I should like to add my voice to the appeal that has been made by other Deputies on behalf of the foresters concerned. I should like to ask that these officers should have their date of establishment take effect as from the date they were appointed. This Bill provides that these foresters will be permanently established as from the date of the passing of the Bill. That, of course, is a measure of justice which is long overdue, but as these men have been serving the State faithfully for a long period and have given very useful and distinguished services it is only right that they should be regarded as permanent officials as from the date they were appointed. Some of these men have now given long service. Some of them, I understand, have passed 50 years of age and have not a very long time to serve in order to qualify for a pension. In view of that, it would seem unfair not to permit them to have the advantages of this Bill over the entire period of their service. Perhaps the Minister or the Minister for Finance may think it is unfair for Deputies to ask for additional concessions of this kind. I know that the Bill itself is a concession to these officers. Nevertheless, it will be appreciated that the additional costinvolved will not take effect for a number of years, perhaps ten or 12 years. We do not know whether the Minister will remain in office until then. Perhaps by that time a more responsible Opposition will have arisen which will enable him to hand over the responsibility. In view of the injustice which these men have suffered, perhaps it is only an apparent injustice, inasmuch as the benefit of establishment will not come to them until they retire, it is only right that they should enjoy the status and the benefits of established officers for the period which they have served.
Committee on Finance. - Department of Lands (Establishment of Foresters) Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).
These men are supposed to have a benefit conferred on them by being made established civil servants under Section 4. What troubles me in regard to the senior men, men who have 20 or 30 years' service, is that I cannot see what benefit is conferred upon them because in a few years they will retire from the service and the superannuation they will get will be merely nominal. I wonder does the Minister propose to make any special provision for the men who have 30, 25 or 20 years' service? Probably these men retire at a comparatively early age from the service and therefore they may have very few years to go.
I cannot see that any benefit will be conferred on them by making them civil servants because in fact we are limiting their freedom to some extent. The moment they become civil servants they will be tied down by Civil Service regulations. Some provision should be made for the older men in order to give them more superannuation or a bigger gratuity than that to which they will be entitled if they retire ten years hence. I take it the number affected is small but I would like the Minister to say something about these particular men when he is replying.
Mr. A. Byrne
I support the appeal made for retrospection in this matter. Three years ago the late Deputy Byrne who at the time represented Dublin North-West interviewed the then Minister with some of the foresters and one of the points he made was that ifthese men were established the date of such establishment should be made retrospective. The present measure will only confer a benefit on new entrants if the Minister does not make the date of establishment retrospective in the case of the older men. If they retire in 15 years these older men will have a very small pension. When this State was first established, we had several unestablished teachers but our Government confirmed these in their posts and added some years of their unestablished service for pension purposes. I appeal to the Minister to do likewise in this instance.
Would the Minister give us some indication as to how Section 5 will work? Will it be done by way of interview board or through the medium of the Civil Service Commissioners?
It is the intention that foresters who become established under the machinery provided by this Bill and whose establishment will date under the terms of the Bill from the date of enactment will be allowed to reckon half their previous unestablished service for pension purposes subject to the fulfilment of the various standard conditions that service must have been continuous, health satisfactory, and so on.
With regard to the point made about foresters over 50 years of age, I do not know whether Deputies are aware that the age limit in the case of the establishment of unestablished public servants is now 55. The intention is that half the previous service, together with whatever future service the officers will give, will be pensionable, but the total years of service must be at least ten. I do not think any case will arise in which existing officers will have less than ten years' service. According to the statement I have here, most of these officers have fairly long service: 14 officers have service of at least 40 years; 59 have service of between 35 and 40 years; 30 have between 30 and 35 years; 26 have between 25 and 30 years; six have between 20 and 25 years; two have between 15 and 20 years, and 4 have between 10 and 15 years. The great majority have fairlysubstantial service and quite a number will be getting practically the full pension.
From the figures I have given the House will see that only a very small number have comparatively short service. I would have liked to give effect to the full service for all foresters, but that is not possible because there have been other cases in which established status has been granted to unestablished public servants and the practice has been to give not more than half the unestablished service. If we were to go further than that in the present instance a precedent would be created and that would have repercussions in other branches of the service. I am afraid it is not possible to achieve more than has been secured. I think the position is fairly satisfactory because all the officers, as far as I am aware, will be eligible to become pensionable, and in calculating that pension half their previous unestablished service will be taken into consideration.
Will those over 55 be automatically established?
Yes, subject to their fulfilling the usual standard conditions for establishment in the Civil Service. With regard to Deputy Sweetman's point, once the Bill becomes law it is entirely within my discretion to issue the necessary recommendation. The concurrence of the Minister for Finance is mentioned, but I think the emphasis is really on the discretion of the Minister for Lands.
Am I correct in assuming that it was the Secretary of each Department who issued a certificate in all other cases up to this?
The Civil Service Commission will issue the actual certificate, on my recommendation.
I think that the Secretary of the Department furnished the Civil Service Commissioners with a certificate which was demanded before issuing the final certificate of establishment.
It is suggested to me that the Secretary may come into it in the way of a clearance as to the character, and so forth, of the candidate for establishment.
Deputy Cunningham raised a question about trainees. The age limits of trainees are from 18 to 22. These trainees will not be established, ipso facto,at the end of the training course. This training course is rather stringent and we must be satisfied not alone that the trainees have completed the course satisfactorily, but also that they are in every respect suitable to be successful foresters. The Bill only obviates the necessity for having a competition under the usual Civil Service regulations. That does not mean that there will not have to be adequate tests regarding character and suitability.
Can we take it from this Bill that all the existing head foresters in Grades 1, 2 and 3, who have the service required by the regulations—I think it is six, eight or ten years—will automatically be established?
That is the intention.
That is, provided there is no black mark?
Yes.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
The Seanad is not sitting. Accordingly, even if the Minister got this Bill from this House tonight, it would not be of any assistance to him. Of course, if it is any advantage to him, there would not be any objection——
I understood there was an arrangement whereby all stages of the Bill would be taken.
If there is any advantage in it, I am quite agreeable. But is there, in view of the fact that the Seanad is not sitting?
The advantage is that when the business is ordered and when it is actually in progress, it ought to be completed.
There are certain amendments which I should like to have considered on the Committee Stage. They are not of a very contentious nature.
The Bill requires a Money Resolution.
Very well, we will put it back.
No matter what we may want to do, if a Money Resolution is required we cannot do it.