I move:
That the Turf Development Act, 1953 (Regular Works Employees) Superannuation Scheme, 1963, be and is hereby annulled.
In 1953, it was decided that a superannuation scheme should be brought into being for employees of Bord na Móna. It was not until 1956 that the original scheme dealing with what were then known as general employees of Bord na Móna was introduced. That scheme was introduced during the period of the last inter-Party Government and Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time. The scheme to which we are objecting is a follow-up for the regular works employees of Bord na Móna. The first half of it is based exactly on the scheme introduced in 1956 but any comparison between it and the 1956 scheme, after that, is, I think, purely accidental.
For those who do not know what a regular works employee of Bord na Móna is, I should like to explain that he is the man who actually keeps Bord na Móna in being. He is the man who drains the bog, cuts the turf, keeps the machines in operation and supervises the work at bog level. He harvests the turf and sees to it that the job is done. Without the regular works employee, Bord na Móna would not exist.
It is just too bad that when a pension scheme to cover that type of worker was finally introduced about ten years ago the scheme should be of such a nature that it can be considered more of an insult to the worker than a benefit. Perhaps it is a bit unfortunate that the Minister for Transport and Power is the person to whom I must direct my remarks this afternoon. The Minister for Transport and Power is not directly responsible for what has happened in this case but the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance.
The scheme was first introduced in 1961. It was submitted to the employees of Bord na Móna, the ordinary people who were recognised as the regular employees of Bord na Móna, and it was unanimously rejected by those people. The trade unions, representing the employees, sent in numerous protests. A group representative of the unions who are called, under the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Bord na Móna group of trade unions met the officials of Bord na Móna and put the points of objection to the Board.
Since that time, several extraordinary things have happened. One is that Bord na Móna, having at first sent out copies of the scheme to the people generally recognised as being the regular works employees, availed of the opportunity between then and now to dispense with the services of a number of people who would normally have qualified for pension. That is something which should not have been allowed and would not have been allowed in the case of any other employees except semi-State employees. It is something of which Bord na Móna, the Department of Finance or the Department of Transport and Power cannot be very proud. I do not know how far they share responsibility for this position.
Many unfortunate people who in 1961 were informed they were coming under a pension scheme and were asked to comment on a draft of that scheme were laid off in December, 1962, and were not re-employed until the spring of this year when they were re-employed as casual employees. They have not been requested to make application to come under this scheme. They have been told they are not qualified for the scheme because the Board have not got continuous employment for them.
That brings me to the scheme itself. It was considered by the men and by the unions and it was unanimously rejected by both men and unions. I think three meetings took place between Bord na Móna and the Bord na Móna group of unions. The first meeting was held on 8th November, 1961, and there were two subsequent meetings. All the matters were discussed with the officials of the Board. A minute of the objections was submitted to the group to show that Bord na Móna had the objections down in black and white.
Then the scheme was reconsidered. After a considerable period, it reappeared on the Table of the Dáil with one change—and only one change—in the scheme which originally had been rejected unanimously by the workers. I do not know whether Bord na Móna or the Department of Transport and Power, or whoever will take responsibility for this, consider that it was a smart thing to do but I consider and the Labour Party and the workers in Bord na Móna consider that the least they were entitled to was to see the revised scheme so as to find out if it was any less objectionable to them than the original one.
I understand the Board consider they were meeting the requirements when they submitted the original scheme to the men. However, what was the point in submitting it to them if the men found it was completely unacceptable ? Surely anybody with any commonsense will realise that to resubmit that scheme and to say, in effect: "There it is now: take it or leave it" is not the way to get the cooperation of any workers in industry or in employment?
The scheme was dumped back on us with the one small change that, whereas it had been intended in the original scheme that people over 55 years of age were to be left out of the scheme altogether, the people in question could be continued in employment provided they were in the employment of the Board at the time the scheme was adopted. However, the biggest objection to the scheme was the rate of benefits. While Bord na Móna may try to make the excuse that the amount which the workers are being asked to pay is relatively small, I should like to point out that the amount they are getting in return is miserly in the extreme. Most of these people are men who were formerly employed by local authorities in rural areas. They got what they considered to be continuous employment with Bord na Móna. Having left the employment of the local authority before the Superannuation Act was adopted, they lost the right to a pension.
