Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1956

Vol. 160 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Forestry and Land Commission Workers' Superannuation—Motion.

Mr. James Tully

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann is of the opinion that legislative proposals should be introduced at an early date to provide a superannuation scheme for forestry and Land Commission workers.

This motion was put down for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House the necessity to provide superannuation for forestry and Land Commission workers. I am sure the Minister is aware that practically all workers in the country at the present time in permanent and semi-permanent employment are superannuated and, for that reason, I felt there should be no difficulty in having this motion accepted by him.

I understand that, at present, there are about 5,000 forestry employees and a much smaller number of Land Commission employees who are employed all the year round and over a number of years. Many of them are employed for their working life and yet, when they have to retire because of age or for any other reason, they are not given an opportunity of having a pension granted to them. I felt that by putting down this motion this House could have a discussion on it and I am sure the Minister will be prepared to accept it.

I think the question of the Land Commission workers should be dealt with first because their case is much different from that of the forestry workers. We know that a considerable number of workers are employed on short-time employment with the Land Commission building fences, building houses, making roads, and so forth. The vast majority of them are only casual workers and could not, therefore, be included in any superannuation scheme. I am referring particularly to gangers and such people who have been employed over many years by the Land Commission.

I am aware that, at present, the Land Commission have a system in operation whereby the equivalent of one week's wages is paid for each year of service—I am open to correction on this but I think it is correct—to Land Commission gangers who are disemployed after a period of 15 years' continuous service. I consider that this is hardly adequate. The Land Commission may think they are doing a big service to a man if they give him £100, £150 or £200 but I do not think it could be considered very big compensation to somebody who has spent 15 or 20 years of his life in the employment of the Land Commission.

There is the argument which we find very often in industry that a worker receives a week's wages and that that is all he should look for and that if he gets constant employment with the week's wages he should be satisfied. I do not agree with that at all. I believe the worker who gets a week's wages is simply getting sufficient to keep himself and family, if he has one, in food, clothing, shelter and all the other little things that are required. However, the present rate of wages does not give him anything to put by for the rainy day. It does not give him anything to put by for his old age. I am sure the State should set a headline in these matters. I propose to show this evening that, far from setting a headline, the State has lagged behind.

I believe there should be no difficulty in getting the Land Commission to introduce a scheme which would be operated in perhaps the same way as the local authorities' contributory superannuation scheme. That would result in giving pensions to Land Commission gangers in proportion to their service and wages, on retirement. I also believe that the forestry end of it —which is a very much bigger problem —could be tackled and that a similar scheme could be operated for them.

The argument may be put up that this pensions scheme would cost a lot of money which could be spent on developing forestry. I do not agree with that argument because I believe that even if the same type of scheme, as introduced in 1948 and amended last year, for local authority employees, is put into operation, it would mean that a forestry worker getting £5 per week would pay slightly over 4/- per week for superannuation, and with approximately 5,000 forestry workers employed, 4/- per week deducted from them for superannuation would result in approximately £1,000 per week being paid into the pool from the first week the scheme was put into operation. Since there is a very small number of forestry workers with anything like 15 to 20 years' service, it would be a very considerable time before there would be any withdrawals at all for payments of the pension.

If such a scheme were put into operation, a very considerable amount of money would be accumulated before anybody at all would apply for a pension or before there would be anything like a substantial withdrawal. Since the vast majority of the people employed by the forestry section were recruited over the past five years, it would be 25, or even 30, years perhaps, in normal circumstances, before those people would apply for superannuation. That being so, it appears on the face of it that the superannuation scheme should be well able to carry itself without any contribution at all from the State.

I give those figures as a layman, but possibly if an actuary were called in to assess the scheme, he might find a lot of snags which are not apparent to me at the present time. No matter what way you look at it, it means that a superannuation scheme would be an economic proposition for the forestry section and the Land Commission. It could and should be done.

Possibly the argument may be put forward by the Minister that there are not so many constant employees in the forestry section and for that reason it might not be easy to administer the scheme. If there are not so many employees, there should be. I do not agree at all that the employees on State forests who have been trained for a number of years should be scrapped, that somebody new should be taken in and trained, and that after a few years they also should be dismissed. I suggest that a superannuation scheme of the type I propose would be one way of ensuring that the people in the employment of the forestry section for a number of years would be retained when there was a shortage of work for one reason or another.

I am also told that there is a build up in so far as forestry is concerned; that the figure is increasing and that the amount of work which will be done in the years to come will be greater. The greater that will be, the greater the amount of employment given. I would be very anxious to see that happening. I do not see how any argument can be advanced to prevent a scheme of the type I suggest being put into operation. If an employee was on short time, wanted to leave or was dismissed by the forestry people the provisions of the Superannuation Act would guarantee him a return of his contributions and he would thus be safeguarded from any possibility of loss.

