John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

13. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the community sector high level forum (details supplied) has met since its meetings in November 2015 and April 2016; the progress being made in addressing this pension issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3267/17]

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of community employment, CE, supervisors and the pensions that they feel they are due has been around for a long time. The process went to the Labour Court in 2008. Since then, however, there has been no pathway to deal with the issue and it has not gone off the agenda. How can this matter be progressed?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the position that the community sector high level forum or working group, previously the informal forum, was convened in 2015 and 2016 to examine certain issues pertaining to the CE sector, having regard to the implications for costs and precedent. The issue includes community and 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. In light of the recent appointment of a new chair to the high level forum, a meeting is accordingly being arranged between the parties concerned with a view to scheduling a date in the first quarter of 2017.

It continues to be the position that State organisations are not the employers of the employees concerned and it is not possible for the State to provide funding for such a scheme. The employees are or were employees of private companies, notwithstanding the fact that the companies are or were reliant on State funding. In considering the matter, I must have regard to costs and the precedent that such an arrangement could create.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not protract this debate. The issue is known to the Minister and departmental officials. I welcome the appointment of a chairperson. I noted in previous replies that the forum met in November 2015 and on 11 April 2016, so it is well and truly due to sit again.

The Minister explicitly stated that these supervisors were not direct employees of the State, but he also admitted that their employing organisations were primarily funded by the State. Following benchmarking, pay relativity and so on, these employees were closely aligned with public servants.

In all of the Minister's replies, he has indicated that this matter will be examined by the high level forum, which is welcome. However, the matter has dragged on for a long time. The forum has met twice but has not done so for some time. With the appointment of a chairperson, I hope that it will meet actively and address this issue with the requisite level of seriousness instead of allowing the matter to continue year after year.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The forum will meet under the chairmanship of an official from my Department. I expect the meeting to take place in the first quarter of this year, so it is imminent.

3 o’clock

The Deputy outlined the distinction of the case I have made but I would like to reiterate it. The State was not the employer of those raising this case. Their employer was the project in receipt of the funding. We are now being asked to provide pensions for people in respect of whom the State was not the employer and never purported to be the employer. There would be consequences in that regard for the State from an Exchequer and policy of point of view. While the forum will meet, it is not an industrial relations forum, which I think is understood by all participants. The position in terms of the provision of pensions for people who were not employed by the State is not one that we will be able to substantially change but we are always willing to talk to those in the sector about their concerns on the matter, as we are in relation to any other matter.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister specifically referred to what the Government is being asked to do now. The point I am making is that it is not the first time it has been asked to address this issue. This is not a new claim. It is a claim that has been awaiting address for a number of years, having been through the Labour Court in 2008.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This matter has been ongoing since 2008, the reason for which is the principle I have just outlined to the Deputy. The Deputy and I are talking here about principles but both us recognise that there are individuals who worked in this sector who are affected by this matter and are hoping to benefit. I acknowledge this matter has caused a great deal of anxiety and worry but the challenge I face, which is the same challenge faced by the previous Government and the one before it, is the principle of contributing to a pension scheme or fund for people who did not work for the State. As in the case of Deputy Curran, there are many good projects located in my own constituency. Sometimes the great benefit of these projects is that they do not report to the State and that the people employed in them are not employed by the State such that they can bring to bear a voluntary ethos or the ethos of their own community. It is because people employed in the project concerned were not employed by the State that I cannot give the Deputy a response that would be more to his satisfaction or theirs.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that the Ceann Comhairle has authorised that Deputy Eugene Murphy may deal with Question No. 15.