Whether we like it or not, we all must admit that under the Superannuation Act the local authority pay a decent pension to their employees according to their length of service and give them credit for all service prior to their entry into the superannuation scheme. In addition, the local authority scheme takes into account that in rural areas it might not be possible to employ people for 52 weeks of the year. Therefore, if a man is employed for 200 days in any year, he will be considered to be a pensionable servant of the local authority. Bord na Móna will not do that. Bord na Móna will designate a person as a pensionable servant by reference to whether or not he is employed all the time. Provision is made for people who have a fairly lengthy break during their pensionable service but there is no provision for the man who will be off for up to three months in the year because Bord na Móna work on a seasonable basis and employ a far larger number of people for nine months of the year than they do for 12 months.
The local authority superannuation scheme gives full credit for service before the scheme came into operation. Bord na Móna give half credit for such service and here is the result. Take a man who is employed by a local authority at a wage of £6 12s. per week with 30 years' service, 20 years of it before the Act was adopted and 10 years after the Act was adopted. He will get a pension of £3 per week. If he is an employee of Bord na Móna with the same service, he will get the wonderful pension of 11/6 per week. If he has a wage of £7 4s., he will get a pension of £3 12s. from the local authority and 19/8 from Bord na Móna. If he has a wage of £7 16s., he will get £3 18s. 9d. from the local authority and 23/8 from Bord na Móna. If he has a wage of £8 8s. per week, he will get £4 4s. from the local authority or 27/- from Bord na Móna.
There is another difference, too. The Bord na Móna employee is being asked to pay a small rate. The suggestion is that because he is paying only a small rate, he must be satisfied with a small pension. To give an idea of the difference, the man who will receive the marvellous sum of 11/6 per week pension from Bord na Móna pays 1/6 per week for the pension. The local authority man getting a pension of £3 a week for the same kind of service will pay 5/- per week for his pension. Would it not be much fairer for Bord na Móna to charge a higher rate of subscription and in return give to the unfortunate man a decent pension on retirement?
Bord na Móna have tried to cover this up by saying: "Of course, in addition to his pension, he will get a gratuity when he is leaving of £100, if he is over 55 years of age and £50 if he is under 55 and over 45." If he is not 45, he will get no gratuity at all. I suppose the Board considered it unnecessary to take into account the length of service of the employee but surely it is not unfair to compare that type of treatment with that given to those who were in the superannuation scheme in 1956 and who were referred to as the general employees. They are in fact the staff of Bord na Móna, including the clerical staff.
I do not want to start a war between the indoor employees and the outdoor employees but it will be generally agreed that it is not helping matters when we find Bord na Móna giving this sort of treatment to one set of employees: "Retiring salary means that pensionable salary payable to a member at the date of his retirement" and: "A member who retires after attaining the age of 60 years and who has completed a 10 years' pensionable service shall be eligible to receive a pension of amount per annum calculated at one-eightieth of his retiring salary for each year of pensionable service subject to a maximum of forty-eightieths, or £2,000, whichever is the lower, together with a gratuity of one-fiftieth of his retiring salary for each year of pensionable service, subject to a maximum of one year's retiring salary."
That is given to the person who comes under the 1956 general employees' superannuation scheme. The man who retires under the 1963 scheme with a wage of, say, £9 to £9 12s., which would be fairly general, will get a gratuity of £100 if he is over 55 years of age and, if he has 30 years' service, a pension of 36/11. I do not know what he is supposed to do with that.
Apparently the Minister for Finance or whoever is responsible for this scheme is not aware that old age pensions are not paid in this country at 65. Therefore, the man who retires at 65 must go to the labour exchange and sign for unemployment benefit. If he is a single man, he will get 37/6 a week to put along with his 36/11. He certainly will not spend his holidays in Switzerland or in Paris on that.
I know the Minister has expressed the opinion that it is not a good idea that people should have more income when they have retired than when they are working. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with that. It is a grand idea that those who have worked hard until they have reached the age of 65 years should be able to get a reasonable sum when they retire. The thinking of those who devised the scheme does not coincide with mine. The idea seems to have been that Bord na Móna employees should not be allowed on retirement anything like the wages they have received when working.
There is another aspect which must be commented on. At present there is in operation the contributory old age pension. I am one of those who consider that the Act under which that was introduced was a wonderful piece of legislation. I have thrown all the available bouquets at the Government and the Minister who had the courage to introduce it. The main feature of the contributory old age pension is that there is no means test. The Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Finance, finding they could not get at the Bord na Móna employees through the contributory old age pension, all of whom will qualify for it if they live to reach 70 years of age, decided to apply the means test in respect of their pension from Bord na Móna. If there is a meaner trick than that, I have not heard of it.