I am afraid that the scheme would have to be compulsory, because, if some people were allowed to opt out, there would be difficulties. In regard to the local authorities' superannuation scheme, there were people who for one reason or another did not apply at the start of the scheme and who kicked up a row to be included after the date had passed when they could apply. It would be necessary to include everybody employed by the forestry section.

It may possibly be argued that the people who would pay into the scheme might claim a prior right to employment. I think they are entitled to claim that. No matter what way one looks at it, forestry is an important part of our economy and the people employed in it should be put on some secure basis of tenure. I think they are entitled to that. A number of things might be adduced in argument against the proposed scheme.

I think that possibly it might be necessary to modify slightly the 1948 and the 1950-55 local authorities' superannuation scheme. I do not know what arguments could be employed to prevent the scheme being put into operation. There is, however, one argument which is almost certain to be advanced, that is, that if this scheme is put into operation for forestry and Land Commission employees, it may be asked for in regard to other State employees. In that connection, I should like to point out that the Department of Lands are by far the biggest direct State employers. I understand that the Board of Works and other such bodies who have a number of people in their employment all the year round could not under any circumstances be compared with the Department of Lands, so far as employment is concerned.

The employees of whom I speak are out on their own and should be considered on their own merits. I also understand that some of the semi-State bodies, such as Board na Móna, are at the present time considering a scheme of superannuation. I know that the E.S.B. and many other semi-State employers have already a scheme in operation. For that reason, I do not think there is any answer in the world to this proposal. There is a very small number of people employed by the Department of Lands for a long number of years who might possibly in a few years' time claim a pension, but, as I said earlier, even before anybody is entitled to a pension, the amount of money which will have accumulated will be so great that there need be no fear whatever that the fund will be unable without any contributions from the State to carry out the scheme.

One other point I would like to make is that when the local authorities' superannuation scheme was being put to this House, a suggestion was made that the amounts of the contribution should be much smaller. Personally, I am in favour of a much smaller contribution, but if it comes to a question of having a scheme with higher contributions than we would like or no scheme at all, then I think we should have the scheme, even if it means paying a fairly high amount each week. Possibly, it may be argued that workers themselves are not in favour of such a scheme. I do not agree that that is so, because I know that the trade union which I represent travels all over the country, and, when dealing with forestry workers, we find everywhere a demand for some type of superannuation scheme. They want to know why it is that the man at the bottom of the lader should be the last to be catered for. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter fully and give justice to these men, even if they do not do the planning, and are not responsible for the provision of the cash which carries out the scheme. Without the forestry workers and the Land Commission labourers, a very important work could not be done.

Mr. Desmond

I second the motion. I agree with the mover's remarks about Land Commission workers and particularly do I agree with the necessity for providing, as is asked for in this motion, a superannuation scheme for forestry workers. It must, of necessity, be tied up with our whole approach to forestry. Workers at the present time can see that in many, if not in all, of the counties of the Twenty-Six that we hold, after a number of years of consistent employment with local authorities, they can secure a pension at the end of their working days. Of necessity, we must say that if we hope to secure the best type of workers available for forestry purposes, then we must offer to them at least the same consideration in regard to what pension scheme they may have at the end of their working days, as is being offered by the local authorities.

The Minister, as Deputy Tully said, may draw attention to the fact that there are so many workers in forestry who are considered only as casual workers. Should that case be put forwards, then our answer must be that the same applies to workers for the local authorities and provision is made for casual workers. They are entitled to a refund of the contributions paid by them. We realise that it is essential to provide forestry not alone with a sufficient number of workers but with the best type of workers. It may be said, as it has been said in regard to the local authorities' superannuation scheme, by some people, that the contributions are too high. Like Deputy Tully, I would like to see them lower, but we must also say, as some people may suggest, as they have done outside this House, that, because of the contributions being too heavy, it would be more advantageous for some of these workers to pay into some insurance. We do not agree with that because the very fact of the money being deducted, means that if they must pay into some other insurance fund, it is very likely that, with other financial commitments, they will not find it easy or economical to pay into these other funds as much as they may be paying into this.

If the forestry worker has a superannuation scheme, he can say that he is on a par with his fellow workers working for local authorities and for whom pensions are being provided, and he can say that there is some do-finite inducement for him not only to continue in forestry but to take a greater interest in it as a national scheme which can undoubtedly absorb a larger number of men. I would ask the Minister, in view of his statements in this House and in view of our policy in regard to forestry as a whole, to consider the urgent necessity of implementing and putting into operation a scheme which, if not exactly such as that suggested here, will give to the workers already employed and to those who may in the future be interested in forestry for a living, a scheme which may be to their advantage and ultimately to this State an advantage which at the present time may be undreamt of.

Mr. O'Hara

I am personally satisfied that the mover of the motion, Deputy Tully, and his seconder, Deputy Desmond, are very sincere in putting down this motion. They are anxious to focus the attention of the House on the conditions under which forestry workers and Land Commission workers work. Generally speaking, I agree with the viewpoints of the Deputies who have spoken already and I think that the majority of Deputies agree with them also.

