Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Apr 1953

Vol. 138 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Department of Lands (Establishment of Foresters) Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Cogan

I had an amendment tabled which was ruled out of order. I do not propose to deal with it, but I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to amend the section on Report if possible, so as to make the Bill retrospective in respect of the entire period in which the officers concerned are in the employment of his Department. As I understand it, the Bill will affect those officers only as and from the date on which it is enacted, but I think that carries with it a right to 50 per cent. of the period previously served. I think those officers are entitled to 100 per cent. of the period of service they have given. They are not very highly paid officers, many of them, and they are doing very important work. It will be agreed generally that over the years they have carried out their duties efficiently and well. Since we have gone so far as to give them the right of establishment— rather belatedly, no doubt—and now they have sufficient time to enable them to get their pension rights, we should go the entire distance.

It may be said that this would involve a very considerable amount of expense, but I understand that calculations have been made which show that there will be no expense to the Exchequer for a certain number of years and that even over the entire period, if this section is amended so as to give these men 100 per cent. establishment rights for pension purposes, the total cost to the State would not be more than £20,000 over 20 years, which would probably be the maximum length of time that the pension would be payable. The Minister should consider this matter sympathetically and see if it is possible to amend the Bill on Report Stage and give these men their full rights.

I think the Minister made an error in stating the number of personsaffected, when he was speaking here on the 28th March, I understand that there is only one officer with over 36 years' service, that there are only five or eight—the type before me is not good—with over 20 years' service, and only 48 with over 15 years' service. It will thus be seen that the extra expenditure will not come to be met for a considerable number of years and it will not be very severe. In a matter of this kind we ought to be just to our own servants, particularly in this Department, where we have a large number of young men giving very efficient and satisfactory service.

Mr. S. Collins

Possibly this is a unique occasion in this House, because I find myself ad idemwith Deputy Cogan. My fear on this occasion is that the Minister may be building up unconsciously what will become an aggravated grievance subsequently. Deputy Cogan has made a reasonable case and if the Minister cannot do it by a retrospective clause in the section, at least he should consider setting aside some fund that might be paid out by way of gratuity to make up the loss of years effected by the Bill. The Minister is already well aware, from his former capacity as Minister for Education, of what arose over the various types of Orders in connection with pensioned teachers and the difficulties that ensued.

In this particular case, I think we could recognise the worth of the foresters to the State by such a gesture as this. I know it involves expenditure, but the ultimate expenditure might be smallest initially and might prevent this subsequently developing into an aggravated grievance of a section of the community that deserves very well of the State. As Deputy Cogan rightly points out, whatever about the amelioration of the rates of pay of these people in recent years, many of them have spent long years in this service rather inadequately remunerated and the older the forester is the greater his contribution has been to the national effort of forest building.

The Minister might consider doing something in the Seanad rather thannow. My attitude to the Bill is that, in so far as it is a step forward and is establishing these people, I have no desire to impede its progress. If all stages of the Bill are given by this House now, the Minister might consider, before the Bill goes to the Seanad, eradicating what might be a distorted and exaggerated grievance subsequently.

The only complaint that we can find, in the main, from people who are interested in this Forestry Bill and the only communication I have got from people interested in it, is that they are a little bit conscious that this brings down the axe too severely on the people who merit the most consideration. Where young people are involved in this service, they have sufficient years before them to make up whatever might have been lost in pension rights by virtue of this measure, but where the period of service involved runs over 36, 30 or 25 years, the person now affected cannot make up the gap of years.

I would earnestly urge on the Minister, in the light of the reception that the Bill has been given generally in the House, in the light of the unanimity there is on this long overdue right being accorded to these foresters, that he should try to work out some solution to the question of what grievance might be created through years of service that would not count to the credit of the person, by virtue of this Bill.

Mr. MacBride

Both Deputy Collins and Deputy Cogan have made a reasonable plea to the Minister and I would like to support it. This Bill goes a certain distance towards rectifying some of the grievances which some foresters have. The Minister will agree that, so far, the foresters have been the cinderella of the State services. I welcome the Bill, but I hope the Minister will be able to give effect to the proposal made by Deputy Cogan and Deputy Collins.

Mr. Blowick

I was not here when Deputy Cogan moved his amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was ruled out of order.

Mr. Blowick

I am sorry it was ruled out of order. Even though it may be out of order for a private Deputy to move this amendment, I mentioned on the Second Reading and would like to repeat now that the Minister should introduce an amendment himself to give effect to what Deputy Cogan's amendment was designed to bring about. When all is said and done, the charge on the Exchequer will be very small. From a calculation I have made, I can safely say that the effect of this amendment would not amount to an annual charge of more than £1,100. None of that will fall due for payment in the ordinary way before six or seven years and it is a charge which will disappear according as the retired foresters drawing pensions die. The number of foresters is very small.

This Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House. It has been acknowledged for quite a long time that the establishment of these foresters was necessary. I need not go into the reasons but one of them is that it will give a sense of security to that section of the State service. From my own experience I can say that above any section of the Civil Service they are giving the best value to the State for their money. They display genuine enthusiasm in their work and they like to see this particular branch of State activity developed to its fullest. As we have gone 95 per cent. of the way by putting them on the same basis as other State servants, I think we should go the other 5 per cent.; in fact, I do not believe it is even 5 per cent.

On the 4th March the Minister, in reply to a question, gave me certain figures about the number of foresters and their period of service, as reported in column 2040 of the Official Report for that day. On the 26th March, when the Minister was replying to the debate on the Second Reading, he gave figures which seem to be completely at variance with the figures given to me in reply to my question. I was wondering if the Minister was accurately reported on that occasion. As reported in column 1322 of the Official Report for the 26th March, he said:—

"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."

In the reply to my question on the 4th March there is only one officer forester given with 30 years' service or over. According to the figures he gave on 26th March, 59 have service of between 35 and 40 years. There is something wrong here. The Minister then said: "30 have service 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 four have between ten and 15 years." I wonder if there was a word omitted from that sentence? According to that statement most of these officers have fairly long service. I wonder should it have read "will have"?

Mr. Derrig

"Will have" was what I meant although I may not have said it.

Mr. Blowick

Then the Minister was referring to the period of service which the officers will have. Without the word "will," the statement is completely at variance with the reply to my question. The amount of money involved is very small. I should like if the Minister would let us know if I am grossly incorrect when I say that it would not amount to more than £1,100 a year when the maximum number of foresters whom the amendment was designed to benefit would come to receive pension. I think I am correct also in saying that no charge will fall on the Exchequer before six or seven years and that after a period of 20 or 25 years that £1,100 would have completely disappeared. For that reason, I would impress on the Minister that this Bill is an excellent one and I am sure will be hailed by the foresters as being something they were long looking for. It is a measure of justice which they have received at long last, but it will have a flaw in it if the Minister does not amend it along thelines of Deputy Cogan's proposal which was ruled out of order.

Mr. Derrig

I am very glad that the House shares my views that the forestry service and, in particular, the foresters' grades, are giving good service to the country. I am glad, also, that the House feels that the present measure is a token of appreciation of the feeling of the Legislature that this service is deserving of recognition even to a greater extent than the Bill provides. In view of the eloquent and humane representations which have been made by the Deputies who have spoken in favour of extending the scope of the provision for recognising past service, I should be very glad, indeed, if it were possible for me to hold out hope, which I feel I cannot, unfortunately, do, that it might be possible for me to introduce an amendment to better the provision that is being made.

It is quite true that for those who have been a long period in the service and who may be retiring in a comparatively short period of years, the question is of importance. The more service an officer can get and the more of his past service is reckonable for pension purposes, obviously the more security he will have when the time comes when he must retire from active work. The reduction which takes place at that time is, of course, very serious particularly in present circumstances. It is true that the imposition on the State would not be very great from the point of view of expenditure. The liability would not be very significant for a long time to come. It is not, however, really a question of expenditure which the granting of the additional service would necessitate; it is the general principle of how far back one should go. Unfortunately, having gone into his matter very carefully and having tried to achieve the best I could for the foresters, I have not been able to get over the obstacle that it is the universal practice when unestablished public servants are being established to give them half the previous unestablished service. I am not the only Minister concerned in this matter. There are, of course, unestablished civil servantsin other Departments, very much larger numbers than are in question in this measure. It is only natural they will feel that the foresters have done rather better than they have done so far. It might also be argued that they are doing better than some of those who have been established in the recent past.

I have been compelled to defer to the view that the same general principle should bind all these cases of unestablished public servants who are coming on to the permanent staffs. If we change the rule in respect of one group, no matter how small that group may be, there is no doubt that a precedent will be created and that precedent will have to apply in all future cases. The Ministers concerned will have to meet representations and arguments that something more is being done now for a particular section than was done in the past for other sections with even greater claims.

That is the position and much as I regret it, I cannot hold out any great hope that it will be possible to introduce an amendment along the lines suggested. The matter has been considered over a fairly long period and has been discussed very fully with the foresters themselves. I think they understand the position. I will not go so far as to say that they can understand it from the point of view that I am now expressing. It is only natural they should press their claims and take advantage of this opportunity to try to get the best terms possible. I think I have explained to the House the difficulty in the matter.