I do not know where to lay the blame for these things. Bord na Móna have devised the scheme and the Minister for Transport and Power is here this evening and, I suppose, will defend it, but we all know that it is the Minister for Finance who has the responsibility for deciding what will and what will not be included in the scheme. Will the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Transport and Power be prepared to contend that a man who has given 30 years' service and who has been paying into a pension scheme while in employment should be penalised when he reaches 65 years of age because he will receive a contributory old age pension at 70 years of age? Is there any reason why the employee should be told: "We are terribly sorry but because you will be getting a contributory old age pension when you reach 70 years of age, we have to cut down the pension you receive from your employer, for which you have worked and paid, and we will be able to give you, if you have 30 years' service and a wage of £9 12s., a pension of only 36/11 per week?"
In case the Minister might say that I have been unfair, I shall take the case of a man who has a wage of £12 a week. A local authority employee who is earning £12 a week and has 30 years' service, will receive a pension of £6 per week. The fact that he will be able to continue working until 70 years of age, if he is sound in health, does not alter the situation. If he has to retire at 65 years of age, he can draw unemployment benefit until he reaches the age of 70. The man who is working for Bord na Móna and who earns £12 a week and has 30 years' service will receive a pension of 54/3 per week. Incidentally, he will have paid at the rate of 7/4 per week in respect of that pension. I cannot understand the mentality behind this pension scale. Those who devised it had a warped mentality.
The people who are working out in the bogs are not armchair workers. They go out to the bogs during the day and in the production season, they do their shift right through the night, cutting turf. Without these people, there would be no Bord na Móna. Bord na Móna exist because these people work as well as they do. Somebody sitting in an armchair has decided that these people should not be entitled to a decent pension, that they must take the crumbs. The pension scale certainly would not encourage them to retire but the big stick is used and they must retire, whether they like it or not, at a certain age.
There is another bait thrown out, which I have referred to already and which is particularly mean. Those workers who avail of this scheme will make application and if they are designated workers, they will be full-time and will be practically guaranteed employment. No matter how much the worker may dislike the scheme, the laying off last Christmas of the long service workers for one reason or another did have the effect that those people who are invited to take part in the scheme and who, if they had a free choice, would not touch it with a 40-foot pole, feel that if they do not go in, they will not get continuous employment with Bord na Móna. That is a despicable approach by any semi-State body. Either they go in or others will be invited in and they will lose their employment.
I want to repeat that the people who were invited to offer their views on the original scheme in 1961 and who have since been laid off—most of them have been re-employed now and have been told they do not come under the scheme—are being shabbily treated. It does not matter whether the scheme is good, bad or indifferent. In effect, if the Board retained them for another 12 months and then decided that they did not want them for one reason or another, they would have to pay them a gratuity on retirement. They took the easy way out and laid them off before the scheme was put into operation.
The people I am talking about are not the people who just rambled on to the bog a few months ago. Many of them came on the bog in the early years. Bord na Móna are becoming more and more mechanised and the stage has been reached where most of the persons employed are able to handle machines but they should not lose sight of the fact that originally the labour force was made up of good strong workmen who were not afraid of work, who went out and worked on the bogs when it was difficult to work on the bogs, who shovelled mud and silt out of the bottom of the drains in the bogs and that but for these people it would not be possible to carry out the work that Bord na Móna are doing now. The thanks that Bord na Móna are prepared to give these men is shown by their action last Christmas, when they laid off some men two days earlier than normally to show them that they were not the same as other men, that they were not going to be brought back again, that they were no longer full-time employees of Bord na Móna. They were discarded as far as employment and a pension scheme, bad as it is, were concerned.
The whole question of the pension scheme was very badly handled by the people responsible for it. I have referred to the scheme introduced by Deputy Norton in 1956. That scheme was for what were referred to as the general employees. That scheme, apparently, was a good scheme. That scheme offered much better benefits to the employees than are now being offered. This sort of thing, where people in authority try to prove that those who work at manual labour and those who work out in the country are different from, an inferior race, to those who carry out administration, should be frowned on. I do not think the question should have been dealt with in the way in which it was dealt with. The people concerned have been treated very shabbily.
I should like the Minister to give us some idea as to how the figures were arrived at, why the figures I have quoted are considered to be fair pensions for people being sent out of employment, and why the very many objections which the men themselves and the trade unions representing the men made to the scheme in 1961, in discussions with the officials of Bord na Móna—and I assume they were put before the Minister's Department —were not considered when the final scheme was being drawn up?
Finally, would the Minister say whether he considers he was within his rights in instructing Bord na Móna to put the scheme into operation without further reference to the men concerned, and whether he considers he was within his rights in putting the scheme into operation on the day on which the number of days allowed for tabling a motion for its annulment expired?