The type of person to which this motions refers is the ordinary working man who has to work out in the fields, whether he be engaged in work for the Land Commission or for the Forestry Department. Generally speaking, he is exposed to winds and weather. For that reason, I am sure they will have the sympathy of the majority of the members of the House. I am personally satisfied that there is no member who is more sympathetic towards them or more likely to consider them than the present Minister who is himself a rural Deputy, who is conversant with their mode of living and who has lived amongst them. I would prefer to leave this whole matter to the Minister for the reason that I know he is interested in it.

I know that because he has discussed matters of this kind already with some of the people concerned. It should be appreciated that the majority of the people who engage in Land Commission or forestry work, certainly in my part of the country, are small and perhaps uneconomic holders. They are only inclined to engage on Land Commission or forestry work for short periods in order to supplement their incomes. That is true of the province of Connacht generally. I live amongst these people and I know their minds; they want something to cushion them against the difficulties of the times. It may not be a lot, but it is something on which they can fall back when necessary. They like to get some cash income for a short period to supplement their incomes.

That type of individual is not anxious for a superannuation scheme. These workers, as I have already said, are outdoor workers. Deputy Tully pointed out that some of them would not benefit under such a scheme for 25 to 30 years. From that point of view it would be difficult to encourage such workers to enter such a scheme. Generally speaking, they feel they may never derive any benefit.

As we grow older, all of us prefer indoor to outdoor employment. We look for employment under the roof. Many of the people engaged on this type of work are looking forward to working under the roof eventually in preference to continuing with the Forestry Division or the Land Commission. If these people had insurance policies on their lives, such policies would afford them much better protection. I am convinced that the majority of them feel that way about this matter.

With regard to superannuation, I understand a man must have five years' contributions paid before his death so that his wife may qualify for compensation and, even then, the amount of compensation is rather niggardly. If a man has to have five years' contributions paid before his wife can receive the equivalent of one year's pay, I do not think the scheme is so very attractive. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why forestry workers are not clamouring for a superannuation scheme. I have forestry workers living about four miles away from me. I know forestry workers living eight miles away from me. All over Mayo there are forestry workers. I meet them regularly. I have never heard them clamouring for any superannuation scheme.

Deputy Tully referred to Bord na Móna. He said Bord na Móna is considering a superannuation scheme. No doubt, it is. Bord na Móna give good and decent employment, generally speaking. But Bord na Móna has been quite a long time in existence and it is only now the members of that Board are considering the introduction of a superannuation scheme. I suggest that the delay is due to the fact that the majority of Bord na Móna workers are seasonal workers. A lot of the Board's activities are outdoor. The workers are exposed to winds and weather and they are hopeful that some day they will get employment indoor or under the roof.

I am sure the Minister is most sympathetic to these workers. He comes from a rural area and he appreciates their difficulties. He has very good advisers at his disposal. I am sure he has discussed this matter with them, with both his indoor staff and his outdoor staff, on different occasions. He fully realises all the implications and all the difficulties such a scheme would present. I know that he is most anxious to introduce a scheme and his main anxiety is that, when he does introduce such a scheme, it will be a satisfactory scheme, the type of scheme which will bring benefit to the kind of people Deputy Tully and Deputy Desmond have in mind.

I join my voice with the voices of other Deputies who have spoken. I urge the Minister to give this matter full consideration. I am sure the Minister will do his best to bring a satisfactory scheme in at the earliest possible date, the kind of scheme that will benefit all.

Captain Giles

I suppose this motion, like many other motions, may serve a useful purpose. I would support it if I thought it was brought in for the purpose of looking after genuine workers. At the same time, before we embark on too many things, we should think of justice before generosity and I think the time has come when there should be a review of the whole position in relation to many of these State-sponsored schemes. At the present moment, the taxpayer is burdened by many injustices. There is a great deal of injustice in the employment of many men and I hope the trade union officials and those concerned will see that these injustices are weeded out. Nobody else can do it, but the trade unions can clear up——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this motion.

Captain Giles

I think it does to some extent, because a great number of men are getting work on forestry schemes, and while I do not begrudge any man work I want to see the genuine worker getting employment——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion deals with the question of providing a superannuation scheme.

Captain Giles

I want to see a superannuation scheme for the genuine workers, but I do not want to see farmers who have been given economic farms by the Land Commission and who are earning their living by them, being given work by the Forestry Branch of the Department of Lands. That is why I would like to see this motion adjourned until justice is done first.

If the men who are to be covered are genuine labourers, I would support the motion. But if they are men who got land through State contributions, and have full economic holdings, or if they are men with almost economic holdings who get constant work with the Forestry Branch and can go to the labour exchange and get out a card, I want to have an inquiry into that. By all means help the genuine workers and keep them employed, if at all possible, but do not let us have this faking going on. At the present time scores of genuine young workers cannot get work and have to leave this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the motion about this. The Deputy should come to the motion.

