I regret having to raise this matter so late at night, but having regard to the nature of the Minister's answers to my Parliamentary Question and my supplementary questions to-day, I have no option.
I am not basing this case on argument but on facts, and because it is necessary to show the facts I think it essential to say now that the Minister is already aware, through his Department, of my efforts to draw attention to these facts. In my opinion, caretakers have not been getting even the agricultural rate appropriate to Group C which applies to most of the country. If it is the practice of the Minister for Defence to decide that such caretakers are to be paid in accordance with the minimum agricultural wages rate in all areas, one would imagine that these men would not be paid less than the minimum rate for men doing comparable work. In fact, in basing the rate of pay to be given to these men in such a way, the Department is condoning a practice which automatically has as its foundation in the fact that the agricultural rate is based on what the poorest farmer in each area can give.
May I ask the Minister if it is the policy of the Department of Defence to say to caretakers in different areas that the rate will be only the rate which the poorest farmers in these areas can give? I am sure the Minister must be aware that in all these areas it is true to say that the farmers are paying a higher rate than the minimum prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Board, the rate tied down by the Minister's policy. The policy of the Minister for Agriculture is such that any man working on a State farm is not alone getting a higher rate than the minimum prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Board but a rate higher than paid by the farmers in the area. It is wrong to suggest than the agricultural workers employed on State farms are doing more technical work than workers on other farms. That is not true.
The policy of the Department of Agriculture would seem to show that the Department is a good employer, but that policy does not seem to extend to the Department of Defence. In the Department of Lands there is the same policy as in the Department of Agriculture, and I am sure the Minister knows as I know that the rates paid by the Department of Lands to forestry workers are much higher than the minimum prescribed under the Agricultural Wages Board. May I then ask if it is suggested that these caretakers are to get less than the lowest possible rate as defined by law?
Apparently the Minister believes— we differ, of course—that these caretakers cannot be considered to be agricultural workers. How are they classified? They are not glorified caretakers with no work to do. I know the areas of which I speak and I know areas outside Cork. I know the conditions of employment of these caretakers and I know that they include a certain amount of work to be carried out by the caretakers. Part of that work includes, not only cleaning in relation to buildings, but cutting grass, removal of noxious weeds and cleaning footpaths. Surely that could not be classified as industrial work? If it is not, I would like to know what it is. I cannot find out.
I tried to work on the type of insurance stamp given to these workers. The Minister may say it is an industrial stamp but again we differ because of the amount deducted from the men's wages. I can give concrete proof of a case in point. The agricultural wages rate in Cork for Group B is £5 per week less 1/7 for stamp. I think we would be entitled to say then that a caretaker in that area should get £5 less insurance stamp. But he is not getting that. One caretaker in that area gets £4 17s. 6d. less 1/- for light and insurance and his net wages appear to be £4 14s. 8d. If the wage rate is based on the agricultural rate in the area, the employee of the Department of Defence is not getting even that agricultural rate.
As the Minister seems determined to adhere to the rate paid by the Agricultural Wages Board, it would be well to state clearly what that rate is. The rate fixed in the Group B area is £5, less insurance stamp, for a 50-hour week, but in the case of the employees of the Department of Defence the caretakers are paid less than the agricultural rate, and not for a 50-hour week but for what we may call a timeless week because, while they may not be called on duty, the fact is that under the terms of their employment they must be available any time in the 24 hours of every day of the seven days of the week. Yet the Minister tells us they are being paid the agricultural rate.
If that were true, these men should be getting more than they actually get —which is less than the minimum rate for agricultural workers—because they are working so much more than a 50-hour week. Surely that disposes of the Minister's claim that these employees are being treated fairly in being paid the rate fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board in the areas in which they work. Furthermore, if we are to base a claim on the Department of Lands in that area in County Cork, the wage rate for these workers—for the lesser number of hours, of course— is £5 10s.
Surely it must be admitted either that the Minister is wrong in suggesting that these men are getting even a minimum or else that he is unaware of the fact. I can quote a letter from the Minister's Department which may perhaps throw a little light on this subject. The reference number is 2/96468 and the letter, which came from the Minister's office, is dated 2nd December, 1954. For the Minister's benefit, I shall read this short letter:—
"I am desired by the Minister for Defence to refer further to your letter of the 14th July, 1954, regarding"
—an employee—
"who is employed in a civilian capacity under this Department as civilian caretaker of military lands ...and to state that arrangements are now being made for the payment to this employee with effect from the 29th October, 1954, of an allowance of 14/- per week over his basic rate. Payment of this allowance will, however, be subject to review in the event of any reduction in the present area of lands——"
—in question. That shows that, in one instance alone, the Minister in 1954 realised that an employee was being paid a lower wage rate and was not being treated fairly.
I am not blaming the Minister. Perhaps his answer, which, in my opinion, was not correct, was not meant as such. I do not believe he would wish to mislead in relation to his reply. It is a pity that, when preparing his reply for to-day, such information was not available to him.
It was admitted by the Minister's predecessor on 2nd December, 1954, that the basic agricultural wage rate in regard to a caretaker was not sufficient, in view of the fact that he was working so much more—seven days a week—than the employee who was governed by the Agricultural Wages Board rate. I do not wish to labour this fact. I would be satisfied if the Minister would indicate he is prepared to examine the whole situation. I would hope for that and wish for that. If that should be the case, perhaps the Minister would realise it is very bad for the Department of Defence to be out of line with the policy of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands.
The Minister may say that these caretakers have certain advantages in the way of housing and light. He knows that I know that they are being charged for light. He may say they have the advantage of housing. I can answer that by saying that if caretakers were not using some of the houses in our forts, the houses would become derelict. It is an advantage to the Department of Defence and to the Minister for Defence that at least one of these houses is occupied and kept in proper repair and condition by an employee of the Department.
Should the Minister still draw attention to the housing accommodation available, I can reply that, in the case of a local authority worker in these areas, as well as getting approximately £1 per week more, as well as the employee of the Department of Lands working in forestry getting approximately £1 a week more in most instances of local authority houses, each is costing in these cases roughly 1/- or 1/6 a week.
I would ask the Minister to examine that situation and, in particular, to consider why it was estimated by his predecessor that one caretaker was entitled to an allowance of 14/- per week over his basic rate because of the extra hours worked by him. If it is so in one case, the entire position requires reconsideration. The number of these employees is small and a favourable review of their position will not break the Department or the Government, no matter what Government is in office.
If the Minister's predecessor was right to give an extra 14/- a week to a caretaker under such conditions and circumstances, I wish that the Minister's approach would be such that, after closer examination, he would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor which, in this instance, would help the employees concerned.