Mr. Blowick

I do not find myself in agreement with the Minister when he uses the argument that certain unestablished civil servants would feel they would have a similar claim if the proposed amendment were adopted. When we examine the situation we find that the foresters were not established from 1930 up to the present time. They were established under some previous legislation about which I am not too clear at the moment. We are now taking a definite step under this Bill to bring a certain group into line. Hadthe foresters been established 20 or 30 years ago there would now be no necessity to press the Minister on this matter. All we are now asking the Minister to do is to make up for lost time, because some of the older foresters will definitely not get the benefit of the long period of service they have given.

I do not think it is correct to say that other Ministers would, as a result of this suggestion, have to carry out an overhaul in their respective Departments. I do not think any parallel can be drawn between the particular group with which we are now concerned and other unestablished civil servants. We are trying to tie up the loose ends now and I think we should make a complete job of that.

I can sympathise with the Minister when he approaches the Minister for Finance or the Department of Finance in relation to this matter. I know quite well the arguments that will be put up against it. I know the battle the Minister will have to fight but in bringing in a Bill like this he should go the whole way. I am sure the Minister fought a good fight but I appeal to him now, between this and the Report Stage, to renew the fight in order to give this small group the fullest advantage of the long and faithful service they have given. I do not think that is an unfair demand.

I do not want the Minister to think I am urging him to do something that I myself would not be prepared to do if I were in his position. I would fight very, very hard with the Department of Finance to get this concession and I would not accept the argument that other Ministers would, in turn, make the same demand on behalf of their unestablished staffs. I think the Minister would be quite safe in rejecting that argument from the quarter from which he is most likely to meet it.

This is not a very big problem. All we are anxious to do is not to deprive these men of the benefit of the long and faithful service they have given. If the Minister ties up this little loose end the Bill will be a complete success. It can be easily remedied on the Report Stage provided the Ministertakes the matter up with the Department of Finance and insists on the concession being granted to the foresters.

Mr. Cogan

I do not think there is an exact parallel between the foresters affected and the other unestablished civil servants in other Departments. In the Forestry Branch there is a certain classification of workers, a clear-cut and definite classification, who have not been established in the Civil Service so far. I am sure that there are large numbers of temporary civil servants in other Departments. Their employment is of a temporary nature. Even when they have been employed for a long period and their work might be said to be of a permanent nature more or less they have difficulty in becoming established. Their position is somewhat different from that of the officers affected by this Bill. Here you have men who have been specially selected and specially trained for a definite office, it being clearly understood from the very outset that their position would be permanent. It was only through some shortcoming in previous legislation that they were left out. In addition, there is this difference from other civil servants. A forester is a productive worker. Some people have described civil servants as "drones", "parasites", and so forth. I do not think that that description is accurate but certainly it could not be applied to the forester. If we were to take into account the value of his work, the acres of land which have been planted under his direction during his years of service, it would so far exceed the value of his pension that the pension would be only a bagatelle. Therefore, I think you can put such workers into a special class from other civil servants—and, in saying that, I do not intend any disparagement to other civil servants. Many civil servants are in the position of being unestablished by reason of the fact that they were taken on for what promised to be a short period but that period became so extended as to entitle them to become established. If the Minister examines theBill again before it goes to the Seanad he may find that there is a clear distinction between these civil servants and other civil servants.

Mr. S. Collins

While thoroughly appreciating the difficulties that may be created even by virtue of a seeming precedent, I should not like to argue that if the Minister were to be retrospective in this legislation it would not be considered to their benefit by other sections of the Civil Service. I can appreciate that. Could the Minister have resort to a device whereby he could create a fund under this Bill, by a slight amendment, that would enable him, in lieu, to give a gratuity in respect of unestablished service? The main defect is that these people, through no fault of their own and because this legislation did not come within a certain period, are going to lose years of service. If the Minister could get over it in that way he would not be creating the type of precedent which he fears. I think it would meet what Deputy Cogan, Deputy Blowick and myself have in mind. Our fundamental aim is to try and get for these people a security when they retire to which we feel they are entitled in view of their service. Would the Minister consider this point between now and the time he takes the Bill to the Seanad? Would it be possible to create some kind of a fund that would enable him to give a certain gratuity in respect of unestablished service to these people when they retire? I think that that would completely meet their claim.

Mr. Derrig

I am afraid that is impracticable. I have never heard of it. I can imagine at once the reactions of the Minister for Finance if, having settled reluctantly or otherwise the terms of superannuation for some class, you then come in by the back door and look for a gratuity in cash. Of course, there is a gratuity at the end, according to the length of service. It is part of the superannuation code. The lump sum is roughly one-thirtieth: that would mean that 30 years' service would give one year's salary as gratuity, in addition to pension. It is the usual difficulty that we would like these things to be perfect but, circumstancesbeing what they are, I am afraid we have to keep in line.