Captain Giles

I think there is, because if there is a segregation made and if the genuine men get work, this scheme can be passed by the House. I would ask first that there should be a complete review before the Minister embarks on anything of this kind. There should be a close scrutiny of employees in the Forestry Branch by the Minister and if there is, I can guarantee his eyes will be opened and he will see all the injustices meted out to the taxpayer through comfortable, well-off men getting work that the unemployed are entitled to get, while we have scores of genuine workers leaving the country for lack of work at the present time. They could be working in our State forests and they should get that work——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy relate his remarks to the motion?

Captain Giles

It is very hard to do it but at the same time there is a grievance that I want to express——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may have a grievance but it cannot be ventilated on this motion.

Captain Giles

I suppose it cannot, but it is a reasonably good chance to get it in, because I think we should know who are the genuine workers and who are not. I would ask the Minister before he embarks on any scheme to have a review of the whole position of forestry workers and if he does, he and his Department will, I am sure, see that justice is done and that the genuine workers will get work. If the Minister does that I will support the motion. If the Labour leaders are so sincere—and I believe they are—about the welfare of their men, they will help to see that justice is done and then it would only be right and in the interests of this House that we should all support the motion. I shall not support it until that is done.

Mr. O'Leary

It is rather strange to hear Deputy Giles expressing such ideas. If the State is to be the model employer, State employees should be better treated, because the State should be able to treat its workers better than any private individual. We had a somewhat similar discussion some time ago in regard to road workers when a Bill similar to this was brought in, and it was said that it could not be put into operation. That Bill was introduced in 1948, amended in 1956, and is working satisfactorily through the county councils. I am glad to say in my constituency that some people who have since retired are now enjoying what they thought they would never have, a pension from the local authority.

The only thing that I see wrong is what Deputy Tully mentioned about the contribution of 4/- a week which is rather high. Forestry workers are tied down to the local authority rate of wages which in some areas would be about £5 5s. a week. If a forestry worker has to pay 4/- out of that, plus unemployment and national health contributions it would make his wages very small. I think we should try to do better than that. If we have 5,000 employees working for the Department that would bring in a substantial sum in a very short time. Why should Deputy Giles or any other Deputy in the House object to the lowest paid men in the State getting a pension——

Captain Giles

I object to the farmers who are working for the Forestry Branch.

Mr. O'Leary

There are very few farmers in my constituency employed by the Forestry Branch.

Captain Giles

In my county there are such farmers.

Mr. O'Leary

They must be very poor farmers when they have to go to work for £5 5s. a week, or they must have very bad land because I think a farmer working his own land would do better than that.

Captain Giles

They let somebody else do the work on the land for them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! Deputy O'Leary.

Mr. O'Leary

I would like to have that matter investigated——

Captain Giles

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Leary

——to find out if such a thing is happening and if people who had farms——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ruled out Deputy Giles on that twice and Deputy O'Leary may be not pursue it.

Mr. O'Leary

But if they are in State employment and if this scheme is put through the House, as I hope it will, are they not entitled to benefit whether they are farmers or not? I think the Minister should give every consideration to the forestry worker. If workers are employed in the Forestry Branch or any other Department why should they not get a pension at the end of their time? Some of these people will work until they die and get no pension, old age or anything else.

I think if we introduce a retiring age and a pension for forestry workers we will achieve our main purpose because if a worker has to carry on until he is 70, he is confronted with a means test before he gets the old age pension. That is happening at present. When a county council worker after long service retires in my constituency —I have looked it up—he gets £2 7s. a week. The social welfare officer comes along and grants him 9/- of the old age pension if he is a single man. If he is married he gets a little more.

I think every State-employed worker is entitled to a pension as in the case of civil servants. Why have class distinctions? Why should a man working in the hills of Wicklow or elsewhere in cold weather, in some cases without shelter or protective clothing, not have a pension like the civil servant who is in a protected and sheltered position?

Captain Giles

I do not see why he should.

Mr. O'Leary

I am surprised at Deputy Giles.

Captain Giles

I am not speaking of any decent workers.

Mr. O'Leary

I am surprised at Deputy Giles taking the attitude he has taken up. The Minister and previous Ministers seem to be adopting the same system of county councils who postpone this matter to another date. We should apply here the old saying: "Never put off until to-morrow what you can do to-day." It is now 1956 and after all these years of native Government it is a sad reflection that we have not given pensions to men who had given such service not only to the Forestry Division but to the country as a whole.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

Like Deputy O'Hara, I feel that the Deputies who tabled this motion did so sincerely and not from the point of view of embarrassing the Minister and the Government or of putting up a case for the sake of gaining the popularity of a certain section. I should say straight off that this is a question which is worthy of consideration. However, the motion proposes that there should be superannuation schemes for both forestry workers and Land Commission workers.

