of bookkeeping, record-keeping and general management expertise and the implementation of various legislative requirements in health and safety, so it is a very challenging and responsible role.

Since the 2008 Labour Court recommendation, approximately 300 or more supervisors and assistant supervisors have retired. Never mind the fact that they did not get to go on a pension; they did not receive a red cent, not even an ex gratiapayment to acknowledge their invaluable contributions. Many have retired to rely on the old age pension. This could mean a drop in income of approximately €450 for some. It is a shattering experience for any employee to experience at that stage of his or her life. One cannot but argue that these supervisors and their trade union representatives have been extremely tolerant, responsible and patient for the best part of a decade.

Some of my colleagues in the Chamber might not understand this, but my colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, together with the then Minister, Deputy Kelly, actually brought forward a scheme to deal with this. It was called the community sector redundancy supports fund, and €1 million was provided for it as a head. This was at the end of 2015. There was going to be an amendment to a local government Bill to ensure it was put on a statutory footing because the Attorney General, I understood, had recommended it had to be on a statutory footing. That was the ideal way to deal with the matter.

I think Deputy Calleary understood that Jack Wall, Jack O'Connor, Patricia King and others were involved in this. He recognised that here in October, when we debated this matter. It was tremendous, and a satisfactory and workable solution was given. Everyone knows that it took into account a number of factors involved, including the cost and precedential value of implementing such an arrangement for the public sector. However, it now appears to me, and indeed my Labour Party colleagues, that this has turned into a war of attrition. More and more people will have retired or passed away and their families will be left close to a state of impoverishment if this is not resolved.

In November 2017, a report was prepared by the Minister of State's Department which calculated the precise cost implications arising from the claim for pension provision for CE supervisors and assistant supervisors. Deputy Ó Broin has referred to the correct figures in this regard. It would cost approximately €25 million to include the ex gratiapayment. I speak to people in Lanesboro, such as John Farrell, who would be happy to get a few bob to retire on an ex gratiabasis. The Minister of State is not dealing with fools; he is dealing with very intelligent people who are operating schemes on behalf of the State. They realise that if they have five or six years left, they will not get a full pension. They are dealing with an ex gratiasituation, which is what was agreed. Some of them are prepared to contribute to a scheme so as to ensure that in the future, supervisors will have a proper scheme that is properly financed by the State and with input from themselves.

This is an opportunity to grab this ball once and for all and to bring the curtain down on a saga that does not do any credit to anyone. We have arrived at a situation whereby there has been no willingness or effort to address the issues, leading to an incredible level of frustration, which was evident last Wednesday in the AV room, where supervisors from all over the country addressed Members of the Oireachtas. They are here again tonight. I cannot understand why this cannot be looked at. The Labour Court is an important vehicle in the armoury of industrial relations, and we all at some stage in this House, as colleagues have said, have advocated the sanctity and importance of adhering to recommendations and outcomes that derive from the State's industrial apparatus and we have respected the rulings emanating from the independent industrial relations of last resort to the State.

It is high time to end the current impasse. The Minister of State can do so, and the pilot way of doing so is set forward. It was brought in a Government memorandum by Ministers. Therefore, it is lying there; all it takes is political will. There are a set number of people involved and they have a Labour Court recommendation which distinguishes them from any other group. If any other group gets a Labour Court recommendation, it will be prospective. This is retrospective and deals with those affected going forward as well. It is a defined group, so there is no excuse for any further delay.

See this speech in context