asked the Minister for Lands whether workers under 19 years of age employed by the Forestry Division are regarded by his Department as being less effective than workers over that age, and, if not, why their wages have not been brought into line with those of the older workers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wages of Forestry Workers.
I have to refer the Deputy to my reply of the 23rd February last to his previous question on this matter. The Department is following a well established practice in the payment of a lower rate of wages to workers under 19 years of age. The system is recognised for agricultural employees, the largest category of rural workers, by the Agricultural Wages Board.
Does the Minister not consider that such a practice as this, perpetrated in the case of those under 19 years of age, is in fact helping the emigration of that section of the community which it is most necessary not to lose? Further, will he consider in regard to unemployment assistance, that the age is 18 and not 19—and in regard to the payment of insurance, 18 is taken as the age rather than 19 for differentiation—and would the Minister not consider bringing these into line and putting the age under 18 rather than 19?
This is an old-established practice, not alone in my Department, but in other Departments and among private employers as well, and I would not——
It is time it was changed, although it is old.
Oh, no. I am sure if the Deputy were working in a forest or at any other work and if he were to find that a person under 18 or 19 was paid the same as he got, he would have a grievance.
I am saying under 19, not under 18. It is time that was scrapped.
That will not be scrapped.
It is time it was scrapped.
No, I shall not scrap that until I get good sound reasons why it should be done.
Why scrap it in the Army, so?