It is only right to point out that there is not a great deal of similarity between the two classes. During the past 20 or 30 years, since the first big burst was made by the Land Commission under the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commission, the volume of work done by the commission has decreased. At the moment Land Commission work takes place only wherever the farms happen to be divided. Even in such cases, work lasts for only a short period, even in the very congested districts and the rundale areas. Generally, work lasts for about six weeks at a time and I have never known schemes to extend for as long as three months.

When work is completed in such areas, Land Commission work never occurs there again because, when a townland or group of townlands are rearranged there is no necessity for the Land Commission to return. Most of this work is carried out during the winter and early spring so that it will not interrupt normal tillage operations on adjacent farms. For those reasons, I submit that Land Commission workers could not be included in a superannuation scheme. I do not believe that even in Deputy Tully's constituency men get constant work from the Land Commission. Even in County Meath, when a farm of 200 or 300 acres is being acquired and divided, the work in that area is completed when the fencing and the house-building have been carried out. The next job might occur five miles away and the commission certainly would not bring workers from the previous scheme because there would be resentment against men coming into an area while there were men available locally.

It is true that the Land Commission employ about 1,200 men in the peak period and that at no time does the number drop below 500 or 600. However, I do not think there is even a permanent Land Commission ganger. The most minor official who is permanent is the supervisor of gangers and even he is not superannuated. As a rule, his period of service is five years longer than that of the ordinary official; as a rule he works up to 70 years of age and if he is a good official —indeed most of them are excellent men—he is retained for longer because his experience is absolutely invaluable and indispensable to the Land Commission. As I have said, I could not hold out any hope of a superannuation scheme for such men because, to put it bluntly, such a scheme would never bear fruit for those for whom it was intended. These men have no continuity or permanency in their jobs.

I shall now deal with the motion in so far as it relates to forestry workers. The background from which I viewed the question was whether such a scheme would work. I will say bluntly and briefly that it could not be made work.

Mr. O'Leary

How do county councils make it work.

Mr. Blowick

Unfortunately there is no comparison. The nature of the work done by the two types of authority could not be compared. In my county there are several permanent county council workers because the County Engineer feels some men have acquired a particular skill in a particular job. He takes these men round the county by lorry to certain types of road making jobs. Perhaps he would be able to get local labour but he prefers to fall back on those who have acquired a certain amount of skill in that type of work. For that reason, county council workers have a certain continuity of employment.

Mr. O'Leary

Not all of them.

Mr. Blowick

A greater number of them than could be employed continuously by the Forestry Branch.

Mr. James Tully

Of course that is not so.

Mr. Blowick

I am not saying there are not permanent forestry workers. There are, but they are very few, and we have several problems arising from their permanency. Deputy Giles pointed out that several small farmers worked for the Forestry Branch. Deputy O'Leary seemed to think that was not a good idea.

Mr. O'Leary

Only very poor, small farmers would work for £5 10s. a week.

Mr. Blowick

Perhaps the Deputy would throw his mind back to the years 1948, 1949 and 1950, when the previous inter-Party Government were in office. Up to then the poor land in the West was described as being unsuitable for the growing of commercial timber. I was very vehement in pushing afforestation in these areas. I knew the suggestion that commercial timber could not be grown in these areas was a wild assertion without any foundation. I pushed afforestation in those areas because we had no mineral deposits there such as those with which other countries are blessed. From those areas we had considerable emigration and I realised that the only hope of bringing employment, not into the towns but into the country areas, was to promote afforestation schemes and to allow the small farmers who had not enough land to make a living, to engage in that work.

I hope the Chair will allow me to digress from the strict terms of the motion in order that I might tell the House that I think the best scheme for the small farmer, in order that he might retain his hold on his piece of land, is to give him employment in a local forest. I have seen such a plan work in other countries and I agree entirely with it. In areas like Deputy O'Leary's county, the people are blessed with a very high percentage of first quality arable land. In his case I could understand his amazement and resentment at the idea of small farmers going to work in forests.

Mr. James Tully

It was Deputy Captain Giles raised that. Meath is a different place from Wexford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It scarcely arises on the motion.

Mr. Blowick

In the case of the ordinary type of employees I could see huge difficulty in coming to any kind of arrangement. From Donegal to Kerry superannuation of the forestry workers would be wellnigh impossible. Most of the forestry workers could be described as only part-time employees. Although they might work a 48-hour week, at least in spring, summer and autumn they always attend to their crops when they go home after work. It is a very pleasing feature of country life that people should be sufficiently industrious to earn a week's wages and at the same time keep their little holdings in first-class working order.

I have more knowledge of the small farmer than the big farmer. Most of the small farmers I know find it very hard to live in these times. For the majority a holding under £12 valuation, and if a man is rearing a big family a holding under £15 valuation, is scarcely sufficient to give a man any kind of decent livelihood or to bring up his children in the decency and comfort which every father would like.

For that reason, as I said to Deputy Tully, I approached this from the point of view of whether or not it was possible for a superannuation scheme to work. I want to assure the Deputies who brought the motion that I did not approach it from the point of view that, whether it was good or bad, it would not be accepted.