I should like very much to see if I could do anything further but, really, I do not feel, after the examination that the matter has got, that I would be fair to myself or to the House if I suggested there was any hope. If there is any hope, or if I think there is any opportunity, certainly I will try to improve matters. However, I am afraid that, at the present juncture, and in connection with the present Bill, there is really not very much hope. A large number of persons may feel that in this particular case something special is being done which is not being done for them. We have these people in every Department of the State. While I am on one side of the fence and the Minister for Finance is on the other, I have to be conscious of the fact that the Minister for Finance is being bombarded by all these still unestablished persons —hundreds of them—in all the different Departments. No matter what we may say here about the importance of forestry or the good work the foresters have done, you cannot expect these people to see that. Moreover, there are good opportunities in the forestry service. It is a permanent service obviously. The opportunities are going to improve. About half the inspectors in the Forestry Branch have been foresters. When a young man is trained and gets into the forester grade, if he has the ability and particularly if he has a university degree and a reasonable knowledge either of the science side or the engineering side that would help to make him a valuable person on the inspectorate, there is every probability that, in due course, he will become an inspector.

Mr. S. Collins

The young man is all right. We are worried about the older man.

Mr. Derrig

I had that type of trouble frequently when I was Minister for Education, and I could never get over it.

Mr. Blowick

If the foresters that are now being dealt with under this Bill had been subject to the terms ofthe 1925 or 1926 Superannuation Act, or if they had been included to benefit under the terms of that Act, will the Minister not agree that this question would not now arise? I fail to see how the Minister is linking up the case that we are pressing now with that of civil servants who are still unestablished. When all is said and done, they have come into the State service knowing exactly the terms and conditions which apply.

My final word now is to ask the Minister not to close the door altogether but to give us an assurance that between this and the Report Stage he will have another look into the matter and, if the proposal of Deputy Cogan, Deputy S. Collins and myself is not acceptable, see whether there is not any other way in which he can amend the position for the sake of the few for whom we are pressing.

Mr. Derrig

I should like to explain to Deputy Blowick quite frankly and honestly, I hope, that under the Agricultural Act, 1931, a few foresters had service remunerated out of special funds which entitled them to the particular benefits conferred by that Act. My recollection of the Department, with which the Deputy is as familiar as I am, is that we had the same difficulty about officials of the old Congested Districts Board. There was a distinction in regard to the eligibility for superannuation between the former officers of the old Congested Districts Board and those of the Land Commission, and the thing could never be straightened out because, while there were large numbers of people in other Departments who were not able to make that particular case and to say: "In the Department in which I am working there are people who are doing the same work that I am doing who are going to get, because of the technical fact that they were entitled under previous legislation, better superannuation terms than I am going to get", that is not the case with other unestablished people, but the fact that they are unestablished is there and I am afraid I have no way of getting over it.

The forester class are a special class, but look at all the people in subordinate posts who, for all I know, may bemade pensionable later on. I would not be at all surprised if at some time in the future all permanent subordinate employees of the State were made pensionable. That particular class is very conscious of the fact that their employment may be of just as permanent a character as that of those particular grades we are picking out under this legislation. I have every sympathy with the Deputy but I am afraid there is very little prospect.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Minister assure us that he will make another examination of the problem?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Blowick

I would like to ask the Minister to clear up a doubt in my mind. Again in the table he gave me on the 4th March, it appears there is a total of 15 foresters: there are four head foresters, four foresters Grade 1 and seven Grade 2, all over 50 years of age. Will these benefit automatically under the Bill?

Mr. Derrig

Provided their health is satisfactory.

Mr. Blowick

Why their health?

Mr. Derrig

Because the Civil Service Commission will not give them the necessary certificate if they do not pass the doctor.

Mr. Blowick

Suppose they have illhealth and they can prove it was due to the nature of their work?

Mr. Derrig

That is the rule. I am sure large numbers of people have failed to pass the doctor in the past and have had to put up with it.

Mr. Blowick

If their health is all right and provided there is no other black mark against them they will be automatically established under this Bill.

Mr. Derrig

That is so. The figures I gave on the 26th March quoted byDeputy Blowick are the amount, as far as we can calculate it, of reckonable service for pension, assuming that the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Blowick

That is fair enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Mr. Blowick

If the Minister finds it possible to meet our argument between now and the Seanad stage——

Mr. S. Collins

The Minister has given an assurance that he is going to re-examine the matter. I presume it will be between now and the Seanad stage. If that is so I have no objection to the remaining stages going through now.

Question put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.