I would ask Deputy Tully to throw his mind back to 1948 and the conditions which existed at that time, particularly amongst the forestry workers. In 1948 we had approximately 1,200 forestry workers—certainly we had not 1,300. To-day we have 5,400 and, with the determined expansion of forestry, that number will go up to 7,000 or 8,000 within the next five or six years when the Government's programme is fully implemented. That will be a sizable increase in the number of workers.

I want to point out to the Deputies who introduced the motion that I believe first things should come first and, in my opinion, the first things were the wages paid and the conditions of employment. While I know it is very important for them to have a pension when they reach the end of their years of service, I think it should not be forgotten that when this Government went into office we had only 1,200 forestry workers receiving 48/6 per week. One of the things I did when I first became Minister was to fix the wages of forestry workers at the same level as that of the county council workers in the county in which the whole or greater part of the forest was situated. According as the local authorities increased their wages, the Forestry Department had to increase their wages automatically from the date of the increase given by the county councils. That was a big step forward.

At that time Deputy Tully and some of his colleagues were always pointing out certain improvements in the conditions of employment that could be brought about. We succeeded in getting them better working hours, in getting them rubber boots, in getting shelters erected, and many other little comforts which, although they did not cost the State a whole lot, made a big difference for the forestry workers. The result is that the forestry workers to-day, no matter what we may do for them when they come to the end of their working years, have been given the best wages we could give them— even though they might not be fully satisfied with them—and their conditions of employment have been made as easy as possible. We have tried to safeguard their health by the provision of Wellingtons or waders and shelters in the forests, all at the expense of the State.

It may look as if I am praising myself unnecessarily or overmuch for what has been done for the workers but I think we have only done what had to be done and we have succeeded in improving their wages and conditions of work very much. I know the comment may be made that, particularly since 1935 or thereabouts, there has always seemed to be a race going on. Wages go up, the cost of living goes up; wages go up again and the cost of living goes up again.

Mr. James Tully

It is the other way round; the cost of living goes up first.

Mr. Blowick

It does not matter which goes up first; there always seems to be a vicious circle.

Mr. James Tully

It started in your time. You should remember that.

Mr. Blowick

Whenever it started, we know that it is there. This Government looked after the workers in the first instance. I do not think there is a great deal of similarity between forestry workers and county council workers and I want to cite a few cases I know of. Take the case of forestry workers who work for two or three years and then decide they will go to England to see what it is like and where they think they will get better wages than at home. Take the case of the forestry workers working in forests where the plantable reserve of land is exhausted and the whole forest will virtually have to close down until thinning or some other maintenance work comes along. Cases of that kind have occurred here. While a certain number of men give excellent work and take pride in their work, you cannot expect the best from a man who, after nine or ten years' service, suddenly finds that the plantable reserve has petered out and that he has to be allowed to go.

Mr. O'Leary

While the inspectors of the Department of Lands get a pension and all the rest.

Mr. Blowick

No. A good deal of the inspectors are unestablished. They will perhaps work up to the day when they will be established. I am talking about forestry workers who might have to go through no fault of the forester, the permanent officials and the Minister but simply because the work comes to an end. But after two or three years, all of a sudden a new block of land might be offered and the work might start all over again.

Most of the forestry workers are married men and if such a scheme as this were put into operation a contribution would be levied from them. That would be following the pattern of the local authorities. I do not think it would be fair to levy a contribution even though there would be machinery for returning it. We have very few constant or permanent workers in the Forestry Division. There are a few men here and there who have been employed steadily throughout the years. They were fortunate enough to have their health and they were fortunate in that the work was constant.

Kilworth Forest, referred to here to-day by a Deputy from Cork, is one instance of where work has been going on steadily since 1923. It is one of the oldest forests we have and steady employment for about 30 men has been given there all down through the years. I do not think it would be just to make a levy on these men. I cannot say how it will work out in the case of short-term employment. I understand that would be the case; that contributions would be returned when they cease to work permanently. I could not imagine much justice in any other system, but it would mean a very big bookkeeping staff to keep a check on the 5,400 men we have at present.

Mr. James Tully

The Department of lands would never manage it.

Mr. Blowick

Whether they would or not I do not know. I do not know would the scheme be justified. I could see a mountain of work accumulating because of the fact that every year 300 or 400 would either decide to stay at home or would have to stay at home as a result of sickness and never resume employment again. I want to bring home to Deputies that I have approached this from the point of view: could a superannuation scheme work?

Mr. O'Leary

It is working in the county councils.

Mr. Blowick

As I pointed out, there is permanency in the county council that does not obtain in forestry.

Mr. O'Leary

Our county engineers say there is no permanency.

Mr. Blowick

There is greater permanency in the county council than in a forestry centre.

Mr. Cunningham

Not with the Coalition Government over there.

Mr. Blowick

The Coalition Government did more for the workers than ever Fianna Fáil did. Fianna Fáil forced their noses to the grindstone.

Mr. Cunningham

Climb up a tree somewhere.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Blowick

Not alone did Fianna Fáil not provide forestry work——

Mr. Moylan

Stick to the motion.

Mr. Blowick

I will, if the Deputy behind Deputy Moylan, who comes in at this late hour—10.10—will not make silly interjections. I could not see how any such superannuation arrangement could be got to work. One set of forestry workers work in the forests to-day. In the not so very distant future, another side of forestry work, that is, the use of timber, will come into operation, and perhaps in the not so very distant future pretty big projects will give permanency to a vast number of men. A Deputy made a comparison with Bord na Móna. Bord na Móna employees are fairly permanent. The bog is there and Bord na Móna buy only very big areas of 200 or 300 acres, certainly not less than 100 acres, that provide constant employment for a certain number of men for seven, eight or ten years.

Mr. O'Hara

There is a superannuation scheme under Bord na Móna.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Tully gave me to understand that Bord na Móna were toying with the idea.

Mr. James Tully

"Preparing" is the word.

Mr. Blowick

As in the case of the county council, there is much more permanency of employment for the comparatively few workers that Bord na Mona have than there is in the case of forestry. I deliberately examined this whole question to see if anything could be done. On the terms of the motion as it stands, I would say I could not accept it because it would be misleading the House to do so, as it would not be workable. I know Deputy Tully and Deputy Desmond want a scheme that will work. I will give them this promise, that I will examine the matter from every possible angle to see if a workable scheme can be produced. I do not hold out much hope, for the reasons I have given. I have tried to make myself as clear as I can and I have done my best.

The principal difficulty is the very nature of the employment in forests. While employment is steady and growing, it must be remembered that the men who are employed now will not be with us next March or the men who will be with us next March will not be with us this time next year. Men are constantly coming and going. It would be impossible to keep track of the levy that would have to be made from each man out of each week's wages. These men want a good deal of time at home —Deputy Tully is smiling now—but most of our workers are men who have some other means of livelihood. Most of our workers are small farmers. That is as I like it. They require a few weeks off in spring-time to till and sow their crops, a few weeks in June and July to look after hay, some time in the harvest to cut corn and stack it and bring home turf for the winter and then, later in the year, time off to dig potatoes, turnips, mangolds and sugar beet. These are the men on whom we have to rely. Young men will work for a while and may then go to England.

The men we have to rely on in forest centres, particularly in western counties, from Donegal to West Cork, are small farmers who are married and who have children, who cannot fly from them, who are willing to live on the land but whose land is not sufficient to give them whole-time employment and who, therefore, must get wages from forestry, the Land Commission, the county council, the Special Employment Schemes Office or some other source. Otherwise, they could not live on their holdings.

It is with that knowledge of the vast number of small farmers that I pushed forestry as much as I did in the western areas, where big expanses of land were available, even though it was of poor quality, and where a big number of small farmers were huddled together on smallholdings, on poor mountainy land, where there was not sufficient land to maintain them, if forestry had not been available. Forestry filled the gap in many cases and but for forestry, emigration would be very much worse.

The scheme suggested in the motion would be unworkable, even with the best will in the world, but I want to say that I do think that forestry workers should get some recompense in their old age, as security against the day when they can no longer work.

Mr. James Tully

Accept the motion then.

Mr. Blowick

I would, if the motion were workable, but I have promised the Deputy that I will look into it to see if any scheme can be provided. I do not see much likelihood of a scheme along the lines indicated in the motion.

Mr. James Tully

There is no line proposed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully will get an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Blowick

There is the broad line of giving a superannuation scheme to forestry workers. What we would be doing would be failing the majority of the workers because they could not have the whole-time employment that would merit superannuation. Take the forestry worker who may work in the forest from seven to ten years. The plantable reserve would run out and there would be no more work for him. Perhaps in two, three or four years' time, other land would come in and that man would be re-employed. How could we deal with such a case as that?

Mr. MacBride

Could it not be based on the period of service, be it five, six, ten or 15 years?

Mr. Blowick

If the work were reasonably constant, I would be prepared to consider it, but there are two sides to any improvement such as this. On the one hand, you are benefiting certain people. On the other hand, there is the question of who will pay for it. Deputy Giles touched on that point. It is not the position in private industry or in any branch of the State service that men employed on a part-time basis are pensionable. It could scarcely be proposed that we should make an exception in this case.

I will examine the matter and, if there is any reasonable hope of producing a scheme that would work, the Deputies can rest assured that they will have one sympathetic Minister to deal with because nobody appreciates more than I do what the forestry workers are doing to reafforest this country. I realise the slavery involved. There are very few forests along main roads. Most of the work is in wild, exposed areas, exposed to the heat of the sun or to rain and storm. I know that forestry work is not very pleasant. That is the reason why I went all the way with Deputy Tully in other matters, in making their conditions of employment as bearable as possible. We have left nothing undone in that direction, if the Deputy will admit it. I should like to see some little recognition—I do not care how small it is—if it were possible, being given to the whole—time worker. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Moylan

Deputy Giles was out of order and Deputy O'Leary was out of order. However, their disorderliness could only be termed common assault, but the Minister was so much out of order that he was guilty of the manslaughter of orderliness entirely. Like the political contortionist that he is, he takes every opportunity, no matter how unsuitable it is, to pat himself on the back even at the risk of dislocating his joints. I did not discover in any part of the statement any of that hidden anxiety of which Deputy O'Hara spoke that keeps the Minister awake at night trying to develop schemes for the benefit of the old age of forestry workers or anybody else. Interpreting the thought behind Deputy O'Leary's speech rather than the manner of its expression, I would say he said the State was a muddled employer, and the Minister's speech was a fine example of the bemuddlement of the Government.

The Minister held out very little hope of accepting the view that Deputy Tully expressed. The Minister does realise, of course, that the pursuit of social justice, as we understand it nowadays, has not been so many years in operation. Certain things have been done, wise, sometimes not so wise, but in general there has been an improvement of conditions for the less well-off part of the community. However, as I say, social justice is only in the infancy of its development and I am pretty certain that the logic of events must force the Government and every other employer in the country to see the need there is, and the importance of meeting that need, to introduce pensions for all workers. I believe that these pensions will come and come in a short time, and I believe the Minister would be wiser to promise to give the closest examination to the proposals in Deputy Tully's motion. I think it is wisdom, justice and Christian charity that we should place the worker, when he comes to retiring age, in some position of independence and comfort. I merely rise here to express the view that is held by this Party.

Mr. James Tully

Somebody said in this House some time ago when the Minister for Lands was answering a question that he was "blathering". At the time I thought it was rather ungracious but I must say the Minister was "blathering" to-night. He completely distorted the whole matter which was under discussion and built a verbal smokescreen around the question. I do not think it is fair for any Minister to approach a matter such as the one put before him in the manner in which he approached this. The similarity between the employees of local authorities and those of the Department of Lands is so great that the Minister himself, in the instances which he gave, proved that there is absolutely no difference whatever between the type of people who are employed by the Department of Lands and the type of people employed by the local authority. That being so, is there any reason in the world why a superannuation scheme, which has been found to be a success when applied to local authority employees, cannot be applied to the employees of the Department of Lands?

The Minister referred to small farmers. Of course there are small farmers employed by the Forestry Department and small farmers employed by practically every county council in Ireland. Deputy Giles referred to big farmers, the fellows on the Land Commission farms who are working with the Forestry Department, and said they should not be. I want to stay within the rules of order but let me say this. If Deputy Giles was referring to certain individuals that he knew, surely it would be more fitting if he brought these matters to the notice of the Minister individually instead of trying to spike a scheme such as this by referring to matters during the debate which, in my opinion, were not relevant at all.

The Minister referred to the fact that Land Commission men could not by any stretch of imagination be included in a superannuation scheme. I specifically stated in my opening speech I was referring to Land Commission gangers. There are approximately 50 Land Commission gangers in this country as far as I know, men who are as permanent as any employee of any public or semi-public body can be. Those people as they get along in years find they are just pushed out by the Land Commission. Some of them have got a week's pay per year of service, a very small thing to a man getting on in years who has no other means.

I think the Minister was well aware, because I brought it specifically to his notice, that those were the people I was referring to. The Minister should have taken into consideration that there was a very small number involved and there is no reason why they should not be included. I agree entirely it would not be possible to consider ordinary Land Commission workers, the 1,200 or so who are working here to-day and away to-morrow. The suggestion he made that Land Commission gangers do not leave their districts is ridiculous because he knows very well that one of the rules of the Land Commission is that a man must not be employed near his own home.

Mr. Blowick

I was speaking of Land Commission workers generally.

Mr. James Tully

And I referred to gangers and I considered they would be the people who would be concerned.

Mr. Blowick

The Land Commission gangers will be included in the investigation.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy O'Leary referred to the question of the 4/- per week and said it was not fair to ask these people to pay 4/- a week. The local authority employees are paying 10d. in the £ and in the case of the sum of £5 a week, 4/- is the amount which the employees of the Department of Lands will be asked to pay. There is no suggestion at all by anybody that the State would be required to put up a big sum for the purpose of running the scheme. I cannot accept the Minister's suggestion that the staff of the Department of Lands would not be able to cope with the collecting of 4/- a week from its employees and returning it to those who wished to leave the employment. The county councils employ approximately one-third of the number of labourers employed by the Department of Lands and the local authorities, with a much smaller staff, are making the necessary arrangements and find no difficulty in doing so. Surely the Minister could be a little bit more gracious than to say that he might be able to consider the question. I would ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House that he will definitely reconsider the whole matter and not just pass it over because he thinks it is unworkable.

Debate adjourned.